1973-08-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I seek unanimous consent to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That this House is of the opinion that the government should immediately introduce legislation to authorize the National Energy Board to set maximum prices for crude oil, gasoline and home heating fuel, including the authority to roll back prices, such legislation to be dealt with following third reading of the resumption of railway services legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion, proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.
* *
*


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under Standing Order 43 to seek leave to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the extravagance and wasteful expenditure in which the federal government engages at the Ottawa level and the effect this has on inflation and the rising price spiral.
I should therefore like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That this House is of the opinion that government expenditures at the Ottawa level should immediately be cut back by 10 per cent with special reference to travelling expenses, the employment of non-governmental consultants, and advertizing.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
[ Translation]


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of this House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that, effective September 3, penitentiary instructors will be deprived of their uniforms, that these instructors may be called upon to help security guards when escapes occur, and that they run the risk of being confused with inmates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That this House grant an extension of powers to the Committee on Justice presently investigating the living conditions of inmates within penitentiaries in order that the committee may submit recommendations concerning this.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.
* *
*


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House express the opinion that the government should immediately introduce legislation to give the Food Prices Review Board, in conjunction with other departments, authority to establish floor prices for prime producers of foodstuffs and maximum retail prices for consumers in order that this action might also help to weed out profiteering.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
6092

August 31, 1973
Excess Profits Tax FINANCE


ELIMINATION OF TAX ALLOWANCE TO FOOD RETAILERS FOR ADVERTISING-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to ask unanimous consent to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier):
That this House urges the government to place on the order paper forthwith measures to eliminate tax allowances for advertizing in the food retailing industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, hope never fades. I ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), to move:
That this House urges the government to place on the order paper forthwith legislation to remove the 2 per cent ceiling from the annual escalation of all pensions to which such a ceiling still applies and that this legislation be proceeded with immediately following the disposition of the railway strike legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not.


FINANCE
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the effects of inflation, namely, the excessive profits being made by companies such as food chains. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this House is of the opinion that the government should immediately introduce legislation to establish a corporations excess profits tax, the proceeds therefrom to be used to increase old age pensions, such legislation to be dealt with immediately following third reading of the railway strike legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this provides an opportunity for the Chair to express the hope that the Committee on Procedure and Organization will, as suggested a while ago, take a serious look at the operations of Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: In respect of the matter you have just raised, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether that committee might also consider the possibility of requiring those who hide in their seats and say "no" to stand up and be identified.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: Like that group of Tories there.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister in respect of the business the House will be dealing with when we finish the urgent matter now before us relating to the railway dispute. I should think the Prime Minister would agree that the House is entitled to know what the business will be in order that we can plan our work in an orderly way and form some idea as to the government's program. I would, therefore, ask the Prime Minister in an earnest way to indicate to the House what the order of business will be following the completion of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the House of Commons knows, there are many matters on the order paper now with which the House can deal, and we intend to-


An hon. Member:: Which ones?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: The usual arrogance.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Insolence.


John George Diefenbaker: That is another example of arrogance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the opposition does not want to let me finish my statement. If they want to know what the legislation will be, I should think they would be inclined to listen to what I have to say.
August 31, 1973


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated that there are a number of matters on the order paper. I should like to ask which matter on the order paper he intends to proceed with following completion of the present urgent matter now before the House. What matter on the order paper does he intend to proceed with, or is there some matter not on the order paper with which he intends to proceed? I think, with all respect, as Leader of the Opposition I am entitled to put this question and insist on an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to repeat my answer, I was going to say there are many matters on the order paper now with which the House could deal, and there are other matters we want to give notice of later in the day in the usual manner under the rules, before five o'clock, which can be dealt with on Tuesday. The government House leader will be consulting with other House leaders to determine the order of procedure in which they would like to take these matters up, and the opposition will have ample time to prepare themselves for the debate next Tuesday if, indeed, as I hope, we will finish the legislation in respect of the railway conflict before the end of this day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further supplementary question in the hope that the government is not as confused as the Prime Minister seems to be about the order in which we will take up the business. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has now had a further opportunity to consider the question put to him yesterday by myself and the hon. member for York South about the price of wheat, and the effect this has on the price of bread. Can he now tell the House if and when the government proposes to take any action? While it is all right for him to ask me to be patient, the price of bread seems to be going up very rapidly. Could the Prime Minister give the people of Canada some assurance in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at this moment, Mr. Speaker.


INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CONTROL
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister informed the House-I am not sure I remember the words correctly because I have not looked them up in Hansard-that the government intended to give leadership on the issue of the cost of living. I can appreciate the Prime Minister not wanting to go into details today but may I ask him when this House may expect a statement from him or someone else on the
Oral Questions
government benches concerning the package of measures the government has in mind in this attempt to give leadership on this issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
AGRICULTURE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister or to any other minister who may answer, any other of his cabinet colleagues. The Prime Minister no doubt has seen reports in the press today about an increase in the price of fluid milk consumed by children and adults. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether action is intended to subsidize fluid milk as industrial milk is now subsidized in order that the consumers may not face an increase in the price of milk.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as on the other matter previously mentioned the Leader of the New Democratic Party will have to wait until the government makes its announcement in that regard.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the vital, invigorating and dynamic Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Someone suggested I left out the adjective "sparkling". May I ask him whether he can inform the House what staff the Food Prices Review Board now has, and whether it has sufficient staff to do even the narrow work that is now entrusted to it, namely to carry out inquiries into food prices.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member, who is such a shrewd observer of Parliament, has observed certain vital attributes of my personality. I should like to inform the hon. member that according to the advice I have from the Food Prices Review Board work has been going on to assign to them the further investigative staff they require. I understand they are presently able to carry out their mandate.
26454-21;

August 31, 1973
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED GRANTING OF POWER TO ROLL BACK PRICES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is supplementary to the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation in the near future to give the Food Prices Review Board power to roll back increases in food prices, and if so when is it intended that that legislation will be introduced.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I made an announcement in this regard in the early part of August and I would ask the hon. member to refer to it.
Canada by $1 a hundredweight on August 1. I understand that they are satisfied.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. Prior to closing down the herring fishery in Atlantic Canada, how many Russian ships presently catching herring in our coastal waters were examined below decks by Canadian officials in order to determine whether the Russians are adhering to the ICNAF agreement?

[ Translation]


FINANCE
Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, all North Atlantic nations other than the U.S.S.R. now permit inspection below decks but, as the hon. member knows, the U.S.S.R. does not permit it, officially. We have, however, been following their vessels closely and our officers' estimate is to the effect that they have not yet taken their quota as we have done.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
As reported on page 6067 of Hansard yesterday, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in reply to the hon. member for Shefford, stated that there may be an opportunity next week to discuss the excessive increase in interest rates within the cost of living, so I would like to ask the Prime Minister if, as a result of the statement made by the Minister of Finance, the House will deal more specifically with the rise in interest rates and its consequences on the general cost of living in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, as all the others, will have to wait and see to learn the answer.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary question, then the hon. member for Malpeque, followed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, and then the hon. member for Richmond.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: My supplementary question is a brief one. What process is used by Canadian officials, if we are not permitted to inspect Russian catches below decks, to determine whether they are adhering to their agreements?


John (Jack) Davis: Close observation of the vessels, the gear they use, and the extent of their catch as it comes on deck.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture regarding the prices for milk and dairy products. Has he been informed by eastern farmers that because of the soaring cost of feed grain in many instances they can no longer feed the cattle, that production will go down and we can expect further increases in milk prices? What immediate action does he intend to take to relieve the eastern farmers in this grave situation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is aware that we raised the government subsidy for industrial milk in all of


TRANSPORT
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the government giving consideration to setting up a separate Crown corporation charged with the responsibility of operating the vital ferry transport links joining the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland with the mainland or taking some other action so that when there is a work stoppage in the railway system anywhere this would interfere automatically with the operation of these vital links.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, I know that up to now the railways were inclined to relate the activities of the ferries to the activities of the railways. It might be worthwhile to look into this problem to see if it will improve the situation to establish a separate Crown corporation.
August 31, 1973


PRICE OF FEED GRAIN IN EASTERN CANADA-PRICING POLICY OF WHEAT BOARD-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether, in view of the statement made by the provincial minister of agriculture in Manitoba on August 24 that No. 1 feed barley from western Canada was sold at $1 a bushel below the export price to feeders in eastern Canada, the minister can tell the House if this pricing policy by the Canadian Wheat Board is adhered to at the direction of the minister? Is it now government policy that western grain farmers should subsidize eastern feed lot operators?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it perfectly clear to hon. members, as I tried to do yesterday, that the existing pricing policy in the domestic market is completely in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board and follows the practices in the past. The new policy for this year under which the Canadian Wheat Board will be asked to relate the prices to feeders in eastern Canada to prices at which farmers on the Prairies are willing to sell grain on an off-board basis will come into effect in the near future but it is not yet in effect.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I ask the minister when he will make a statement in the House telling us what the policy is, especially in view of the reports in the last day or two that the commodity markets, the futures markets, are no longer operating in Winnipeg with regard to the establishment of futures prices for western feed grains. When is he going to give this House an assurance that there is any kind of pricing policy that the farmer in western Canada can understand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that the western farmer knows for certain is that off-board prices are much higher now than they have been before and various actions on the part of the government, including better information for the farmer, have made it clear that those prices should be higher. I think I may take an opportunity on some early occasion to elaborate further on the workings of the market at the present time in order to improve information available to farmers, and also on the changes which are being made in the near future.


FEED GRAIN-SUBSIDY ON FREIGHT RATES AND TO PRODUCERS
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister responsible for grains.
Since the new feed grain policy announced by the government in early August has in no way brought about the
Oral Questions
reduction in the price of these grains in Eastern Canada, could the minister now tell us whether the government intends to grant subsidies to either carriers or producers in order that at last these prices might be reduced?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the policy announced on August 3 will begin to take its real effect with the introduction in the latter portion of September of the selling policy of the Wheat Board related to a more orderly off-board price. It therefore does not exist at the present time. Existing stocks of feed available in eastern Canada are those which have been accumulated on a price basis before August 3. It will be a little time, therefore, before the effect of the new policy is felt throughout the country.


FINANCE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising from the non-answer given yesterday by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs with regard to NHA mortgage interest rates. Has the government any intention at this time to roll back mortgage interest rates or to revise its over-all monetary policy in order to restore acceptable mortgage interest rates in this country as one method to assist in checking galloping inflation.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, more money is going into mortgages through institutional sources such as banks, trust companies and life insurance companies than ever before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I have said to the president of the Canadian Bankers Association that in view of the healthy state of bank profits I would not favour any further movement in mortgage interest rates. Indeed, although bank profits are primarily due to volume of business and to the expansion of the economy, and not due to the spread between the amount of money that they pay for deposits and the amount of money they charge for loans-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might allow the hon. member the opportunity to ask a supplementary, which would give him the occasion to complete his reply.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister's answer. Of course, the people are now shackled with high interest rates and their mortgage payments are higher than at any time in the history of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask his supplementary.

August 31, 1973
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED CEILING ON INTEREST RATES-POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT ACTION
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister this: has he had any real, meaningful interviews with the governor of the Bank of Canada? If not, since the Bank of Canada can keep increasing its rate, would he now, on behalf of the government, assure us that it is going to legislate a ceiling on interest rates, to protect the consumers and people of this country.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. gentleman that I meet regularly and meaningfully with the governor of the Bank of Canada, and I say to him that we are looking into the general structure of interest rates in this country. On the short and medium term, they are 2 to 3 points lower than those in the United States, 5 points lower than those in Europe, and lower than in any other industrial country in the world.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 
POSSIBLE INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICE OF DURUM WHEAT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Could the minister inform the House whether, in lieu of the going international price for Durum, the Wheat Board is considering an increase in the initial price of Durum?


Otto Emil Lang: Not at the
present time, Mr. Speaker.


FEED GRAIN PRICING POLICY-SUGGESTED NEED FOR REVISION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board on the subject of feed grains. The minister's statement was made on August 1 this year and since then the world price for wheat on off-shore commodity markets has escalated. I believe it was selling on Chicago futures yesterday at $5.30 to $5.70 a bushel. Is the minister reconsidering that policy so that he can bring some help to domestic producers and thus avoid headlines like those which appeared in a Vancouver newspaper yesterday announcing an increase in the price of eggs by 17 cents per dozen because of the cost of feed grains in the west as well as in the east?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it may seem a little easy for the member from a non-farming area to point the finger-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Have you ever been in the Annapolis Valley? Get around the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -to point the finger at the returns being received by grain farmers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order please? Perhaps we might allow the minister to reply to the question asked by the hon. member.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the reference the hon. member has made may be to a particular grain price situation arising from the strike which we hope will soon be over with quick action on the part of this House of Commons. Grain prices have, of course, been rising in recent months and the price of animal products has been rising also in relation to grain prices. In my view anyone who knows anything about farming areas knows this is a long overdue increase in returns to farmers who, for far too long in this country, have been lagging behind every other group.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I must say, being a gentleman from-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -a farming area, that part of the riding I represent is King county, and it is the King county for agriculture in Atlantic Canada. We on this side of the House have suggested that the Minister of Justice should be relieved of the onerous task of being responsible for the Wheat Board because he does not know anything about it. He stayed too long in the classroom teaching law, and does not know where the farming areas are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not recognize any question in what the hon. members said. I point out to hon. members that we are running out of time and I see a number of members waiting for an opportunity to ask questions. I suggest to hon. members that we should try to limit the length of the questions and the number of sup-plementaries as well as the length of replies given. The hon. member is recognized for a supplementary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I was just sort of setting the right premise after the example of tunnel vision given by the Minister of Justice. My question, Mr. Speaker, was on the basic policy announced by the minister on August 1 when I think the price of wheat was $2.02 per bushel. Since that time it has escalated two or three times, so that yesterday or the day before it was $5.30 or $5.70 per bushel. Surely, that type of change in world commodity markets-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: [DOT]-necessitates a review of the price of feed grains in Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to me suffering from a great deal of confusion about which
August 31, 1973

policy had anything to do with anything else. A decision was taken in July which allowed the producer of wheat to obtain for his wheat the value which was indicated for it by world prices so that he would be on the same basis as the producers of other products. That was the decision in July. Since that time, the price of wheat in the world has gone up $2 per bushel and the grain farmer will be receiving the full benefit of that increase. At the same time, there was a feed grains policy statement in August-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the minister. I appreciate he is trying to give a reply to the question asked by the hon. member but we are running short of time. I suggested to members that the questions should be short and the replies should be brief also. Perhaps we might attempt at this time to obtain a supplementary. I believe the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has a supplementary.


VALUE OF LIFT PROGRAM IN VIEW OF SUPPLY SITUATION
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a further question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the situation in Canada and the rest of the world in terms of grain supply generally, I wonder if the minister could refresh our memories and advise whether he still insists that Operation Lift was a good idea. Could he explain to us why-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question in those terms requires a general statement which should not be made at this time. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is addressed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Has the minister made any decision to reduce the power of the Canadian Wheat Board to control the importation of grains and turn that over to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce under the act to control imports?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that decision was part of the August 3 announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary. Has the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Ottawa West would bear with me for a moment. There is a supplementary after which he will be recognized.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Has the
minister had any consultation with farm organizations
Oral Questions
about the serious decline that he is proposing in the power of the Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should make clear to hon. members that the change in the location of the power over export and import does not indicate any general intention to change the manner of full control by the Canadian Wheat Board of all exports, and the general rule that when Canadian supplies are available grains will not be allowed into this country from outside. It simply locates the difficult decision of certain special cases in a place which makes that decision for other products. On the question of consultation, there is of course full consultation with farmers and farm organizations on all these questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the palpable incompetence of the chairman of the so-called Food Prices Review Board, and in view of her gratuitously affronting advice to the people of Canada to eat cake if they cannot get bread, will the minister dismiss this woman immediately?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the test of the lady's competence is whether she allowed the hon. member to attend a meeting of the board. I do not think he should take out his pique about this through his question in this House but the answer is no.


Peter Reilly: A question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, it is the privilege, not the privilege the right, of every member of this House to be informed about matters as important as this and if this minister believes that the Chairman was right in refusing not only me but members of the press, access to her meetings then that minister does not have the vaguest understanding of the democratic process.


An hon. Member:: We allow you in here.


Mr. Bell:: She insulted the minister but he did not know it.


FISHERIES
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of the Environment relates to the fact that

August 31, 1973
Oral Questions
in the last sitting of this parliament the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry unanimously passed a recommendation that an inquiry be conducted into the operations of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. In view of the fact that the government of Canada has now asked other participating governments to share in the payment of the loss incurred by that corporation, would the minister at this sitting of the House bring forward a reference to the committee so that the investigation referred to can be conducted, thus assisting the provinces in making a decision with respect to requests for money?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I might comment that it would be helpful if the province of Manitoba would make its contribution so that we do not have to cut the price of fish to fishermen.


FINANCE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Finance.
Since the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has suggested that borrowers find other sources of financing for the purchase or construction of houses, is the hon. minister aware that the corporation asks 9 Vi per cent interest rates while chartered banks such as the Provincial Bank of Canada now ask 11 Vi per cent interest rates? Does the minister believe that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should be more lenient in approving housing loans?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think that this question should perhaps be put to my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
In any case, I believe that the number of new houses in Canada is increasing since the present annual rate is close to 300,000 despite the fact that the cost for borrowers keeps rising.


David Réal Caouette: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I am not asking the hon. minister how many houses are being built nor how many will be built. I only ask if the department has any control on the 11 Vi per cent interest rate charged by chartered banks, while the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation asks 914 or 91/2 per cent?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is a Crown corporation whereas chartered banks are regulated by the Bank Act. It is impossible, under the present act, to limit that rate of interest.


David Réal Caouette: I would like to put a last supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell us why CMHC asks borrowers to seek out other sources of funds, sources which are considerably more costly that those of the corporation itself?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am not directly responsible for the corporation; my colleague might perhaps be willing to give the hon. member that information.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the recent announcement of contemplated increases in October for those receiving old age security, is it the intention of the minister, and will he take the necessary action, to ensure that the increased amount is exempt for those veterans receiving War Veterans Allowance who are also qualified for OAS/GIS?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would inform the hon. member that veterans have not been forgotten. We are preparing legislation for those receiving OAS/GIS, as well as other items that came to my attention previously.


REQUEST THAT INCREASE IN DISABILITY PENSION BE ADDITIONAL TO WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE
Jack Marshall: supplementary question. The minister is becoming very qualified in being evasive. In view of the fact increases were announced for those receiving disability pensions and those receiving partial disability pensions, will the minister consider giving these people the advantage of an increase in disability pensions so they will not lose the benefits, however derived?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the present situation is that disability pensions have to be assessed as income. Some people receiving War Veterans Allowance do receive disability pensions. If the disability pension is high enough, they do not qualify for War Veterans Allowance.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is supplementary to those asked earlier by the hon. member for Calgary North. In view of the fact that present restrictive fiscal policies on run-away inflation are exacerbating the dif-
August 31, 1973

ficulties of slow growth regions in this country and defeating the aims and objectives of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, will the Prime Minister be announcing new initiatives, and I underline the word "new", to correct this situation? Perhaps even an equal pay for equal work policy for employees under Treasury Board jurisdiction would help.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid there is no announcement to be made on that today.


SHORTAGE OF FEED GRAIN IN ATLANTIC AREA-REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF GRAIN IN POSITION FOR EXPORT
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the wheat board. Inasmuch as the farmers in the Atlantic area are paying approximately $10,000 per day for unusual transportation costs to get grain in the Atlantic area where it is needed, and since that supply of grain is estimated to be available only until the end of next week if the transportation system of Canada is not in operation by that time, will the minister consider releasing grain presently allocated for export to farmers in the Atlantic area and any other area where it may be required?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question is not only hypothetical, but includes events which I hope will not come to pass. I would inform the hon. member that the Canadian Wheat Board has already adopted the practice of making grain available to people in the domestic area who need it, even though that grain was intended for an international buyer who is standing by waiting for it. They have already been following that practice, although the price has been higher than that which the domestic user would ordinarily pay for his grain.


Fred Alward McCain: Did the minister say yes or no? I would like him to say yes.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I said the wheat board has already been doing what the hon. member has asked us to instruct them to do.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO ALLIANCE FOR LIFE
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that abortions have tripled in Canada in the past two years and are now 10 per cent of live births, why does the government refuse to provide financial assistance to Alliance for Life, which is a national, non-denominational, pro-life movement working to provide positive alternatives to the abortion problem?
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of that question this morning from the hon. member and I will consider his representations, but I think that I can immediately answer by saying that it is not the policy of the government to subsidize either organizations advocating abortion or those against it.


Douglas Roche: In his reply, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that the government would not subsidize movements for pro-life. Why do they persist in that policy when they have subsidized movements for abortion through LIP grants? I have received positive proof of this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that is an argument in support of his question.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Will the minister undertake to examine documents presented in a recent court case by the Cape Breton Development Corporation and also examine the evidence given before a parliamentary committee in order to determine whether the Cape Breton Development Corporation is in contempt of parliament or in contempt of court?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into the matter.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In view of the fact that certain railway employees who have been laid off by the rail companies because of the strike, but who are not participating in the strike, are being denied unemployment insurance benefits because of information which has been given Unemployment Insurance offices by the railway companies, will the minister investigate this situation and make sure that this practice is discontinued?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are examining all categories of employees who are affected to differentiate between those directly involved in the labour dispute and those who are not. Instructions will be issued shortly to clarify this matter.
6100

August 31, 1973
Oral Questions


John R. Rodriguez: Will the minister inform the House whether the Unemployment Insurance Commission is planning to make a blanket decision concerning all railway employees not involved in the strike based on the word of the companies?	.


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker. There will be a much more thorough investigation of the situation than that suggestion implies.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister advise whether his department has completed drafting the regulations for the income tax reductions for those engaged in manufacturing and processing, as passed by parliament earlier this session? Have the regulations been published? If so, will the minister have a copy tabled in this House and printed as an appendix to Hansard so that it will have the widest possible distribution?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the order in council imposing these regulations has been passed. It was published yesterday or the day before, and each member should have a copy. In any event, if the House were so disposed I would have no objection to following the hon. gentleman's suggestion.


An hon. Member:: It will appear in the Gazette.


CANADIAN CONSUMER COUNCIL
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the hon. gentleman explain why no appointment of an executive director to the Canadian Consumer Council has been made and when such an appointment will be announced?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I expect to be presenting recommendations to my colleagues shortly concerning new appointments to the Council.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that between now and the end of the question period we can limit supplementaries, because we are running short of time.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: One supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will an announcement or policy statement be made on Tuesday, or whenever the economic anti-inflationary package of the government is to be announced, and will a statement

respecting the Consumer Council and the work it was doing be included in that package?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I cannot give that assurance, Mr. Speaker.


ALLEGED INABILITY TO MEET EXPORT DEMAND-SUGGESTED REPORT FROM WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Gordon L. Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of reports that export possibilities for Canadian grain far exceed our ability to fulfil them, has the minister requested any assessment of the situation from the Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: I discuss the grain situation with the Wheat Board from time to time. Certainly the world demand for grain, particularly for certain types of grain such as Durum is presently very strong indeed. The two limitations which constantly arise are the availability of particular supplies and the availability of transportation and handling facilities in a particular period.


FINANCE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's acknowledgement of the healthy state of bank profits, will he urge the Canadian Bankers' Association to deal more fairly with former bank employees and substantially raise pension rates which are now quite inadequate having regard to the cost of living?


John Napier Turner: I would be glad to transmit that representation both on the hon. member's initiative and on my own.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. On July 27, the day the House adjourned for the summer recess, the Acting Prime Minister indicated the government would take advantage of the recess to appoint the three-man inquiry board into the Pickering airport question. Is the minister now in a position to make an announcement and tell us the names of those who are to be appointed to the board?
August 31, 1973


Jean Marchand: I hope that today or tomorrow or at the latest on Monday I shall be in a position to announce the three names. I am just waiting for written acceptance of the mandate we want to give.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question goes back to the questions posed originally by the Leader of the Opposition and the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday with respect to the hardship caused by inflation and the programs to be introduced by the government next week. Could the Prime Minister tell us whether these programs will deal in a comprehensive way with economic policy and whether the government has sought new economic advice having regard to the disastrous nature of the advice it has been receiving in past years, and, in particular, whether the government is giving serious consideration to introducing a budget shortly in the hope of establishing a more effective economic policy than the one presently being followed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand the hon. member to have made a series of representations. I will consider them.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that we expect four members of the French Assembly to visit this House next week, and in view of the fact that pictures show that the French government lied to Canada about the boarding of the Greenpeace III, has the minister asked the French government not to send representatives to this meeting until it owns up to the fact that its men illegally boarded one of our ships and beat up our sailors?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On the contrary, I would think that this afforded an excellent opportunity for all members of parliament to impress on members of the French Assembly the justice of our case.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you do your job?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will recognize that there have been no supplementaries to the last three or four questions because we have reached the end of the question period. I was anxious to give the hon. members for Egmont, Ontario, Fundy-Royal and Northumberland-Durham a chance to ask questions. Perhaps there will be
Railway Operations Act
an opportunity for hon. members to ask remaining questions and supplementaries another day.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Both yesterday and today we have attempted to determine from the government whether it intends to introduce a package of economic proposals, but so far the Prime Minister has refused to tell us whether or not this will be the course to be pursued. If parliament is to deal effectively with measures to be introduced next week, the Prime Minister has a responsibility to give us some indication of the policy to be pursued by the government.


John Douglas Reynolds: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I know we would all like to get on with the business of the day, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs has told us there would be an opportunity to make our views known. Would he agree to set up a meeting so that the members from British Columbia could be sure of getting an opportunity to express their views?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the House wishes the minister to respond to the question I would have no objection, but that is not a question of privilege or a point of order. Members will recognize that there is a responsibility resting on the Chair to call orders of the day when we reach the end of the question period. When I allow additional questions beyond the time allocated by the rules I always hope there will be no supplementaries. The hon. member rose on an alleged point of order to ask what is really a supplementary question. However, as I say, if the House so wishes the Secretary of State for External Affairs may reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: I wish the hon. gentleman had been more consistent, but I am glad he has come around to my point of view that it is worthwhile maintaining these contacts. I will see what can be done to facilitate a meeting.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for the government House leader or for the Prime Minister to tell us why it would not be possible to give first reading today to the government bills dealing with inflation and the economy in order that members of the House might have an opportunity to study these matters over the weekend and perhaps facilitate the passage of the legislation next week?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill C-217, to provide for the resumption and continuance of operations of railways and
26454-22 J
[Stage Direction]
August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
for the settlement of the disputes with respect to terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees-Mr. Munro (Hamilton East)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to rise on a point of order. Yesterday it was indicated by spokesmen for the various parties that there might be amendments forthcoming to clauses of the bill. It would be helpful if those amendments could be laid on the table as early as possible in order that members might have an opportunity to study them.
Hon. members will recall that it was necessary to suspend the sitting of the House for two hours in order to study the contents of the bill. It may be that some of the amendments will have as broad implications as the bill itself, so if it were possible to have the proposed amendments laid on the table as early as possible that might remove the necessity later in the day of asking for a suspension of the sitting in order to consider them. I make that suggestion at this point, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to facilitate that suggestion and do what we can to advance the progress of this bill and other proposals that may be made regarding times of sitting. If we can obtain royal assent today, I feel very strongly that in view of the unfortunate confusion of the Prime Minister and the government as to what we will be considering next week, we should get something done this week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to the point of order raised by the President of the Privy Council, Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure of the answer just given by my friend, the hon. member for Peace River.


An hon. Member:: That is normal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I might say that we have amendments to a number of clauses, and we are prepared not only to lay them on the table but to read them out at this point so that members of the committee will know what we propose as the various clauses are considered. If that is the wish of the committee, I can read them now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. Is it agreed that the Chair receive the proposed amendments and read them to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: I assume that this would not exclude the possibility of further amendments. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is so proud of his amendments that he wants to table them, that

is fine. We have undertaken that we will disclose our amendments in ample time to facilitate the discussion this bill requires, but we are not going to be forced into precipitate action.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in view of the request of the President of the Privy Council, and in view of the discussion raised with respect to this matter, I would ask for the privilege of reading the amendments we intend to propose now, or of submitting them to the Chair on the understanding that the Chair will read them, putting them on Hansard, in order that members will know what we propose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order in relation to this matter. When the first speaker for the NDP makes his speech, he will be entitled to put on the record such amendments as the rules of this House allow or in respect of which this committee gives its consent.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I feel this is totally irregular. We will have an opportunity to speak about this general matter when it comes before the House this afternoon. The request which would enable the government to ascertain in advance what the amendments will be indicates that the President of the Privy Council is more concerned with finding out what the amendments will be than he is with following the ordinary procedures of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: As for myself, I was here last evening; I did not know a vote was going to be called and I left at 9.30, having been here all day.


An hon. Member:: Some contribution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, would this gaggle of geese be quiet?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: If not, would they identify
themselves?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I want the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, of dealing in general with a matter that concluded altogether faster than it should have last evening. I am not criticizing in any way the fact that a vote took place on this matter, but this is a matter which deserves to be considered fully by this House and not rushed through. I intend to have my say in connection with this bill which represents the stand of the government after weeks of indecision, finally having been pushed into action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order that has been raised, I merely wish to inform Your Honour and members of the committee that I have sent to the Minister of Labour a set of the amendments we propose to move, in order that he and the officials may study them. I think it would be worth while to have them read to the committee, but I do not think we ought to continue to take up time on this procedural point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: What wonderful co-operation between the government and the NDP!
[ Transla tion]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, I endorse entirely what the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has just said.
It is evident there was some collusion between the New Democratic Party and the government to present immediately at this stage of the debate amendments recommended by the NDP.
Mr. Chairman, one can fool everybody for a certain time Iput one cannot fool everybody all the time. And it is exactly what the New Democratic Party is doing now with the Liberal government.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I do not want to limit the remarks of the hon. member on the point of order but I think it is a matter the committee must settle as soon as possible and as there is no agreement, the Chair will be forced to invite hon. members to debate clause 2 without delay, f English]
Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


David Lewis: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I rise on a very important question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I realize, Mr. Chairman, that every court has its jester and every parliament has its clown.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Lewis: I want to inform the leader of the Social Credit party that what he has just said is a total falsehood-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -as are most of his remarks in respect of the NDP here or elsewhere in this country. I said, if I may complete my question of privilege, I had sent a copy of the amendments to the Minister of Labour, as 1 believe it is appropriate to know what is before this committee and so he can decide whether any of them are acceptable, as all of them may be.
[Transla tion]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments on the same question of privilege.
The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) has just stated that the amendments are already on the
Railway Operations Act
minister's desk. I agree, but his party did so at the request of the government; this is the way it goes.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. There does not seem to be unanimous consent in respect of distribution. Whatever is done outside this House or the committee does not concern the Chair. I shall call clause 2 immediately, and invite hon. members to make their speeches and discuss whatever points they wish, as the clause is broad enough to cover many items.

The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is rising on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
Under our rules, the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) proposed an unusual way in respect of amendments; the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was right in rising against it as did the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and as we did, because it is not the usual procedure. In view of what has been said, Mr. Chairman, I feel that we contravened the Standing Orders because we supposed that the amendements have been tabled in order to improve the situation and expedite the business of the House. I would like the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) to tell us, if he is honest, why we did not receive a copy of those amendments if he wished to accelerate the business and obtain our co-operation.
On clause 2- Words and expressions.


Gérald Laniel: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; I am rising to speak on clause 2 of the bill.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The Minister of Transport.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think the last few minutes of the time of this committee were lost, because you can be sure some of the amendments which I have read will never be supported by this government. So if there was collusion, it was not between the NDP and the Liberal government. Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple philosophy which I think is the truth. The NDP, until it is not in its political interest, will support the government: until then it will not overthrow the government, so let us stop this talk.
We do not have to be grateful to the NDP, and they do not have to be humiliated. I think it is a normal political game. Everyone knows about it. If we did not have such an urgent problem facing us, I might take more time on this subject; but now I wish to speak about the problem before this House, which is a very important problem for the workers, for the public, for the government and for this House. I think we are setting a precedent here. It would be interesting for all parties to know exactly what we are doing and what will be the consequences of what we

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
propose. Therefore, I shall not necessarily discuss all the objections I have heard and other matters which are not related to the problem before this House, such as inflation, interest rates, unemployment and the people who are caught in Sydney and Port aux Basques.


John George Diefenbaker: Those things do not matter to the government.


Jean Marchand: Yes, they do matter; but they are not problems that we will solve with this bill. I should like to talk about this bill, why we are taking this position and why I believe it is not wise to adopt any other procedure without taking into account at this stage which positions of the parties are just and which are not, because I do not think this body has been or is constituted in order to solve this type of problem. This does not mean that the unions are wrong. It does not mean that the railways are abusing the employees. It just means we are not in a position to pass judgment on the merits of the question. We have not been set up for that.
Just to give a short history, Mr. Chairman, we might consider how wages, outside of interventions of government in respect of minimum wages and regulations, are set in Canada. The general rule is through free collective bargaining in which the employers try to get together with the unions. If they do not get together, of course, there is a strike or a walkout. This is the general rule.
How is the level of wages established? Is it according to a certain rule of justice, as I heard yesterday? No. It is according to the strength of each party. I have been in that trade all my life. I was involved in certain strikes where the justice of the cause was very clear, and we lost. I was involved in others where it was less evident, and we won. Why? Because we were weak in the first case and strong in the second. This is the way disputes are settled. They are not settled according to certain criteria or principles known or accepted by everybody. It is free bargaining. In certain cases and in certain provinces there is what is called compulsory arbitration. What we call the right to strike has been removed, or is never given. Elsewhere we have what is called binding arbitration. This is where a judge says this is or is not the truth, and the problem is solved in that way.
Many strikes in this country have gone on for months and months. I think some have lasted as long as seven or eight months. Parliament has never been convened nor have any provincial assemblies been convened in these cases. The fight has been carried on in the streets in an effort to reach an agreement. Why are we here dealing with this problem? We are here because of the very nature of the activities of the railways. When there is a strike, it is not only the employers and the employees who are fighting one against the other; the public is involved. Here, as a government, we must try to find a procedure whereby the public does not suffer. This is the only reason. The right to strike is not at stake at the moment. We may discuss it at another time.
I notice that all parties, including the NDP, agree we should do something to compel the men to go back to work. Everybody recognizes it is the duty of parliament to send the men back to work. Even in the proposals of the NDP which I have seen, this is included. Of course, the

conditions may differ. This is what we should discuss. If the NDP had really adopted a socialistic attitude, they would have been opposed to any kind of settlement legislated by this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: There is agreement because they are in politics. I recognize that. I know the general public of Canada says, "Well, this is enough", so we have asked parliament to reconvene to try to find a solution. Of course this is not a normal procedure; it is not normal bargaining between the parties. The parties have been negotiating together for months, the railways and the unions, and they know something about the problem. They were not successful. A conciliator was called in. He was not successful. There was a board of conciliation of three men, one representing the employees, another representing the employers, and a chairman who according to the law is supposed to be a neutral party. They could not get together.
Then a special conciliator, Mr. Justice Gold, was appointed. He could not get the parties together. So we come to this House and say, "We have the answer. We can solve, not the procedure but the problem itself". I heard a figure of 10 per cent mentioned, and other figures, but I really do not know what the figure should be. Who in the world knows exactly where the truth is on this question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Where are the witnesses we have called, in order to know whether the position of the railways is right or wrong? I do not intend to say they make a profit or do not make a profit. That is not my business. I do not intend to say that the workers are wrong. I cannot say it because I have not been at the negotiations. I was not there when the evidence was produced, and I was not there when the witnesses were heard. How can we, as members of the House, say that this is what the settlement should be? We cannot say that, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: The only reason we are here is that this is a national emergency, and the only thing we can deal with is this emergency, not the disputes between the parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: We know that these men have been waiting for months and months. Usually in the past the House has accepted as a base either the majority report or the report of the judge. This has not been accepted as a solution but, rather, as a basis. I do not know personally whether Mr. Justice Munroe was right. Perhaps if I had been there, my judgment would have been different. I am told that another judge made a different decision with regard to shopcraft employees. Nobody knows the eternal truth in this matter. There are conflicts of interest here, and we have to base ourselves on something. So the judge's report appears, according to our laws and accord-
August 31, 1973

ing to the philosophy recognized by all governments, as the safest basis from which to start, and on this basis we should try to reach a final settlement.
We say that Mr. Justice Munroe is supposed to be impartial according to our law. Maybe his report is not satisfactory. Since he brought down his judgment, very important events have taken place in Canada in reference to the cost of living, and productivity may have changed. So instead of saying that we will legislate Mr. Justice Munroe's judgment, we say that his report will be our basis for a return to work. Now we will nominate an arbitrator who will look after those points which have not been considered. We, as members of the House of Commons, cannot do what the NDP is proposing and say we will just take as a basis one of the minority reports which represents the interests of the employees. Perhaps Professor Weldon is right. Perhaps, if I had studied the case, I would have agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why don't you read it?


Jean Marchand: Don't be childish. You can please a small group on this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: I will go further and say that perhaps the employers' report is the one to consider. I do not know. We are not here for that. Who knows this, honestly, in the House? Perhaps some hon. members such as the hon. member for York South do know, because he has been involved with these problems for a long time and he has his own opinion on the merits of the matter. I would have liked to represent this group, but I did not so I do not have an opinion and I cannot, as a legislator, say that this is what the truth is in this case.
I think the only thing we can say is, let us try to legislate on the basis of the report of the chairman. I do not know if my memory serves me well, but I think it was in 1966 that the hon. member for York South presented an amendment, in the same circumstances, introducing Mr. Justice Munroe's proposal as a settlement of the railway strike. I will check that and see whether it is so. Anyhow, it does not matter.


David Lewis: The amendment was accepted.


Jean Marchand: If the judge was right at that time, why do you think he is wrong today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: These are very special cases. Perhaps we should work to find better formulas. A few years ago we had the Woods report. I am not ready to accept it, and I am sure my friends in the NDP do not accept what has been recommended in it. Nor does the labour movement. So we have not found a formula.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Jean Marchand: This is not an ordinary dispute, and the reason for the intervention is economic and social, not to settle the dispute between the parties.
Railway Operations Act
This strike is having an impact on the whole of society. We regret that there are so many people caught in between, that the cattle are not fed, and all the other consequences of this work stoppage. We say: Please, will you go back to work and let us try to find a solution which will be acceptable to you? This is all that we do, and it is the safest thing because from the moment we start to bargain one party will propose 10 per cent in the first year and another will say that 13 per cent is much better. How can you vote against a 13 per cent increase? Another party will propose 15 per cent and will say, "We will give it in the second year" or "We will give you 20 per cent in the second year." Who can vote on that? This is nonsense. We are not organized for that. I know it is painful for the workers and I have much sympathy for them because I have been in these circumstances many times.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Judge yourselves, and let me judge myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: So far as the pension plan is concerned, I have probably done much more than the NDP has in all its life. Anyhow, I am not here for that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: I have heard all kinds of arguments used, but I will take only two used by the leader of the NDP, arguments which I do not accept. He made reference to a meeting of the union leaders at which they said they will not recommend a return to work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: I think he should not have repeated that here in the House, not because he would not support it but because it was wrong to have mentioned it. Why did he mention it? To impress us? Do you think I will be blackmailed by that, or the official opposition will be blackmailed? It is not possible. I can understand the unions mentioning it, but I do not understand a political leader who might at some time be responsible for governing this country saying such a thing in the House.
The hon. member for York South used a second argument which I find unacceptable. He said he had heard that the railways were ready to accept Mr. Justice Munroe's proposal, so what we are legislating upon is the employers' position. This is all wrong. I will try to be a little more ethical-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: -than some others in the House. Personally, some things I will never repeat here because I know that in this kind of bargaining that goes on, sometimes one party will say that if the other party will accept so and so, perhpas they will accept something else. This is the way bargaining is done. To say that at one moment one of the parties said-


David Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think that the minister, in his eloquence-

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act


An hon. Member:: Struck home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -did not bother to check what I said. I did not say anything about what anyone said in the negotiations. I said that two or three days ago the railways had announced publicly their acceptance of the Munroe report.


Jean Marchand: Even if this is true, you can have the reverse situation at one moment but I do not think it would change the position of the House. When there are three reports, one must try to bring the parties together on the recommendation of the third party, and if the third party accepts it one would find that it was in his interest to say yes. Maybe they agreed because they knew the other party was refusing. This I do not know, but I do not want to discuss it and I do not think we know all we need know in order to judge the merits of the case.
I was accused by my friend, the hon. member for St. John's East, of being responsible for the strike because of the announcement regarding a freeze on freight rates a few months ago. Of course, immediately before that he had said we had not done anything to counter inflation. Nevertheless, because he had said that, that is, with regard to imposing a freeze as a move against inflation, we had become responsible for the strike. As his leader has proposed to freeze all rates, all prices in Canada in the same situation, therefore, he would have been responsible for all strikes in Canada. However, that was the hon. member's position.
I do not know of all the amendments that are to be proposed in this House, and I am not going to say blindly that anything that should be proposed should be discarded. I am not that kind of fanatic. If there are amendments the value and consequences of which we can see immediately, they might be acceptable in the interests of the country. Nevertheless, I say that from the moment this House starts negotiating it would be the worst employers in Canada. I believe that.
I know, and I am speaking in my capacity as Minister of Transport, that those men who have been in real trouble and who have been fighting for what they thought was justice still have their problems. For example, there are men who have been laid off because of the stoppage of work resulting from the rail strike. I think the companies should take care of those men and give them the same protection as the others enjoy, because they were the victims of this whole business. I hope the companies are going to do that. As far as job security is concerned, I think we are going to give these men all guarantees possible, but we will not guarantee that there will be exactly the same number of workers forever employed by the railways of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Who asked for that?


Jean Marchand: All right. I think the men should have some kind of security. I hope that in this way we can give it to them, and I hope I am doing my utmost to bring that about.

What I want to convey to this committee, Mr. Chairman, is that it is very easy for those outside of this conflict to cry out. I know that many people in Canada are in a bad situation and have bad working conditions. The unions are fighting to improve those conditions, and I am going to support them. However, when we talk as an institution, what can we do in this dispute? What is the best procedure so that we do not become involved in a lot of problems which we are not competent to tackle and which may lead to worse problems?
As far as the workers are concerned, they have my support and I hope they understand that. Of course, the NDP have always believed that only they deserve the support of the workers. That view is too bad, because it is not right. I say that this is an institutional problem, first. We know the circumstances surrounding the problems which have faced the workers for a few months, and that is why we say that an arbitrator is going to take care of them and, hopefully, solve them.
[Transla tion]
Mr. Chairman, I feel it will be easier in French-I even noticed several statements which are not connected with the issue of railway employees. At the moment, the danger is that some people try to mingle the railway employees' issue and many other problems that the House will discuss, but the case of railway employees cannot be mixed up with other real problems. That is why we want the House to deal with that issue; we must solve that problem and attempt to find an acceptable solution.
As to the possibility . . .

May I say in English that I do not think the workers are going to refuse to go back to work. I am sure they will go back to work. If they are not going back to work, of course this parliament will have to see if there is a government in this country. We will have to decide that, because this is a very serious matter. I understand that many militants will be reluctant to return to work. I know that when we fight a cause like this we are so deeply involved that we cannot change our minds overnight. This I understand. I understand the reticence of those people. I hope they will understand that what we are trying to do is in the best interests of the country and in their own best interests.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, may I first, without any condescension, compliment the Minister of Transport for his eloquence in a language that is not his first language.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He speaks almost as well in English as I speak in French!
This parliament, as it resumes sitting, has three clear responsibilities before it. It must, of course, deal with the government's legislation that is now before us. Parliament must deal in as fair and humane a manner as possible with this matter and, within the constraints of that consideration, we must deal with this matter expeditiously. And, because this is part of a larger piece, when this first priority is met, parliament must demand that the government immediately bring forward other urgent and necessary measures to afford some relief to those Canadians who are already in desperate circumstances as a result of
August 31, 1973

the government's miserable and ineffective approach to the rising cost of living.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a third responsibility, we must demand from the government a comprehensive program that will deal effectively with the cost of living and restore some stability and order to the economic life of this country. I emphasize these matters at this time because they are all part of a piece. These three responsibilities must be met by this parliament. They must be met quickly. If this government thinks that parliament will settle for anything less, or that Canadians will accept anything less, the government is in for a shock as well as a shaking.
Surely we did not come here to order others back to work and then go back on holiday ourselves. We are not here just to deal with this emergency situation, although that is our first priority. Surely, Sir, it would be an act of brazen callousness for this government to run away from its responsibilities, and it would be a faint-hearted parliament-indeed, a chicken parliament-that would let the government get away with it if that is what the government tried to do. We are here to get the trains moving again, but we are not here just to get the trains moving again-we are here to try to get the country moving again in the right direction.
I realize that having parliament in session at the end of August instead of on October 15 will create some discomfort and in some quarters some danger and difficulty. There is the discomfort of the government being confronted by parliament as further reports are forthcoming from Statistics Canada on the cost of living or on unemployment conditions in the country. There is the discomfort, if not the inconvenience, of the government being obliged to produce legislation, announce its plans and reveal its intentions to parliament. That is very, very much a part of the emergency that we are discussing here today. Presenting such a program may be a difficult thing to do, especially when there is no legislation and no plan. But the presence of parliament can serve as the conscience of the government and perhaps even as an inspiration to the government.
We are here to face our responsibilities in the public interest. I have outlined three of them. Of course, I believe-and I know that more and more Canadians are subscribing to the belief-that parliament has another responsibility as well, a responsibility to deny continued confidence to a government that sits on its hands, very content with itself, while the most serious bout of inflation psychology in recent memory takes hold and wreacks its terrible consequences. My party will accept that responsibility too, and there will come a time shortly for a test of confidence. The government cannot put that off too long. In the meantime, we will deal with our responsibilities in priority as we see them.
Our first responsibility and the first priority of this House, the legislation dealing with the railway dispute, is a matter that summons feelings of disappointment and regret, I know, for all members of the House. An interven-
Railway Operations Act
tion of this kind is an occasion that must have a deeply sobering effect on anybody who values our system and our institutions, as I am sure the Minister of Transport does. We are faced with this responsibility because, as the minister recognizes, the broader public interest demands our action to meet a national emergency.
Members of my party have agreed to support such action, but we will not support what we feel is insupportable in regard to the interests of simple justice to the workers who will be affected by the actions we take. Neither do I intend to imply support on a carte-blanche basis for any omissions in this legislation which, if corrected, we feel would contribute to reaching as fair a judgment as we can make.
I want to assure you, Sir, and all members of this House that my party will accept and support the will of parliament on the final form of the legislation as it is adopted, and we will expect and insist that the railways and the workers do likewise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to turn now to the general field of labour relations in essential industries and services, as I did in this House a year ago almost to the day. At that time parliament had been recalled to deal with a dock strike. It was another occasion of regret, as this one is today, when members said then, as we say now, that we have to find a better way. The Canadian public surely despairs that parliament has not yet found a way to bring an end to recurrent assaults on the broad public interest. Patience with our failure to do this is virtually exhausted among the public. There is no excuse for this inaction and there can be no allowance for further stalling on the part of parliament. It has been demonstrated once again, at great cost and great suffering, that the strike as a weapon and the lockout as a weapon are unacceptable in this kind of situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They are weapons that in certain circumstances of public interest are not available, and therefore must be abandoned and replaced by something better.
There are those-and the number always swells when an emergency such as the present one is upon us-who strongly urge a return to simple compulsory arbitration. I view this with reluctance. A move to such automatic over-all compulsion could raise as many new problems as the old ones it would solve, and it could have a very damaging effect on the attitude of both management and labour.
I want to see us avoid a move to automatic, across the board compulsory arbitration in this kind of situation if at all possible. But let there be no delusions about one thing: we must act quickly, because continuing emergencies such as the one we are faced with now will certainly generate a public outcry for total compulsory arbitration for settling disputes in the public service. Let us not kid ourselves about that. In the immediate aftermath of settling this strike in parliament we may well have our last opportunity to institute other alternatives for settling disputes in essential industries and services.

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
In the course of the present non-ops dispute one new technique, the technique of selective strike action, was attempted. As a variation of the rotating strike approach applied to the national railway system it was indeed something new to be tried on the side of labour. In the absence of any other mechanisms or processes it was an attempt at some form of innovation. It was coupled with some assurances that essential goods and foodstuffs would continue to move.
When the House took recess, this process was under way and my party did not call for an immediate, legislated settlement of the dispute. We were prepared to see this new approach given a trial, and we simply demanded that the government accept its responsibility to move the process to mediation and then to use the office of the Minister of Labour in seeking a settlement. The minister, as it turned out, ended up generating something new in labour relations himself. For the first time we had the spectacle of a windmill tilting at people. That, of course, is beside the point now. The point is that a new approach, could not in fact be maintained and events again brought us where we are today, taking emergency action after the fact and after enormous damage has been done. Let us resolve not to keep following this futile and damaging script in the future. The integrity of parliament itself demands nothing less than a change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I appreciate that it is a very serious matter to remove strike and lockout opportunities from the collective bargaining process, even very selectively. But I appeal to the good will of workers particularly to recognize that until some better, over-all system is devised this is the only honest approach. Railway workers have already recognized that in fact they do not really have a strike weapon in any event. It is axiomatic that to conduct an effective stoppage, the fact that it is effective makes it quickly intolerable in the broad public interest, so the railway workers do not have a strike weapon, in the effective sense, anyway. Let us try to seek justice and fairness for them in some other kind of process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The policy which my party advocates and which we would implement in government involves adopting the recommendation, which the Minister of Transport says is not acceptable to him, in the 1968 Woods report, namely, establishing a public interest disputes commission. In our approach, the commission would advise which particular services are essential. It would also recommend procedures for resolving differences where the broad public interest is threatened, and would report to the government at all stages of contract negotiations. We would insist on negotiations throughout the term of a collective agreement, instead of relying upon talks just prior to the termination of a contract and after a contract expires.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: All reports of the independent public interest disputes commission would be public. The recommendations of such a public body would have a degree of moral force that would make anybody, employer, union or government, think twice before ignoring them. Parliament would be asked to consider recommendations of the commission relating to essential services where strikes and lockouts are unacceptable in the public interest, where they must be replaced by mediation and arbitration proceedings and the recourse of subsequent appeal to parliament as a final step.
A public interest disputes commission reporting and recommending to the government and parliament could well have had a major role in generating support for a move back to some more useful guidelines in connection with the incomes of railway employers. There could possibly be a move back to something like the durable goods standard as a basic guideline for wage settlements on the railways. I just cite that as an example; I am not suggesting that should be the guideline in this case. Conciliation members and mediators cannot function in the same kind of public way as could a public interest disputes commission. I do not say that this is a magic wand but I can see that in this situation, for example, such a commission could have played an active and constructive role in anticipating difficulties and in trying to resolve them long before the contracts were to expire and long before the difficulties which resulted in a work stoppage came to a head.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: While I am in no way claiming that this approach is a cure-all, I say it is unquestionably better than what we have now. It deserves a sincere trial. In government, we would give it that trial and continue to refine it in the interest of the country. I repeat, the government has displayed contemptible complacency in not taking any innovative or imaginative action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is one reason we are back here today, faced again with this kind of difficulty as a result of the government's incompetence and lack of concern for the real interests of the country.
I want to make a few rather specific comments about the bill. I accept the general principle laid down by the Minister of Transport as to our responsibility. This was emphasized very effectively yesterday by the hon. member for St. John's East, namely, that we are not here to write a new contract for those involved; we are here to deal with this emergency and provide a basis upon which the railways can again start to operate.
On the matter of further negotiations, we feel that a realistic and firm time limit should be imposed with regard to negotiations, bargaining and arbitration. The parties in the dispute are near accord on a number of items which make up the collective agreement, so this should work no hardship. In the public mind, the imposition of such specific deadlines in the bill would have an appearance of orderliness.
August 31, 1973

My understanding is that the representatives of the union feel it would be a waste of time to be sent back to the bargaining table when, after being there a long time, they have not made any progress. There should be a definite limit on the time in which the bargaining can be strung out. We will, therefore, be moving an amendment to include in the bill a specification of durations for the ongoing periods of negotiation and mediation.
If developments proceed to the point of having an arbitrator appointed by cabinet, we feel there should be an opportunity for review and debate by parliament of the developments that have ensued to that point. Accordingly, we wish to see in this bill a clause such as was in the 1966 bill. This would provide such an opportunity. That clause provides for ten members of parliament bringing about a discussion following the appointment of an arbitrator by the minister or by cabinet. This is not a novel suggestion; it was in the 1966 bill.
On the matter of wages, we are not negotiating an agreement but, rather, back to work terms as the hon. member for St. John's East emphasized yesterday. He expressed the principle that governs the amendments we will propose. That principle involves building into the bill a protection to ensure that any settlement adequately takes into account increases in the cost of living as they can be more realistically projected since the time the members of the conciliation board drafted their reports earlier this year. In imposing a settlement, this parliament can do nothing less than provide that kind of insurance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Above all, we must recognize we are imposing a floor below which any final wage settlement cannot fall. I repeat, we are not here to impose the final settlement but to impose the floor. If that floor is not realistic, it may have an adverse effect on the attitudes of trust and good will that are necessary to set the stage for a satisfactorily negotiated final settlement.
At this exciting point, Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?


Gérald Laniel: It being one o'clock, the committee will adjourn until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to be difficult, Mr. Chairman, but I have some remarks to make which I should like the Minister of Labour in particular to hear. I do not know when we may expect his arrival.


Gérald Laniel: Is the Leader of the Opposition asking a question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was just wondering whether we might wait for the Minister of Labour to get here. I realize, of course, that the government House leader is a former minister of labour and is familiar with these matters, but I
Railway Operations Act
think it would be helpful if the Minister of Labour were here to listen to some of the suggestions I am about to make.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand the Leader of the Opposition's concern. I have just come from a meeting with the Minister of Labour. I hope my colleague will be in the House almost immediately and I will send him a message to that effect.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When I broke off at one o'clock I was emphasizing again, as some others have done, that we are not engaged here in working out a final settlement of the dispute but that we are, rather, involved in proposing a floor below which any final settlement may not go. I was emphasizing that such a floor must be a realistic one so that it would not have an adverse effect on attitudes of trust and good will which are necessary to set the stage for a satisfactorily negotiated final settlement.
Parliament, through the actions and the policies of the government of the day, does bear a responsibility for the general economic position of the country. With conditions as they now exist with regard to the cost of living and the escalation of the cost of living, parliament cannot simply pass the buck to the parties in the dispute, or to a mediator or arbitrator, without some clear expression and direction of the matters for which parliament is responsible, that is to say, the cost of living. This is particularly necessary when we are dealing with an imposed floor, that is, a floor proposed by parliament, an imposed back to work arrangement covering a two-year agreement. With the cost of the living picture as it is today, the amendments we will put forward are designed to see that parliament accepts its responsibility in this regard.
With respect to the second year of the contract term proposed in the bill, we will attempt to assure some cost of living protection by putting forward an amendment which would instruct an arbitrator to produce a final settlement which could be no lower than the percentage floor set by the legislation, plus a revised cost of living projection component based upon the most recent figures available to the arbitrator when the matter comes to arbitration. This would involve some consultation between the arbitrator and the members of the original conciliation board to ascertain the cost of living components which were in their recommendations as they relate to the second year. It is my recollection that for the year 1973 they were working on a basis of a cost of living factor of about 4 or 5 per cent; but I am now talking about the second year, the year 1974.
We are disturbed that in the bill as it now stands there is a better second year floor for the shopcrafts and the UTU than is provided for the non-ops. As a union might see it, there is a poorer second year provision for the non-ops than there is for the shopcrafts and the UTU. Surely if we are concerned about fairness and the necessity to avoid unnecessary bitterness, we cannot allow the bill to become law in the form in which it presently stands, particularly as it is the non-ops who would sustain the loss of recourse to strike action under the law as it now exists. To give them a lesser, or poorer arrangement for the second year than their brothers in the other two

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
bargaining groups would seem to me to be a travesty of justice.
The shopcrafts and the UTU are provided a floor of 6lA per cent and 1V2 per cent for the second year, an effective average increase in the second year of 714 per cent over the first year. The non-ops, on the other hand, are provided with a floor of 5 per cent and an additional 3 per cent for the second half of the year, an effective average increase of 6 Vi per cent for the year 1974 as opposed to the 714 per cent proposed for the other two unions. The floor provided in the bill for the first year is essentially the same in respect of the three unions, except that in the case of the non-ops it is in cents whereas in the case of the other two unions it is in percentages. So it is evident that the non-operating unions are offered in this bill as it now stands a floor that is lower than for the other two, and this should be changed. Our proposal, in the form of an amendment, would call for the second year floor for the non-ops to be as good or no worse than the floor for the other two unions, and this would involve 6 'A per cent and IV2 per cent for the non-ops.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Chairman, would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? I am not arguing at all with the figures he has pointed out in reference to the second year, but it seems to me, again, that we are dealing with what the chairman of the conciliation board did in respect of the shopcrafts as opposed to what was done by the chairman in respect of the non-ops. If we can assume, and perhaps we can straighten it out this afternoon, that the arbitrator will make his award prior to the end of this year-we certainly hope that will be the case and will undertake to see that it is done-perhaps that would be satisfactory.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is hardly a question, Mr. Chairman. I recognize this does involve some departure from the recommendation of the chairman, and I do not want to be critical of Mr. Justice Munroe, but I should point out that while the judge said he was awarding a 17 per cent increase to the non-ops over two years, that is correct if you compare the December 31, 1974, rate he recommended with the average non-ops wage for the year 1972, but if you compare the December 31, 1974, rate as he recommended with the December 31, 1972, rate it is only about 15 per cent.
I do not want to get involved in the recommendations of the chairman of the conciliation board in respect of the non-ops arrangement, but I am saying that this House should not impose a poorer settlement for the second year on the non-operating unions then we are providing for the other two unions, regardless of what difference there might be in the recommendations of the chairman of the conciliation board.
Actually, as the minister well knows, the scale of pay for the other two unions is substantially higher than for the non-operating unions, and even the same percentage increase gives them more in terms of dollars. The bill the minister puts before the House not only gives less in terms of dollars but a lower percentage increase, and I do not think he can justify that. I hope the minister will accept my point of view in that regard. The point I was making is

that we have to propose as good an arrangement for the non-operating unions for the second year as we are prepared to give the other two unions. I emphasize that fact.
In summary, the effect of our proposal in relation to the floor for the second year, 1974, would see a floor for all workers involved in the legislation of 6 Vi per cent and 1 Vi per cent, which is no worse than provided for the shopcrafts and UTU, plus a revised cost of living component to be determined by an arbitrator. We frame the cost of living aspect in terms of a direction to an arbitrator simply because this is the most simple and efficient method of inserting the principle into the bill. In other words, if the principle and the resulting improved floor are guaranteed to be available at the end of the ongoing negotiation line, they will automatically be presumed all along the line.
What we shall propose is that the percentage increase for the year 1974 should be no worse for the non-operating unions than the government is prepared, as indicated in the bill, to allow the other two unions, plus instructions to the arbitrator with regard to the cost of living component for the second year.
As to the first year, 1973, which we are now over halfway through, we consider we should continue to apply the principle that the cost of living component should be included. This was emphasized by the Minister of Transport this morning as being something which would have to be considered in the course of negotiation or arbitration. I am proposing that we are far enough along in the year 1973 to assess this ourselves for the year, rather than leaving it to arbitration and negotiation. In line with the principle I have expressed, we are far enough along in the year now for parliament to set its own revised cost of living component and make it part of the defined floor in this legislation. The board of conciliation worked on the basis of the cost of living factor in 1973 being close to 5.5 per cent. Clearly, the cost of living factor for 1973 will be about 1 per cent above that, and 1 per cent in terms of these average wages would amount to about 4 cents.
Therefore, in line with this principle which has been generally endorsed but which the government wishes to leave to conciliation and arbitration, we believe we are far enough along now in the year for parliament to assess this itself. We feel we should realistically establish the floor at 34 cents, and that this figure should replace the 30-cent floor figure which is now in the bill. I say that recognizing that the escalation of the cost of living will be about 1 per cent higher than the figure on which the board worked.
I emphasize that such action could in no way be construed as taking sides or attempting to make a final settlement judgment here in parliament. This would simply be parliament, in this case, accepting its responsibility in regard to the extraordinary cost of living situation which now prevails in the country.
I also assure the House that there is nothing intended in my approach to be considered as engaging in an auction. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister of Transport that we should not be in an auction game in this House. At the same time, I appreciate that the government is virtually bound to bring in a bill in line with the recommendations of the chairman of the conciliation board and this is what the government has done. At the same time, I have heard

both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport say they are assuming that a final settlement would have to take into account, regardless of any other components, some component of adjustment for the rising cost of living over and above the floor figure now in the bill. I would hope, therefore, that these ministers and indeed all members of the House will be able to support our amendments giving effect to an assurance of such an additional cost of living component in the final form of this legislation.
With regard to the other two unions, the increases there in the first year are in percentage terms, and that would have to be left to further conciliation and eventually arbitration if it comes to that. I am suggesting that for the non-ops, for 1973, we recognize the fact that the cost of living escalated faster than envisaged at the time of the conciliation report. Above all, I am emphasizing that the floor we propose for the non-operating unions should be no worse than the arrangements we propose for the other two unions.
We feel these proposals would have a salutary effect on the employees concerned. Surely this is a very important consideration both in ensuring an orderly return to work and setting the stage for ongoing negotiations. We believe that parliament would be doing no more than it should, in line with its limited role at this time, in supporting our amendments. We also believe that in doing so it will be doing what it indeed must do in the interests of justice in imposing a settlement at this time. These amendments will be presented formally, in detail, as the committee stage proceeds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when I indicated this morning that I wished to speak on clause 2 of this bill my purpose at that time was to have something to say about railway pensions and in particular to make a direct appeal to the Minister of Labour in connection therewith. I still intend to do that, but before I do so I should like to say a few words with regard to the impassioned speech of our good friend, the Minister of Transport, which was delivered before the luncheon break. Some of my colleagues are asking whose friend he is. By his own definition, he is a friend of the workers; he sympathizes with their case and he gives them his full support. He said so.
However, I want to say that I fully agree with the Minister of Transport that legislation forcing workers back to work is an anathema to all of us who believe in the principles of free collective bargaining. He said that this morning and gave us a bit of a lecture. I remind him that that is one of the reasons for our vote last night against this bill, as indeed we have voted no on a number of previous occasions when we have had bills which legislated workers back to work.
In his speech this morning, the Minister of Transport insisted that the floor of parliament is not the place to legislate a collective agreement. I hear one of my Tory friends say "Right on". I agree, Mr. Chairman, but the fact of the matter is that this bill, Bill C-217, which was given approval in principle last night by a majority of this House, Liberals, Tories and Social Crediters all in the
Railway Operations Act
same bed, does in fact legislate an agreement in so far as wages are concerned for our railway workers.


An hon. Member:: It does not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Transport shakes his head and I hear mutterings from that other good friend of the workers, the hon. member for Hamilton West. I say that with the same generous tone of voice as when I said that the Minister of Transport is a friend of the workers.
May I point out that for many months the railway companies have been holding back, knowing that they did not have to agree to a settlement because by experience they knew the government and parliament could be counted on to bail them out. So there has been no real collective bargaining. This bill which the government brought in, which has the support of the Conservatives and Social Crediters, specifies certain wage rates. They are in terms of cents per hour for one group and in terms of cents per hour, mileages and percentages for the other two. Then it provides for some more negotiating, the same process that the employees and the company have been through for months. And behind, or on the other side of that so-called negotiating is provision for mediation and for an arbitrator. I submit that the same railway companies which held back and refused to bargain in good faith when they were in the collective bargaining process will do the same again.
The railway companies know that all they have to do is wait and say nothing until the Minister of Labour, under the law, refers the matter to an arbitrator. Although the arbitrator might give the employees one, two or three cents more, they know they will not come out of that arbitration with anything that is substantially different from what is set out in this bill. The employees, by this bill supported by the other three parties in this House, are called upon to go back to work on the terms of this inadequate settlement.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


John Carr Munro: As the hon. member knows, this bill follows the usual pattern. It does indicate that prior to the appointment of an arbitrator there can be negotiations between the parties. It also indicates there can be further mediation. This action can be very quickly discharged and they can move into arbitration very rapidly indeed. I take it that the hon. member has looked at that, and if he wishes to make any suggestions concerning how we might move into arbitration quite quickly, which in my view would be in the interests of the workers concerned, this indeed would rule out the validity of the point the hon. member makes about the companies stalling any longer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I shall not argue with the minister whether that is a question, but I submit that the minister missed my point altogether. He thinks I am asking for arbitration to be brought on more quickly. Not at all. I say that when

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
arbitration comes, whether sooner or later, it will result in a decision which is in practice dictated by this bill. The arbitrator may get in somewhere, for example, between the 30 cents in the bill and the 38 cents suggested by Professor Weldon, but past experience says the companies will know they have everything to gain just by holding back. The point is that this bill is legislating a collective agreement for the workers and railway companies.
I have no objection to the interruptions, but I hope that I shall have 20 minutes from each time I am interrupted.


Jean Marchand: I promise the hon. gentleman that this is the only time I shall intervene. The hon. member for York South did it once while I was speaking, and I am asking for the same privilege. What we are proposing is exactly what you are proposing. The only difference is that you start from the Weldon report and we start from the report of the chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for pointing out that the only difference is that the government is proposing an inadequate settlement and we propose an adequate settlement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We did not ask
for this collective agreement to be legislated by parliament. The government made that decision and received the support of the other three parties in the House. Now that parliament has committed itself to dictating an agreement to the parties, we contend that we have the right to try to improve that agreement. That is why we are prepared to suggest 38 cents an hour to the non-ops, plus 10.8 per cent in the second year, and comparable changes with respect to the other groups.
May I say, Mr. Chairman, that experience has shown to management that it can count on parliament to bail management out. If there are members in the House in other parties who wish that this kind of thing did not happen, and who wish that parliament did not have to deal with railway strikes, may I suggest that one way to put a stop to it would be to give the workers, by the power we now have to legislate their agreement, the amounts for which they are asking-more, if you will. It will be a long time again before the companies let a dispute come to parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If they discover that for once in history parliament came down on the side of the workers instead of on the side of the companies, they would think twice in the next negotiation before holding back the way they have been doing every two years since 1950 when we had that first terrible experience. So we agree with the Minister of Transport that parliament should not legislate a collective agreement. But parliament, by the vote of the other three parties, is doing just that. We say that if we are doing it, we should legislate an agreement that is fair.
The Minister of Transport had a good deal of fun this morning and, like the Leader of the Opposition, I enjoyed

his speech and confirm that it was eloquent and in the best tradition. He also enjoyed taking my leader to task in two or three respects.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My leader is like all the rest of us; we like it when attention is paid to us. This morning one of the points the minister made was that in 1966 the hon. member for York South made the same kind of pitch that we are making now, namely, that the agreement should be improved. Specifically, what the hon. member for York South was asking on that occasion was that the rates of pay in the second year of the contract should be improved.
What did we get in response to that? We got a wonderful, strong, eloquent and impassioned speech by the present Minister of Transport, making the same arguments he made this morning to the effect that we should not be legislating an agreement on the floor of the House. It was a strong speech. What happened? He took his seat. He was hardly comfortable in his seat before the prime minister of the day, Mr. Pearson, rose and accepted the terms of the proposed amendment put forward by the hon. member for York South and, since it had to be moved from the government side, arranged for it to be moved by Mr. Nicholson, the then minister of labour. So I suggest to the Minister of Transport that it is probably fortunate for him this afternoon that the present Prime Minister is not in his seat, lest he do the same thing Mr. Pearson did, namely, pull the rug out from under the Minister of Transport.
This morning the minister also chided the hon. member for York South by referring to his wisdom and knowledge in knowing what the wage levels ought to be. He contended that none of us in this place knows what the wage levels should be. He said he did not know; he professed his ignorance to the country. But I remind him that this bill has been brought in by the Minister of Labour, the head of the department which has all the facts, figures and statistics that can possibly be collected, and I submit that the Department of Labour is probably in a better position than any other body in the country to know what is a fair and reasonable settlement of the railway workers' wages. For the government, through the mouth of the Minister of Transport, to use as an argument against producing better figures the fact that he does not know what they should be is just silly.
The other charge which the Minister of Transport made against my leader was that there was something sinister and unfair about his referring to the announcement last evening by the leaders of the non-ops to the effect that if the bill, as the government has brought it in, is passed they do not feel that they can order their workers back to the job. For some reason or another we are not supposed to mention that. It is the same Minister of Transport who said that what we are here for is to legislate an emergency, to legislate an end to the railway disruption, to get things moving again. Surely it is the part of common sense to bring in the kind of bill that will do that. Surely it is the part of common sense not to say you are being blackmailed when the facts of life are being put before you and when you are brought face to face with the fact that the
August 31, 1973

kind of bill the government is trying to put through will not do the job for which it is designed.
What the Minister of Transport says is the government's purpose is to legislate the emergency out of existence. I submit, therefore, that the case that we have been making from this side is a valid one. We do not think this matter should have been brought here at all, but it is here and it is a case of legislating a collective agreement. Right now this job is on parliament's shoulders. Someone said, quite appropriately, let us do it well. Let us bring in the kind of agreement that will be fair to the workers, that will encourage them to go back to work and also that will discourage the railway companies from holding back in all future negotiations, counting on parliament to bail them out.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know from which of the interruptions you started counting my 20 minutes, but I see that my time is running out so I had better get to the subject on which I wanted to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friends need not indulge in that kind of discourtesy. They know that in committee of the whole one can speak times without number, and some of us are capable of it. But I do want to say a few words on the subject of railway pensions, which was my main purpose when I rose this morning and unsuccessfully sought the floor.
Yesterday in his speech the Minister of Labour announced the appointment of Dr. John Deutsch as commissioner, under part V of the Canada Labour Code, to study a certain aspect of railway pensions. We welcome this appointment and we approve of the person who has been named to do this job. We are pleased that that action has been taken. But I want to register a strong complaint at the narrowness of the terms of reference given to Dr. Deutsch and I appeal to the minister either to give him another set of terms of reference or, if he wants to give it to some other person, to appoint another commissioner.
Let me try to express this as quickly and as directly as I can. The job which the Minister of Labour has given to Dr. Deutsch is simply to assess the cost or the value of the pension changes that have been agreed to between the unions and the companies, the unions claiming that they represent a cost factor of 2.2 per cent, the companies claiming that they represent 4.3 per cent. This is a dispute that certainly should be settled by an independent person, and we find Dr. Deutsch to be such an independent person. I hope that if he finds in favour of the unions, or if he finds a figure somewhere in between, the terms of reference of the commission are such that the advantage thereof will be given to the workers in the wage settlement.
Mr. Chairman, that is not enough at this stage of the game with respect to railway pensions. I know the minister said yesterday that the pension agreement arrived at between the union and the company is an historic one, and so on. I know there is a lot to be said for it, but there are two things that stand out as deficiencies. In the first place, for some of those now at work, some of those not yet on pension, I do not think the deal is as good as it is claimed
Railway Operations Act
to be. This applies especially to the old timers, especially to those who were working for either of the major railways prior to January 1, 1956.
The new 2 per cent per year formula is there for those whose entire employment has been since 1956. I am not going for the moment into the Canada Pension Plan arrangements, which raise other questions, but for those whose employment goes back to a time prior to January 1, 1956, there is a deficiency. They will not get a pension of 2 per cent for each year of service. So I say quickly, but say it to have it on the record, that I do not share the complete satisfaction of the minister and some of the union representatives with respect to the deal so far as the present workers are concerned.
There is another group we must think of, those already retired, or those who were retired at any time prior to January 1, 1963. For them there is nothing at all in this pension agreement. There is not even any guarantee that the 2 per cent ad hoc increase that Canadian National has been giving from year to year will continue to be given. So this whole area of railway pensions, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and those of any other companies that are in the group, needs to be gone into thoroughly by a man like Dr. Deutsch or some appointee who is given the same kind of job. I see the minister getting to his feet.
May I spell out one or two things. I suggest that either Dr. Deutsch's terms of reference should be broadened or that additional terms of reference should be given to someone else. I think the whole question of the amount of money in the various pension funds should be gone into and how much the railways have put in, as well as whether they have kept their agreements. I think the whole question of the rate of pension, the 2 per cent formula, and whether it is right to limit it only to those who have been in service prior to this year and since January, 1956, should be gone into.
As well, the question of widows' pensions and whether they should remain at 50 per cent, be increased to 65 or even 75 per cent, or even more, should be gone into. These are all problems which we need to examine. Likewise, the question of the annual escalation of pensions needs to be gone into. A few years ago the 2 per cent annual escalation started and it is a fetish with which we are stuck. We are gradually getting rid of that. We got rid of it from the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement. We got rid of it from war veterans pensions and war veterans allowances. However, it is still there in the Canada Pension Plan and all sorts of pensions coming under the government. It is still there, though on an ad hoc basis, in Canadian National pensions; and, of course, the CPR is lagging behind.
I do not want to run the risk of the Minister of Transport telling me that we are trying to negotiate railway pensions here in committee of the whole House. I have suggested areas which need to be looked into. I am as certain as that I am standing here that there is just as much concern about this among those now working for the railways, those who would get the benefit of the new contract, as there is among those already retired. I am glad to see the Minister of Labour nodding his head in the right way. I am glad to see he wants to ask me a question. My appeal to him is that he find, either by appointing another

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
commissioner or broadening the terms of reference given to Dr. Deutsch, a way for bringing about a complete and thorough examination of railway pensions right across the board, with a view to a way being found to make those pensions more fair to all retired railway workers, both for those now retired and for those who will retire in years to come.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, may I make a short comment on what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. Speaking in terms of the pension benefits themselves which the hon. member mentioned, as he is aware this very significant improvement was made as of March and it was agreed to by the union leadership and the companies. If there is to be further examination of that along the lines that the hon. member has suggested-and I think it was a fair and legitimate observation on his part-I think the union leadership and the companies should get together and conduct further discussions along those lines. But I doubt, again, whether anything tangible along that line can be done in this committee. If it should appear at a subsequent time, and after talking to the unions concerned and management, that a separate study might be of assistance to both sides and should be conducted under the auspices of another commissioner, we would be prepared to consider that.
May I add this. The hon. member indicated that he thought the terms of reference for John Deutsch were too narrow. I think he was speaking of the costing arrangements. As hon. members will recall, yesterday I indicated that his findings would be turned over to the arbitrator, assuming that an arbitrator is appointed under the act, and would be taken into account in the determination of all other issues before the arbitrator, including wages. However, if the hon. member is of the view that his terms of reference should be extended so that we may do this more adequately, I am quite agreeable to that. I am receiving now suggestions as to how those terms of reference might be expanded and I hope to be in a position later this afternoon to let the House and the hon. member know what will be the extended terms of reference for John Deutsch.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? I appreciate what he said about the breadth of the terms of reference given to Dr. Deutsch, and I am glad to know that any deficiencies will be covered. When I said that the terms of reference were too narrow, I was not thinking that they were too narrow with respect to the assignment made to him. I was pleading that they were too narrow because of the other problem which needs to be investigated, namely, the rights of those already retired.
May I ask the minister this: does he not realize that although the unions representing the workers may want an inquiry into the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific pension fund with respect to the value of the changes they have won, there is another group for which, surely, the minister is responsible, the retired railway workers? They do not sit at the collective bargaining table. Their pension position is not negotiated. That is why we think there ought to be a special inquiry for them. I ask if the minister will give that matter very serious considera-
|Mr Knowles (WinnipegNorth Centre).]
tion and make arrangements for such an inquiry, across the board, right away.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I think I made the necessary distinction. I realized that the hon. member was talking more about the benefit side when he was referring to another commissioner. Notwithstanding the agreement reached between the union leadership and the companies in March, I am prepared to meet again with leadership and with management to hear their views and then set up an appropriate device by which the objectives the hon. member has spoken about might be obtained. I am prepared to do that, but I do not think that can be done today.
I say, although this is not directly related to the hon. member's point but is of interest to him and his leader, I think, that the terms of reference given to John Deutsch with respect to the manner in which the costing will be done will be gone over before the matter of the arbitrator comes into question. That aspect we are looking at today and I hope to have some further elaboration on it this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that the hon. member for Win-n.peg North Centre had the floor for almost three extra minutes. I understand there is an arrangement that we hear speakers from each party in the first round. I think questions and answers should be short, especially after the first round. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, we have listened with interest and attention to the opinions expressed in this House since the beginning of the special debate on the railway dispute and it leaves us perplexed.
The present situation throughout Canada requires-we agree unanimously on that-immediate action on the part of the federal government. The economic situation is so much more precarious that several other major problems are involved and are creating discontent, tensions, strikes and even sometimes anger and violence throughout Canada.
The House has been summoned to an emergency session to force 56,000 workers of the Canadian National Railways to return immediately to work, thus taking away from them the right to strke that the same Parliament had given them previously. Parliament had given the right to strike to the workers in the public sector. Yet every time that the situation grows worse, that the negotiations do not produce results, that we come to a dead end, an emergency law, a special law is adopted by the House to take away their right to strike and force them to return to work. Instead of improving, and this is specially the point I would like to make, the mechanism of negotiation, instead of promoting permanent negotiations of labour agreements, instead of establishing in advance a labour tribunal or a permanent arbitration mechanism, and on this question I differ with the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Stanfield), representing fairly all the different interests, the government, for reasons which are of course obscure or political, gives the right to strike to the public sector, lets the situations rot to the point that they create a national crisis requiring emergency legislations and then in the same breath, takes away the right to strike.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to object strenuously against that philosophy of the working world, those evasive procedures of the present government before labour problems in general. I demand a long-term labour policy governed not only by a proper up-to-date labour code, but especially through permanent bargaining mechanisms for the renewal of collective agreements and above those mechanisms a labour court representing the various interests involved and this, Mr. Chairman, not only to solve the problems of the CNR employees but also those existing in other sectors of the public service where public interest is more often threatened.
The basic reasons which led to the introduction of the legislation are evidently plausible: the rotating strike since July 26 has shaken up the Canadian community. However, since August 23, this national strike, as mentioned by the minister, has jeopardized the welfare of the nation by isolating the Maritimes, let alone the many manufactures and companies which have been compelled to dismiss hundreds of employees since they were unable to obtain their raw materials.
Through this bill, Mr. Chairman, we shall force back to work 56,000 Canadian workers who were on strike because both bargaining and arbitration had failed. These workers are asking for a wage increase in order to meet the high cost of living. This is what they are fighting for. Must they be blamed for that? Is the government acting both as judge and employer? To this question fraught with consequences, I shall answer in the affirmative and the negative. Let me explain.
These 56,000 workers are not to blame, not any more than a great many other workers who are fighting with patched-up means, namely the strike, to secure a better income to support their families. They are not to blame because they want to improve their condition. But, under the present system where renewable collective agreements ahve been left to sleep on shelves for a long time instead of being seriously negotiated on a permanent basis, what else can they do?
Mr. Chairman, to my mind, that is the point. If, in the Labour Code, in the mechanisms of the labour world, we had a permanent system of labour negotiations to renew agreements instead of letting them gather dust on shelves for the benefit of private interests, we would not get into the type of difficult situation we are now witnessing.
How much will the work stoppage have cost each one of the railroaders who struck in order to improve their lot? How much will the settlement give them? Was it a profitable endeavour? If I worked for the railroads, if I saw this sitting of the House where in turn hon. members suggest 5 per cent, 3 per cent and 30c. increases, I would be disappointed because those workers are trying to tailor their salaries to the cost of living which is now beyond control.
This House should have but one objective: not only to enable the 56,000 employees of the Canadian railways to
Railway Operations Act
tailor their income to the cost of living, but to take steps to ensure that all Canadian workers can do so.
Mr. Chairman, finally, whose interests does this situation serve? Through rotating and full-scale strikes, the workers inadvertently served the interests of finance.
As long as governments tolerate the old-fashioned mechanisms of the world of labour, workers, regardless of what sector they belong to, will run into crying injustice, at times provocation, endless tugs-of-war and especially, constant failures.
Mr. Chairman, here is an important question upon which I urge my colleagues to reflect: Have you ever seen a Canadian worker emerge as a winner in the present bargaining system? Have you ever seen a worker emerge as a winner in the present financial system, in spite of his efforts?
That brings me to say, Mr. Chairman, that the public enemy No. 1, the one that is not talked about in this House, is the omnipresent world of finance that plays around with people like puppets, making them laugh or cry as they wish, dividing them among themselves, setting them up against imaginary enemies when the combines, the monopolies, the big companies-often multinational-protected by governments that indeed they finance continue to dominate our economic, social and consequently political life.
Mr. Chairman, that is the truth. Why do we let labour disputes last so long? Why is it, Mr. Chairman, that companies do not do more in the bargaining process? Why do governments wait until the last moment to intervene? Why do we not bring our bargaining, mediation and arbitration system up to date?
Mr. Chairman, if the 56,000 workers currently involved as the thousands of others in Canada put as much sustained effort in fi7/sting the present financial system, in fighting high finance as they do in gaining a few cents an hour after months of pressure, wild talks and strikes we would see that the result would not be the same as today.
I will give an example that I consider most important and which is relevant to the subject matter we are discussing. It has to do with the present strike, the current situation, the workers' demands, the increase in the cost of living. Previous speakers talked about tailoring salaries to the increase in the cost of living rather than always having to come back charging. Mr. Chairman, I agree with those proposals. If one looks at the current situation what does one see? Who is gaining from increases in the cost of living?
That is the question which everybody should ask instead of being satisfied with crabbing because we cannot make ends meet or of playing ostrich as this government is doing and blaming it on the world situation only to hope for better days, after studies have been made to see if prices are actually increasing. We bave reached an unbelievably ridiculous level.
Mr. Chairman, we have reached a critical point in the increasing cost of living, food, housing or money because of abusive and exhorbitant interest rates and a solution must be found as soon as possible. There are all those

Chairman, and in some financial or banking establishments, mortgage rates have reached more than 10 or 11 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, at the very moment when such an exploitation of man by finance is encouraged, 56,000 workers are told: Get back home, get back to work, you are endangering society. But for me, I say, as an out-and-out Creditist, that those who are most endangering society are those who now control the increase in the cost of living and who take advantage of it, those who control interest rates and take advantage of it. Those who are most endangering society are not those who come and demonstrate in front of Parliament, but those people who are not seen, those who play with the citizens like puppets.
Mr. Chairman, a special legislation, an emergency legislation should not be necessary to force 56,000 Canadians who are willing to work to go back to work. But there should be one to bring to heel the financial power which controls these governments and the citizens.
Thousands of families are now doing without quality food in Canada-not in communist China-for lack of sufficient financial means when for the past few years governments have been trying obstinately to control and restrict agricultural production, for instance, going as far as penalizing dairy producers for having produced too much, and this while encouraging imports. Today, the awakening is brutal and in the category of farm workers as well as in that of railway workers, operating or not, we have the same situation: they are discouraging individual initiative, they penalize the individual through all sorts of government red tape, inquiries and legislation. Therefore, can we really say whether the Canadian worker is being rewarded for his work? That is why anger is rising in the public sector, among railway employees and why-


Gérald Laniel: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
[ English]


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened, as have most hon. members, with a great deal of interest to this discussion of the subject matter at hand. I have heard a great many hon. members establish their credentials, quite properly, before participating in the debate. I do not suppose mine are any greater or any less than those of others who have taken part in the debate so far. But I must say that I did work for the railways for 12 years-my father worked for 42 years at Moncton and Quebec-and during the four years I served in the cabinet I spent at least three of them as minister of labour. And during those three years as minister of labour I had the opportunity of participating in the conclusion of several collective agreements involving railway workers.
I am not trying to be rude to anybody in this chamber if I make certain obervations, because they are meant to be just that, and nothing else. I have never been able to understand precisely what it is about industrial disputes that makes everybody an expert. All of us who are involved in labour disputes inevitably find someone, some well-meaning employee, or vice-president of a corporation, who wonders why the whole thing cannot be settled in 20 minutes because the issue appears to be so simple. The reason this is not possible is that you cannot really find
Railway Operations Act
answers to these things in books; industrial relations are nothing more than human relations. The Leader of the Official Opposition made a very good speech today along these lines.
My good friend from York South was with me in 1965 when we visited Poland together as members of a parliamentary delegation. I was naive enough to ask the minister of labour in Poland when was the last time they had a strike. The answer was, in 1956. I recalled that in 1956 there was a rebellion not only in Hungary but in Poland when the workers were shot down with machine guns because they demanded a little more in the way of wages.
I take second place to nobody in this House when it comes to concern for the workers. I think I should remind the NDP that they do not have a monopoly of concern for the working people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Look at the bill!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If hon. members in that corner want to heckle me I could show them a telegram I received during the last railway dispute in 1970. The locomotive engineers announced on a Wednesday morning that they intended to strike on Monday. And the first telegram I got came from the newly-elected premier of Saskatchewan, one Mr. Bla-keney, I believe, demanding compulsory arbitration before the strike had even begun.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I know the members of this party were shocked at the time. I know the hon. member for York South was as appalled as I was.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: On a point of order, I should like to remind the hon. member that Mr. Blakeney was not elected until 1971. Mr. Thatcher was in power in 1970.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member has drawn attention to a very serious error, not that there was no telegram, but that the strike situation-a strike did not actually occur- arose in 1971 rather than in 1970. Mr. Blakeney was a year older in 1971 and he should have been a year wiser.
I want to say something else while we are in committee of the whole; incidentally I am one who would like to return to the days when we made regular use of the committee of the whole, when we had decent debates and when one could answer questions in democratic, hard-hitting fashion, though never in an insulting way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I want to point out, as an observer, that we have under federal jurisdiction the finest department of labour in the eleven jurisdictions of this country. I wish to make another point also. Sitting at the officials' table is the finest deputy minister the Department of Labour has ever had-and the department was established some 50 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If people think the federal scene is dominated by industrial strife they are not aware of the record of the Department of Labour or of the hard work done by people under this deputy minister-Mr. Wilson, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Gibbons and the other people in the department. I am not making this point idly. I have a purpose in doing so, and I shall come back to it.
The first thing that bothers me-and my feelings are based on the experience I acquired in the few years during which I was minister of labour-is this. Everybody who has spoken so far has been filled with good intentions and anxious to propose amendments or improvements to the bill. If each one of those amendments was accepted then I don't know one qualified arbitrator in this country who would take on the job of settling the rail dispute. For instance, when hon. members say that the collective agreement must include a clause to deal with the cost of living, they are advocating the removal from the workers of a flexibility which is important to them.


An hon. Member:: That is what the bill does.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: They may prefer a lump sum payment. And the man who just made that remark shows he knows nothing at all about industrial relations. In recent weeks I have been involved in two labour disputes, one of which was settled by the inclusion of a cost of living clause. In the other case the membership of the union refused the inclusion of such a clause and opted for a lump sum payment instead-as you might have done, Mr. Chairman, if you had been on strike for five and a half months in British Columbia.
Let me make a point which has not been emphasized enough with regard to railroad workers, in an effort to explain what occurred here yesterday. Railway workers by their nature have always been what might be termed the aristocracy of the labour movement. This is natural because a worker in any capacity on the railway requires a particular skill; he must serve an apprenticeship and adjust to a particular environment. You cannot acquire this skill or the ability to adjust unless you work on the railway.
I was appalled in the spring of 1971 to find that a locomotive engineer operating down the Fraser Canyon earned $1800 more than my secretary who types on an IBM electric typewriter. I asked myself where our scale of values was in this particular community of ours.
At one time if you worked on the railway you were a leader in the community, you had the best wages and the best living conditions. Landlords sought you out because you had a guaranteed income. If you had worked on the railroad for 10 years you had seniority for life, and at one time a man who had 10 years' experience received a pass entitling him to travel free of charge on certain trains. Such a man had security until age 65.
That changed in the 1950's when the railways switched from steam locomotives to diesel locomotives. Shortly afterwards we saw the virtual disappearance of blacksmiths and boilermakers from the railways. Their jobs became redundant because the steam engine had outlived its usefulness. We saw patternmakers and moulders, who had

spent five years learning their profession, finding their jobs becoming obsolete and redundant. They were unable to work in other aspects of industry because of changing technology.
As a result of this the position of railway employees changed from that of importance in the community, reflected not only in stature but in wages, to a position of something less than leaders in the community. Today an electrician working for the railway might earn $4 and some cents an hour after five years' apprenticeship, covering everything from air conditioning to rewinding motors. Compare that with an electrician in the province of Quebec who, by government decree, will be paid $7.90 in 1975, plus an additional 80 cents toward his pension plan. If you were a railway worker and knew of that comparison, would you be prepared to kick in the doors of parliament? That action was not justified any more than not going back to work will be justified. If the law of the land is wrong in your individual opinion, it is still the law of the land and must be obeyed. The important thing is that we have a democracy, and this brings me to the point I really want to put forward.
On several occasions the Leader of the Opposition, who has shown concern for the working man on many occasions, has emphasized that the Conservative party would establish an industrial disputes commission which, as you know, is one of the recommendations of the Woods Task Force. I do not want to get my dates wrong again and be corrected, but I think the Woods Task Force Report was deposited during Christmas week of 1968. That commission cost the government $2 million. It was composed of leading academics and intellectual experts in the field of industrial relations.
The former leader of the NDP is smiling because he knows, as I do, that in the final analysis you do not settle labour disputes as a result of what is contained in the Woods Task Force Report; you settle them by negotiation.
All an industrial disputes commission, such as suggested by the Conservative party, would do in a democracy-and this is significant-is substitute the judgment of the Department of Labour, the judgment of the deputy minister, the judgment of the assistant deputy minister and the judgment of industrial specialists and branch heads for the judgment of the three-man board described loosely in the Woods Report as being independent.
I do not know whether the three men would be selected from the ranks of labour, but I doubt it. Perhaps two would be employers and one an employee, but more than likely they would be three academics, selected because of their experience and ability in writing on a blackboard.
In any event this commission would have access to a 30-man part-time board which no doubt would be repre sentative of the party in power. If all politicians are as partisan as I, it would contain members from their ridings. Whether they were experts in industrial relations or in some other field, they would have the responsibility of helping this three-man independent commission to substitute its judgment for that of the Department of Labour and its civil servants, and to recommend to parliament the measures it should impose upon the railway workers.
August 31, 1973

Unfortunately most of the members who come from the province of British Columbia are in the opposition, but they know the results that restrictive labour legislation breeds. Fortunately Judge Parker is no longer in British Columbia, but I suggest it will be years before labour reaction to his restrictive measures in British Columbia will disappear. I hope, for all time now, that that government has finally brought in a decent and civilized piece of labour legislation.
We are elected by the people to make unpopular decisions, and no matter what form this bill takes it will be unpopular with the railway workers of Canada. We assumed the right to stand for office and we must assume that responsibility, but we should not be prepared to cede our responsibilities, on the basis of the Woods Task Force Report, to some independent commission made up of three academics from various universities.
I could recite many statements that have appeared in editorials which condemn this type of strike action on the part of workers in industry. Many statements have been made to the effect that we cannot have strikes in essential industries. Nobody has defined an essential industry, but certainly the railways, airlines and other such industries are essential. Certainly the duties of policemen and firemen are essential.
In 1907 the then deputy minister of labour, one Mackenzie King, made the same statement the Leader of the Opposition made this morning, that when private rights become public wrongs the House of Commons must stand as a man and exercise its responsibility to the general public. It is unfortunate that in reality this legislation, which will be for the general good of the country, will work certain hardships on the unfortunate workers of the railways.
As one who has had some experience in this field I plead with members to stop playing petty politics with a piece of legislation of this importance. We should stop negotiating in respect of 8 cents or 10 cents, and 10 cents or 13 cents or something else. An hon. gentleman made a case for 13 cents, and someone else made a case for 34 cents. I could take productivity figures and make a good case for 40 cents. This will be the arbitrator's job. We do not negotiate collective agreements on the floor of the House of Commons.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman from Ottawa wishes to speak and I promise that I shall not take too long. What I am about to say of course may surprise many. I was never left with the impression during railway disputes, and I was involved in more than one, that the railway companies necessarily hide behind legislation or government action if they can avoid it. As the labour critic of the Conservative Party astutely put it yesterday, there have been two pieces of back-to-work legislation in 25
Railway Operations Act
years. He could have said 75 years, but he started of course from the date of the first one.
The hon. gentleman who is talking from his seat should remember another piece of legislation I have in my memory in respect of compulsory legislation, which would have ordered the dock workers in the city of Montreal back to work. Fortunately that piece of legislation never saw the light of day. The author of that piece of legislation is still a member of this House. I shall not identify him, but he is a member of the New Democratic Party.
When we start throwing stones in respect of our relationship toward the workers we are being hypocritical because few of us worry about the workers. We worry about our political future and what effect our position will have on voters the next time around. The difference between a parliamentarian and a puppet is that one is a man who will get up and vote for unpopular legislation if it is in the general good of this country. I say, leave the bill as it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Minister of Labour is a sensitive person who represents a labour riding. Through the many years in which I have known him he has always shown great sympathy for the cause of the labour movement. If you take the legislation before us and couple it with one or two amendments-one that I recommended to the minister and one which places a limit on the time the arbitrator might take-the plight of the railway worker, for the first time in 20 years, may be recognized by the Canadian public. There may be a decent settlement, and should be a decent settlement. But we must give the arbitrator something with which to work. Otherwise the dispute will deteriorate further. That might help us but it will not help the workers. If too much is put in the legislation then we will impede the flexibility of the negotiating team, the flexibility of the mediator and the flexibility of the arbitrator.
If you share Blakeney's philosophy at least have the courage to get up and say what this parliament needs is compulsory arbitration, and that is the end of it. You fellows in the corner know you cannot have it both ways. Every time you try to have it both ways in this House of Commons-I will not say it. You fool nobody. I shall put it that way.
Mr. Chairman, I have gone beyond my time. In conclusion I should like to say we have a piece of legislation before this House, as we had on other occasions such as the waterfront strike, to bring an end to this sorry mess. At the same time it will make it possible for the employees of the railways to come out of this with the advantages they deserve, and the railway companies with an understanding that never again can they hide from or shirk their responsibility to the railway workers of this country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Verdun would not have denigrated my position. I wish he had mentioned my name when he spoke about the introduction of a certain piece of legislation which I, as a private member, introduced. I want to point out to him, and to the House, that at the

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
time I did that, it related to an industrial dispute on the waterfront in Montreal with which the hon. member for Verdun was quite familiar at that time. I am quite proud of the fact that I did give notice of the introduction of that bill because if I had not done that the damn strike would never have been settled.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I want to say I am not surprised at the hon. gentleman's intervention. It is typical. He is a courageous member of parliament. He says what he thinks. The point I was making was simply that included in that legislation was an order for the men to go back to work. Am I right or wrong on that?


Frank Howard: That is why I rose on the point of order. I wish the hon. member had-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The Chair feels that hon. members are raising points of order rather than carrying on the debate. I think we are wasting the time of the House. The hon. member has the right to identify himself but I do not think we should prolong the debate on this matter. If hon. members wish to express views on this matter later they may do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, thanks to the hon. member for Vegreville who was on the list to speak at this time I am now given the opportunity to speak. I had waited impatiently yesterday and today. I have waited to hear from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should make it perfectly clear what the stand of the government is on matters such as this. In every other case from 1950 the prime minister, in connection with matters such as this, has taken a prominent part. Indeed, my predecessor in office did so. He led off, and on one occasion when the minister of labour in my government spoke, the late Mr. Pearson said that the first requisite course to be followed was that the Prime Minister should speak. I followed him immediately, and I pass on to the Prime Minister the examples of the late Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and the late Right Hon. Lester Pearson. We would like to know where he stands on this matter. He can smirk, I do not mind that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We stand together, which your cabinet never did.


John George Diefenbaker: He presumes to be an authority on labour, and he was at the bar. It would be interesting to hear him speak and explain the very lengthy delay which has taken place and why no effective action was taken by his government for months and months on end. As late as July 26 the government was still playing around with this matter. The hon. member for Verdun has just spoken. We Baptists have a course that is sometimes followed. When there is a vacancy, or a vacancy is anticipated, individuals come and preach for a call. Having listened to the hon. member for Verdun today, and with the attention that his remarks received from the Prime Minister, I feel sure that he was actually doing that, and the Prime Minister was indicating, by his total indifference to what the hon. member for Verdun was saying, that there is little, or no hope, for the return to the cabinet of the hon. member for Verdun.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He touched a sore point.


John George Diefenbaker: I listened to the Minister of Transport.
I always do. He has a way of debating that should be emulated by many of us in the House. He has clarity, a vocabulary, enthusiasm and knowledge, and I am wondering why, after all the blundering and meandering that has been going on for months under the present Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister had not called in the experienced labour leader, the present Minister of Transport, to give him and the government some ideas as to what might be done to prevent this strike.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He has the answers. He has the experience. He has the knowledge of the NDP that no other member of the House has. He is able to expose their weaknesses because it is not too long ago that he was weaned from that party.
I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre today, and I can only say that there was about his address that unctuous attitude that only in that party resides a feeling for the people of Canada and for the labour men of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That is what they feel, and they applaud the statement. I am glad to have their approval. It is passing strange that with all their knowledge of the subject today British Columbia is simply inundated with strikes.


Mr. Broadbent:: Not one.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member from Ontario is one who does not know anything that is going on in British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: He does not even know what is going on in Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: But why do they not apply in the province of British Columbia the vast knowledge that they have in the settlement of labour disputes? It is not a simple matter, but the responsibility for what is before us today rests on the government of Canada. They are responsible for their failure to act in connection with inflation, and I want to make that very clear.
One of the best articles that I have read lately on the subject of labour appeared in the July 30, 1973, issue of U.S. News and World Report. There appeared an article on an interview with Peter J. Brennan, U.S. Secretary of Labour, who had been a most distinguished leader in union circles in the United States. In answer to one question he pointed out the reason for the strike mentality, and indeed the need sometimes for entering into the strike world on the part of labour. The question was:
Why aren't the unions pressing for larger pay increases in view of what's been happening to the cost of living?

His answer was:
I can only tell you what I hear in talking to some of them. They're very concerned with fighting inflation. They realize that higher living costs are taking a serious toll on their members. If they just try to get a larger bite in each new contract, it means they are only running to catch up, never really getting ahead.
What have they done in the United States. What about the steelworkers? He refers to them, in particular in connection with compulsory arbitration, to which Secretary Brennan takes the strongest possible objection. He said:
When negotiations are going on and both sides know that a strike is possible, then more issues are forced into the open and you get better bargaining.
I think that was the viewpoint as well of the Minister of Transport as I listened to him today.
Under compulsory arbitration, where the government is standing there threatening to make you work, it is very difficult to get good, acceptable agreements.
Some unions, such as the Steelworkers in their industry, are moving toward a method called "voluntary binding arbitration", in which both sides agree voluntarily to abide by the terms of the final decision. Under this system, if negotiations get to a stalemate, an impartial third party chosen by both sides is brought in who hears all the facts and decides on the terms of the contract.
Unions have shown this year that they can act responsibly and make this kind of bargaining work. We have been working on this kind of plan with the President's Commission for Industrial Peace. It is a much better system than passing a lot of punitive laws.
Then he mentioned railway unions in the United States. The question was:
Do you see a need now for any law in the transportation field?
The answer was:
I don't think so. The railroad unions have leaders that have been around for some time, and we all get educated after a while to move in the direction we should be moving. They settled their agreement 3lA months ahead of time, which was the first time it's been done in the history of the country.
What have we been doing? The Prime Minister diddles and the Minister of Labour daddies on and on, whereas in the United States a settlement was brought about three and a half months before the expiry of the contract.
And for the first time a number of unions were able to get together.
There has been no serious endeavour on the part of this government to act. It has refused to admit that there is any inflation within our country. Indeed, it is only a few weeks ago, when the Prime Minister was asked questions in the House, that he gave his answer in connection with bread. It is one that should be referred to. On that occasion, I said that government action to keep down consumer costs by a subsidy to the manufacturers of bread and the like, or the reduction of the amount paid by four cents per bushel, would increase the price of bread in this country by an estimated two or three cents a loaf. What did the Prime Minister say? He said no, the increase would be one-tenth of one per cent. Well, he was 200 per cent wrong, because since then the price of bread has gone up by as much as I had predicted on that occasion, and even more.
Railway Operations Act
The government that refused to consider any action to meet the situation within our country has allowed this snowball of inflation to go on and on, and has failed to reduce government expenditures. Indeed, today the government is engaged in an orgy of expenditure in this country, as never before. The Minister of Transport laughs. Under my administration the maximum expenditure was $6 billion per year. Now it is $20 billion. Under my administration the cost of living in Canada advanced more slowly than in any other country in the world. The Minister of Justice was in the seclusion of a university at that time and does not know anything about the matter.


An hon. Member:: He is going back there.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not sure. That statement was made by the then president of the United States, the late John F. Kennedy. However, in the last two or three years there has not been any serious endeavour on the part of this government to meet inflation. The Prime Minister laughs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not laughing. I am listening.


John George Diefenbaker: When those poor people came from Montreal, those employees of the taxi company, who said, "Would you do something for us", has he forgotten what he said? What did he say to them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Do you remember, John?


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister asks whether I remember. He said, "Mangez de la merde". He can do the translating.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It didn't come out like that, John. You had better rehearse it.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the first time we have activated the Prime Minister. He now has said a word on this matter. So, I am happy that he is taking his position in dealing with this matter. Mr. Chairman, months have gone by. What did they produce? The mountain in labour produced a mouse, unacceptable to the men who work. They will be forced to go back to work and to receive less than they should be receiving in view of the rise in the cost of living since the report was made by Mr. Justice Munroe. Why? Why are they taking that course of action?
I do not countenance the endeavour to intimidate parliament, but only a very small number yesterday engaged in that. The members of the labour unions who are asking for action are responsible men. The unions that want action are led by responsible men who want to keep the law. They demand fairness, but they are not getting fairness and justice under this bill that is before the House. There is no question about it.
Why has the minister not given the actual amount that the government intends to provide? What did the government do? It set up legislation that provides for the appointment for an arbitrator or mediator, who is to make recommendations after these men are forced back to work under terms that I say are unfair and unjust. That provision is put in as a carrot. The men who work are to expect

August 31, 1973
Business of the House
something more, after the appointment of the arbitrator or the mediator. That provision is to deceive them that something is going to be done. It is a psychedelic carrot, designed to produce delusion.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has had weeks to speak, and for weeks now he has been speaking everywhere on how successful he was going to be and actually was, and, oh, he was so wrong! Never has a minister been so wrong for so long. I must say that some of the interviews he gave would qualify him as a minister of bromides, as he endeavoured to make the people of Canada believe that something was being done. When I asked my question yesterday, he said that the matter was not correctly reported. I always believe in having these reports, and I give him the opportunity now to say what part of the report is wrong. On August 2 he went to Montreal, accompanied by a group of sycophants and press artillery, and made one of the immortal statements of all time in labour relations.
He mentioned himself in a very modest way and said, "We're down here to wrap this up". That is one of the strangest statements I have ever seen. He said, "We're down here to wrap this one up and settle it." He said he was optimistic. In another interview on August 20 he said, "We'll end the rail strike tonight".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We still hope to.


John George Diefenbaker: Which night?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Tonight, if you sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad of the assistance of the Prime Minister. When the minister said that on August 20, he meant the night of August 31. I am glad for that interpretation.


Mr. Chretien:: Tonight is not the 21st but the 31st. Change the two to a three.


John George Diefenbaker: Was that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development interjecting? He is closed out of his own office. I did not want to bring the minister into this, but if he interjects himself-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the right hon. member, but, it being four o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions through the usual channels and I think you will find there is agreement not to proceed today with private members'

hour but instead to return to committee of the whole and continue with the bill before it. I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that those same discussions involved the possibility of the House sitting until six o'clock this evening, then rising for dinner, and returning at eight o'clock, to continue sitting until some progress is made in the completion of this bill this evening.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker I have made it plain before that we are perfectly willing, in fact most anxious, that we should waive such of the rules as are necessary to proceed with this bill. We agree to carry on until six o'clock, then come back this evening and proceed until the bill has completed all stages as far as this House is concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, our views about this bill are well known. Nevertheless, we think that parliament should reach a decision on it without undue delay, and we are a party to the suggested schedule for this evening.
[ Trans la lion]


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Speaker, we are in complete agreement with everybody.


Mr.   La Salle@: On behalf of the independents, I gave my consent, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in order that we have firm guidance I was going to suggest that we might put this agreement in the form of a House order.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), that we suspend the private members' hour, that is, from four o'clock to five o'clock, and that this House pursue consideration of the present order of business until six o'clock; that the House rise from six o'clock to eight o'clock and pursue the sitting after eight o'clock, again on the consideration of the same order of business.
The Chair is not clear, however, whether the order should include some finality in respect of the decision on this order of business. Perhaps some guidance could be given on this subject.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we will pursue this order until all stages have been completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.
August 31, 1973


MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS ACT, MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR RESUMPTION OF OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-217, to provide for the resumption and continuance of operations of railways and for the settlement of the disputes with respect to terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees-Mr. Munro (Hamilton East)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: When the committee rose it was considering clause 2. Maybe before allowing the right hon. member for Prince Albert to complete his remarks the committee would consider the possibility of consenting to allow the right hon. member to go beyond his time as there are only a few seconds available to him.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 2- Words and expressions.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I will just take a very few seconds. I wanted to summarize the situation. This government must get off its seat and act in connection with inflation. It has refused to admit that it has been asleep on the job, and the result is that today our people are in a position which has never been equalled in this country.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, there must be justice for the union people who are being ordered back to work, and that is not contained in the bill now before the House.
Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, I should like someone to tell me who is going to pay for the increases. Let me, as strongly as I can before this House, say that we rely on the so-called promise of the Minister of Transport that, as far as freight rate horizontal increases are concerned, they are to be frozen for 18 months. We on the Prairies have been paralysed under the last two governments. When the war ended the discrimination against the western provinces in freight rates was about 17 per cent; since that time there has been an increase across the board horizontally of 180 per cent. The result is that today in the western provinces it is impossible for industry to be developed because of the diversity of these rates.
I want to make it as clear as I can that there is no spirit of alienation in western Canada such as some people endeavour to conjure up, but there is a determination that we should not continue to be simply the recipient of crumbs from the rich man's table. We will not stand for another horizontal increase in freight rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: There are many other matters I could have dealt with Mr. Chairman, but I shall not do so because I do not want to keep other members from having an opportunity to speak. I conclude by saying that in no way do I approve the exercise of force against parliament. That cannot be condoned, and it would substitute anarchy for the right of each individual to freedom. There were a few people yesterday who acted in a way they should not have acted, and they were condemned for it by their
Railway Operations Act
responsible leaders. But, Mr. Chairman, that does not deny the right of individuals across Canada to come to Parliament Hill when action is not being taken by a somnolent government, to place before that government and the Canadian people their needs, their rights, and to demand an assurance that something will be done for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I think
from now on each of us really should try to confine his remarks to the time available to him. I know that the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert and the hon. member for Verdun did not ask for additional time, but there was a generosity in the committee to extend it. However, I think we really should try to contain that generosity because we are all anxious to have an opportunity to say something with respect to this measure, and to say it in a relatively short time.
I should like to commence with a quotation from that all revealing volume called Hansard, which I could not help remembering as I was listening to the right hon. member for Prince Albert. At page 2606 of Hansard for July 24, 1958, there appears the following:
The chronology of this unhappy business of a labour dispute which began, as the Minister of Labour has just reminded us, over a year ago and of a strike which began on May 16, is a monument to an inept governmental performance. . . this procedure has exhibited a careless unawareness of a labour problem which was permitted to develop into a crisis, and which has created loss, distress, great inconvenience and business dislocation to an important section of the Canadian people.
Those were the remarks of the Hon. Lester B. Pearson when he was leader of the opposition in 1968 and the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert was prime minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not prime minister in 1968. You have the wrong year altogether. That is the muddle you are in.


Frank Howard: In 1958, I am sorry. He was talking about a situation in which there was a dislocation of the Pacific coast steamship service, operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Very briefly, in that situation in 1958 the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, who was prime minister, saw fit to bring in a bill relating to compulsory arbitration, forcing back to work those people on strike.
There was a provision in his bill for a wage increase. That wage increase had a relationship to the conciliation board report which showed that the employer representative on the board recommended a 17 per cent increase, while the employee nominee on the board recommended a 31 per cent increase. The conciliation board chairman recommended a 25 per cent increase, and the right hon. member for Prince Albert brought in a bill containing an 8 per cent increase.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Frank Howard: Enough of that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. My recollection is that there was no division in the
26454 -23

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
House on that matter in 1958. The CCF stood with us on that. They certainly did not vote against us.


Frank Howard: That is absolutely correct. It is also correct that the then prime minister sold the people down the river at that time as well. The question, in terms of a settlement of that dispute, is what it is now. What could we as a parliament do to settle the dispute? I simply point out that the prime minister of that day was talking out of two sides of his mouth, which he also did today.
I do not know why there is so much testiness and hesitancy on the part of members when talking about compulsory arbitration. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Labour and many others say they do not believe in compulsory arbitration, and then go ahead with it. Why the timidity? Why don't they recognize a factual situation and admit that what we are doing today is imposing an arbitrary settlement upon a group of workers and companies? Why don't they be honest and cut out all this b.s.? Why hide behind some theoretical concept of collective bargaining? We had compulsory arbitration in 1950, in 1958 when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was Prime Minister, in 1966, and we have it today. Why in hell don't we say so?
Do hon. members think that the 56,000 non-operating workers being sent back to work do not recognize this for what it is? Do they think the shop crafts, who have not yet reached the stage of being able to determine whether they will go on strike, do not recognize this for what it is? What about the running trades involved in the UTU? Do members not think they know what is happening? It is compulsory arbitration, and let's quit beating around the bush about it.
We must recognize one other fact of life. In 1950, when the first compulsory arbitration proceedings took place in this country, we destroyed the process of collective bargaining for railroad workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: We have a situation today where the Minister of Labour is able to stand up and say we are following the usual procedure. Of course, it is usual. It is an intrusion into free collective bargaining. We in this country and in this parliament do not want free collective bargaining to operate in the railroads, except to the extent that if a settlement can be reached without a strike or lock-out, we endorse it. The minute there is a strike or lock-out, we do not want to have anything to do with it. That is what we are doing today.
The Minister of Transport, knowledgeable as he is in the process of collective bargaining and his involvement in it, laid it right on the line. The only effective collective bargaining that takes place when there is a dispute is when there is a test of one strength against another. The strongest wins. The Minister of Transport said he had been involved in an industrial dispute and strike situation where they had an excellent case, but lost because they were weak. He gave another example where they had a poor case and won because they were strong. We are not permitting that to happen with the railroad workers.

We should quit trying to kid ourselves and everyone else. The railroad workers do not have any effective mechanism for collective bargaining. The procedures set out in the act are a myth and a sham. Yesterday, the government reinforced the position that if this parliament goes along with them on this, in any subsequent railroad negotiations it is forever committed to say, regardless of the justification of the case, whether good, bad, strong or weak, whatever the chairman of the conciliation board says, that that will be the imposed settlement. How can there be any free collective negotiations with that knowledge in the minds of the CNR and CPR?
They know full well that all they have to do is sit back, drag their feet, delay, procrastinate, and go through the mechanics of appearing before a conciliation officer. They know their case has to be made with the conciliation board chairman. No matter what the chairman says, all they have to do is be tough and that will be the settlement. What kind of collective bargaining is that? How do you classify the position of a government which says that is what it is going to impose upon the workers, a position which supports that of the companies? That is exactly what is happening.
In a normal strike situation the intention of those on strike is to create some difficulties for their employer. It is to cause a loss of production, loss of sales or some financial injury so that the employer cannot stand the losses any longer and will sit down and sign a contract. That is also the process in a lock-out. The employer causes difficulty and injury to the workers by locking them out. When the workers find it too difficult, they are willing to sign a contract. That is what collective bargaining is in a strike or lock-out situation.
In the railroad industry, the injury is not to the employer. It is to everyone but the employer. The difficulties are not experienced by the CNR or CPR. They are experienced by farmers on the Prairies who cannot ship their grain, by people in isolated communities who do not receive their shipments of goods, and by auto manufacturers who cannot get their materials in or ship their products. The difficulties are experienced by everyone but the employers. That is where parliament comes into the picture.
Regardless of all the histrionics of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport, when an industrial dispute takes place among railroaders there is no alternative but the imposition of a settlement. The way the situation is today, there is no other agency that can do that except the parliament of Canada.
By imposing a settlement upon the workers, we are destroying free collective bargaining. It has in fact not effectively existed for the past 23 years. It was destroyed in 1950. I agree that arbitration is the only way. Does anyone have any other solution? The Babe Ruths of the negotiations, such as the hon. member for Verdun, are few and far between. Even he has outlived his usefulness in that regard.
Let us not keep up the myth about collective bargaining, how important it is and how we respect it, when every time it breaks down we discredit it more. Do members think that the railroad workers, the negotiators and the companies do not know this? We talk about the necessity of finding some other procedure. The Conservative party
August 31, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: I do not mean to be cruel and destructive. I am not talking about wage increases which will destroy the position of the company, or about demands which are inordinate. I am talking about fairness, justice and equity.
The Canadian Pacific and the CNR have the government in their pockets. They knew before this dispute started that whatever the conciliation board chairman said would be adopted as the position of the government. That was their final offer, and they felt they needed to do no more. Do we have to buy that? Do we have to say halleluja to the conclusions of Craig Munroe? I use the first name to distinguish him from the present minister. Did he know what he was talking about? It is likely not, when he talked about 30 cents. He was likely trying to find what he thought might be a compromise position which the parties would accept. Isn't that what we would be trying to do? We are in that position.
We are not negotiating, we are imposing. We are not making suggestions to the parties as to what they should accept. We are imposing a solution, and the basis of that imposition should be the Weldon Report. We could settle the dispute along those lines. The workers would go back to work, there would be no dislocation, and they would not come back again-


Gérald Laniel: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.
26454-23)

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act


Mr. Mazarvkowski:: Mr. Chairman, though I do not have the credentials the hon. member for Verdun possesses in the area of negotiations between labour and management, I rise to take part in this debate as a concerned Canadian and I do speak with some knowledge of the devastating impact which this strike has had upon the Canadian economy and upon the welfare of many millions of Canadians.
I have never been involved in any labour-management negotiations but I own a business in the Town of Vegre-ville which employs some 65 persons, and I do know one thing: in order to get a fair day's work out of any individual you must reward him with a fair day's pay.
I believe the government has failed miserably in its attempt to deal with and avert this strike in an expeditious manner. I listened to the very eloquent speeches, of the hon. member for Verdun and the Minister of Transport, who attempted to explain away the government's position in relation to the strike. They attempted to tell this House the reason the strike came about, but I should like to state that they failed to convince me. This government failed to expedite a satisfactory solution to the problems which led to this strike.
It is the responsibility and the job of the Minister of Transport to see that goods and people move uninterruptedly in this country, and I suggest he should take stock of his position in relation to this strike.
We are assembled here this afternoon to restore services in Canada which are not only essential but which represent a national lifeline. The cost of this disruption and its effect on our economy has amounted to untold millions of dollars, and the government cannot continue to ignore the situation. This strike has caused a great deal of suffering, discomfort and misery to millions of people.
We are lucky that the provinces of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have shown such generosity, kindness and hospitality. The residents of those two islands have opened their doors and their hearts to the thousands of people stranded there. I must commend the provincial governments and the service clubs, particularly the Lions and the Kinsmen, for the admirable job they have done in helping to overcome the hardships and misery caused by this strike. These organizations and the two governments are to be commended for their outward kindness in accommodating these unfortunate victims.
The innocent victims of this strike have no recourse; they can take no action against anyone. If strikes are to be a way of life in this country perhaps it is time to consider ways and means by which innocent victims, who are detrimentally affected by a work stoppage, can take action against the unions, management, or both.
We have had too many strikes in this country, particularly in essential services. Many services have been interrupted; services which are fundamental and necessary to the orderly functioning of our economy and our society. Most of these services enjoy a monopolistic position because we are provided with no alternative. This has caused corporations, small businesses, farmers, and many others untold hardship and financial loss. Transportation is indeed in this category.
IThe Assistant Deputy Chairman.]
This country is fed up to the teeth with strikes. The people have had their fill and are demanding alternative methods to the negotiating process. As far as many Canadians are concerned a strike is an obsolete and archaic tool. I understand there are something of the order of 54 strikes taking place in our nation at the present time, and a number of others pending. These will involve thousands of people.
There has been a void of action on the part of this and former Liberal governments to grapple with new devices or techniques which would be more effective in dealing with management-labour disputes. This is especially true in respect of essential services. What has this government done to improve the bargaining process? What has it done to protect the public from disruption of essential services? What has it done since the last legislation in 1966? I suggest the answer is nothing.
When the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson introduced the back-to-work legislation in 1966 he said, as reported at page 7771 of Hansard for August 29 of that year:
We must find better methods for the negotiation and settlement of disputes in the railway industry, and in other industries; new and improved mediation and conciliation procedures which will take into account new circumstances, new conditions in industrial society; which will more effectively preserve the right of the employee in these new conditions and also adequately protect the national interest, particularly in respect of essential national services.
This government has failed to act or live up to that commitment made by a respected Liberal leader who, I am sure, made that statement in good faith.
What is to be done about future strikes in essential services and future disruptions in transportation? Does the government intend to go along merrily as it has in the past, reacting to each crisis as it happens? Does it intend to continue to act in this way in respect of disruptions in airline service and the service provided by longshoremen and grain handlers, ignoring the fact that this is all part of a larger problem? Or is the government prepared to present to parliament a program to provide for better ways and means of negotiating, in order that the public can be protected against the devastating and damaging effects of strikes in essential services?
Our party has put forward a proposal which I think marks the beginning of a new mechanism. It has been outlined by my leader and by the hon. member for St. John's East. I will not go into detail, but it could be the starting point of a new approach to labour-management disputes, and I hope the government is prepared to give it serious consideration. The government has been known to borrow our ideas in the past and I am sure we will not mind if it does so in the future, particularly, if this will serve the public interest. Perhaps a parliamentary committee should consider the Woods Report and other factors in an attempt to find ways and means for the better settlement of disputes. This government and this parliament should consider this issue immediately.
When considering a public industrial disputes commission it should be noted that it is essential to the proposal that workers in essential services receive fair and just payment. I believe an appropriate pay scale must be established. If the non-op railway workers are considered to be essential workers they must be paid on that basis, just as
August 31, 1973

we pay policemen and firemen in this country on the basis of the essential services they perform.
Many hon. members have alluded to the fact that railway workers perform an essential service. There can be no doubt about that fact. Those employees who are a part of this network must be treated as essential employees. We must ensure that they receive a decent income for their labours, decent working conditions, adequate security, decent pensions and so on.
Furthermore, I believe management and the unions must be encouraged to commence their bargaining process at a much earlier date. Under the existing framework there is too much opportunity to play around rather than bargain meaningfully before the expiration of the contract. This is tantamount to playing a game with the public, all of which is devastating and costly. I believe that appropriate incentives could be put in place to encourage the expedition of the bargaining process prior to the expiration of a contract. These are just a few ideas, but they are ideas which I believe the government can consider.
I am sure there are many other ideas which could be brought forth. The point I want to reiterate very strongly is the fact that we must address ourselves to establishing a much better system of collective bargaining, and a much better system to overcome labour-management disputes in essential services.
I believe it is precisely because of the incompetence of this government in the area of labour unrest, and its poor record in respect of economic management, inflation and the cost of living, that we are presently in a climate of confused economic chaos. Previously I said I believe the people of Canada are fed up with strikes. I want to say, however, that they are also fed up with this government. They are fed up with the economic mess we have at the present time. They are fed up with the deterioration in labour relations. They are fed up because of the government's inaction in respect of averting the strike we are now legislating during this special sitting of the House.
The government was forewarned regarding the implications long before the strike occurred. I am one who believes this strike could have been avoided. I am sure it could have been avoided with a settlement as good as the strikers will receive as a result of this legislation and the negotiation and mediation which follows thereafter.
I do not believe the government accepted its proper responsibility in July. I think we could have moved to settle this strike before the House adjourned in July. On July 26, for example, when the first round of rotating strikes occurred, the hon. member for St. John's East asked the Minister of Labour a question about the strike and the Minister of Labour failed to even recognize that a strike was on our hands. He referred to it merely as a temporary walkout. This is recorded at page 5984 of Hansard. This is an example of sheer incompetence.
What has happened? Grain deliveries have been disastrously affected. Our reputation as a supplier of grain has again become tarnished. Because of additional carrying charges, because of additional demurrage charges, and plugged elevator systems there is less money for the pro-
Railway Operations Act
ducer. We are now in the midst of the harvest season and the elevator system is plugged because of the railway strike. In the area of livestock the ill-conceived implementation of the export restrictions in respect of beef and pork, which sent thousands of cattle back to farms which originally were destined for market, coupled with rail strikes, has complicated the orderly marketing process of cattle and hogs.
This was a very costly error on the part of the government. Untold millions have been lost in the livestock industry and in the grain industry, the two main industries of western Canada. There is a backlog of processed meat. Cattle are being bought in quantities of one, two, three of four, rather than in hundreds and thousands. The manufacturing industry is being paralysed. Huge lay-offs are being experienced in our communities in western Canada. The merchants are without shoes and clothing to sell. This situation exists not only in western Canada but in central Canada as well.
Then there is the matter of repair parts for machinery and equipment. This has an effect on the harvest. Farmers are unable to buy repair parts in order to keep their machinery in operation. This situation could have been anticipated long before the strike occurred. We are now faced with a gasoline shortage. Even if the trains begin to roll on Monday we could still experience a temporary gasoline shortage which would affect the harvesting operation. This is a matter of life and death because one must take advantage of harvest weather when it is present.
All across this country the detrimental effect of the strike has been recorded. What did the Minister of Transport do during the period leading up to the strike? His expertise in labour-management negotiations has been mentioned previously. Did he exercise his responsibility? Did he use his force and sheer determination to encourage the parties to get together and settle this strike before it actually occurred? I do not know, but I did not gather from his speech this afternoon that he undertook his task in a responsible manner. Perhaps he has been as ineffective here as in mapping out a new national transportation policy.
This is an area in which some radical changes and approaches might be mapped out, rather than the piecemeal approach that was taken at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. We also wonder about the role of the CNR and Air Canada that was alluded to by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East. These two bodies have not been scrutinized by the parliamentary committee.
We are told that Air Canada is operating as a rudderless ship. I should like to know more about the operation of the CNR and Air Canada, but the minister and the government have denied the members of the House an opportunity to examine the officials of these two large Crown corporations. We wonder why the minister has denied the members of the House an opportunity to examine the annual accounts for the years 1971 and 1972. We wonder why there has been a refusal to come clean in respect of the Air Canada financing bill. We wonder why we have not been able to get the management side of the story. If we did, perhaps we would all be in a much better position

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
to deal in a more objective way with the total impact of this particular dispute.
We note that the net income of the Canadian railways, as reported by Statistics Canada, has more than doubled in the first four months of 1973. Perhaps this may have some bearing on the kind of settlement to which the non-ops are entitled.
The members of this House have been denied an opportunity to cross-examine the officials of these institutions. We would also like to know what has happened in respect of the promised freight rate freeze that had been alluded to by the minister in his outburst at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. These are some of the answers we seek.
I see you are on the edge of your seat, Mr. Chairman, and therefore I shall be very brief. In my opinion parliament and the people of Canada have been cheated by this minister who has refused to allow these two Crown corporations, each of which provides an essential service, to be scrutinized by a parliamentary committee.
It is for that reason that we are somewhat suspicious, and that we lay the result of this strike primarily on the doorstep of this government. It is mainly due to the government's incompetence and the devious manner in which it has handled transportation matters in this country.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I am a neophyte in the House and I as a newcomer here and as a spectator of this sport I have listened, read and tried to find out what is going on. I also happen to have a very large group of non ops and running tradesmen on railroads in my riding. So I decided to take a look at Hansard of the period when similar legislation was introduced in the House.
After reading Hansard for August 29, 1966 and after listening to the speeches that have been made in the House yesterday and today, I must say that I have never heard such phoney, hollow speeches, and such verbiage as I have heard thrown around here by the Liberals and Conservatives. I want to give an instance of this. The Conservatives have been clamouring for the return of the workers to their jobs since the rotating strikes started. When I look back at Hansard for August 29, 1966,1 see that the former leader of that party, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, as recorded at page 7733 of Hansard, had the following to say:
I recall very well that debate in 1950.
He was referring to similar legislation in 1950, the first instance of compulsory arbitration imposed by parliament on the railway workers. He went on to say:
The attitude then taken by the Conservative party was that in so far as compulsory arbitration was concerned the party was against it, and members of this party voted accordingly when a vote took place on the motion made by the then prime minister.
So it seems that the Conservative party had taken a position against compulsory arbitration. I hear them in the House today advocating that. They have advocated it since July 26, 1973, when the rotating strikes started.
I have listened to my leader. He said that every court should have a jester. I suppose every parliament should

have a Pontius Pilate. I think it is remarkable that the Minister of Transport should tell members in the House that we are not here to solve the dispute, we are here to solve the emergency, and that we are not all cognizant of the material, the information, and the statistics involved in this dispute.
Why are we elected by the people of Canada if we are not to inform ourselves and become knowledgeable of the kind of legislation that we are expected to debate and to pass? I suggest to you that members of the House are not now familiar with the demands of the non-ops and the arguments of the companies, which have been few and far between because the companies have not negotiated fairly and in good faith. Surely then members are not justified in sitting in the House if they have not informed themselves on those matters. They should have done their homework, and it is obvious that they have not.
The hon. member for Verdun made a comparison, which I found funny, between the salary of an engineer on the railroad and that of his secretary. He said that she was making $1,800 less than the engineer. I suggest that if he had any sort of social conscience he should have organized the secretaries so that they would not be making $1,800 less than the organized workers.
I was glad to hear the Minister of Transport this morning. Indeed he is eloquent, and I would compare him in many ways with the hon. member for Verdun because in fact they are the only two members sitting on that side of the House who have any knowledge of or sympathy for the working people of this country. It is revealing indeed that the Minister of Transport was called upon by the Liberals to bail them out, and obviously the Conservatives in this particular instance will also be bailed out by that speech in which the minister said that we are not in a position to make a decision. It seems to me that once parliament took the option of bringing in legislation to put the workers back to work to end the emergency, the onus is on parliament to make sure that the emergency is ended and that the workers have a fair and just wage on which to live.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I do not call that politicking because I have listened to members on that side of the House, and to the Liberal members in my area. Incidentally, there are no Conservatives in northern Ontario. I have listened to the Liberals stand up before the non-ops in the last three or four days and tell them: "We agree that what you are asking is fair and just. We agree with your wage demands. They are not out of line. We agree with your desire for job security. It is what every other worker in industry has. You are not asking for anything that is out of line".
Now they come and support a bill which gives the workers what the company offered last Monday, and which the union turned down. I find that false because at election time both the Tories and the Liberals stood up and pretended that they were the friends of the workers. If they are the friends of the workers, why do they not on this occasion, instead of saying all these words which are empty and hollow, accept the Weldon report and give the workers a fair and just settlement? Why do they engage in the parrying of empty, fancy words back and forth? It seems to me that it is time the workers realized that the
August 31, 1973

two old line parties are closely allied with business and will never bring in a decision in favour of the workers.


An hon. Member:: What about British Columbia?


John R. Rodriguez: This has been so ever since 1950. I know you are upset about this. The hon. member for Peel South is very upset. I can understand the fact that he is upset because I am sure the workers will note how he and his colleagues voted last night, and they will note how they will vote on our amendments. I hope they will carry the message to other workers throughout the highly industrialized areas such as the cities of Hamilton and Windsor so that the workers know how the Conservatives and Liberals are voting when it comes to a crunch between management and workers.
The Minister of Labour in his press release on August 30 stated in his preamble regarding the strike:
This strike . . . has resulted in widespread economic loss to the extent that the welfare of the nation has become imperilled.
As the Prime Minister has indicated, it is essential to the interests of the people of Canada, and the welfare of our nation, that railway operations be resumed immediately.
The minister echoes what was said in 1966 and before that in 1950.
Indeed, this whole scenario which is now unfolding has been played before. One has only to pick up the Hansard of 1966 and read the same script again. It is interesting to note that one year it is the Liberals who are imposing compulsory arbitration and the Tories who are screaming against it, and then it is the Tories who are pushing compulsory arbitration down the throats of the workers while the Liberals slither into the role of pretended opposition. It is precisely this kind of situation which demonstrates that there is absolutely no difference between these two groups. They are identical in all but name, and I strongly suspect that the only reason the members on both sides of the House have not merged is that they enjoy having someone who agrees to argue with them.


An hon. Member:: Let's talk about British Columbia.


John R. Rodriguez: There is no strike going on in British Columbia at the moment.
Let us get back to the Minister of Labour's statement. He stated that the welfare of the nation is in peril. In the last few weeks we have been told that the economy is suffering and the general public is suffering. This, obviously, is true. We are told that the government must legislate the workers back to work, because they are essential. Actually, I have never heard the words "essential service" used so often as in the last two days. If they are so essential, and it seems that they only become essential when they remove their services from their employers, why, in heaven's name, are they not given a fair wage and job security?
Members here enjoy a fair wage but do not enjoy security. Do hon. members think of these essential workers between contracts? No. When the non-ops are doing their job day after day, year after year, do the two old time parties ever pause to wonder if these essential workers
Railway Operations Act
have enough money to feed and shelter their families and keep up with the rising cost of living, which has run amok in this country? I doubt it.
The simplistic solution of wage and price controls brings no guarantees for workers earning poor wages. Do the two parties ever think about the growing insecurity which these essential workers face through the ever-increasing encroachment of technology on their jobs. I think not. And I do not believe for a minute that parliament has been recalled because the Liberals are concerned about the welfare of the nation or the interests of the Canadian people. After all, it was not so long ago that the Minister of Finance sauntered out of his summer retreat to announce to an angry and concerned public that prices are hurting, but that's not enough to recall parliament. And this is where deception of the most gross and despicable nature is being perpetrated on the Canadian people. The Liberals name the villain, act out a little parliamentary voodoo, and then declare the demon exorcised.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, we observed a demonstration by the rail workers. Those rail workers have been cast in the same role over the years, albeit reluctantly. They know they have always been screwed by the government and they know they are about to be screwed again. They know why they were demonstrating outside the House of Commons. They know why we are here. They were here because they believed that the members of parliament who are in this House, and who are their representatives, are not going to give them a fair settlement, and they were correct. They knew the situation, knew what they were to be offered, and they were absolutely correct.
I say that when this government exercises its prerogative to recall parliament and get the workers back to work, back to their jobs, the responsibility rests with the government to make absolutely certain that those workers receive a just settlement. This government is not and should not be in the business of strike breaking, and it should not be in servitude to the companies.


An hon. Member:: What would you do?


John R. Rodriguez: We would give the workers a just and decent wage, so that they could keep up with the increasing cost of living. It is clear that the rail workers are only asking for what is fair and just. Their demands clearly are not exorbitant.
Surely no member in this House can say that what these men are asking is exorbitant and inflationary. Indeed, it is the policies of provincial Tories and federal Liberals which have led to the inflationary spiral which has put these men behind the eight ball. It is obvious that their fringe benefit packages cannot begin to approach those of workers in other comparable industries, and I could give you comparisons.
In the Sudbury area the major employers are Inco and Falconbridge. The union employees of those two large companies have worked out a medical and dental plan, and there is a company pension. The non-ops do not have those things. The average wage of the Inco or Falconbridge workers is $5.75 per hour. I think the non ops get $3.54 per hour. On the other hand the stores in the area that serve the workers of Inco and Falconbridge base their prices on

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
the high wages, and not on the average wage of $3.54 paid to the non-ops.
These men have their backs to the wall. If you think that this legislation will end the emergency on the railways, you have another think coming, because the bookings off will continue, as will the harassment, and members here will have contributed to the broken spirit of the railroad workers. As I said, the fringe benefit packages of these workers cannot begin to approach the benefits of workers in comparable industries. Nor can it be said that they do not deserve sick leave and pension plan improvements.
It is true that the non-ops are in jeopardy because of advancing technology, and it is only fair that they have some provision for security. It is also true that the rail workers have been more than patient with the companies and the government. It has been 19 months since the last wage increase was granted. So, I think they have been more than patient. Further, they have no strike benefits. It has also become evident that the companies have not bargained in good faitn. Actually, the deputy minister went on television the other night and said that the companies have not bargained in good faith.
I say, let us string the companies, so that they will always bargain in good faith in the future and perhaps we will not need to be unfair to the workers.
How can the government come up with such an objectionable, useless mess of nothing as Bill C-217? This bill offers the workers nothing. This bill attempts to give the workers exactly what they had turned down in negotiations, because they knew it was not sufficient. It waxes strange indeed that this government not only permits but encourages Canadian National railways, which belongs to the working people of this country, to operate as badly as a private corporation, instead of setting a standard for rail workers, instead of leading the way for fair and just and respectable settlements in Canada. Instead, there has been collusion, and the companies have brought forward this mess of pottage that we see reflected in Bill C-217.
Do the Liberals honestly think that this bill will bring peace and harmony to the labour situation? Where have they been for the last nine months. Workers have been booking off. I raised the issue in this House as early as the beginning of July, and the bookings off had been taking place for the previous three months. I predict, Mr. Chairman, that this unrest on the railroads will continue. The rail workers have been displaying dissatisfaction over the last nine months with the offers the companies have been making. They have been fed up with the fact that after nine months they have no contract. Where were the Liberals during those selective strikes? What were they doing during the rail disruptions and the bookings off?
If the Department of Labour was aware that the companies were not bargaining in good faith, as apparently they were not, why did the department not step in and make sure that the companies demonstrated good faith in bargaining?
It has been stated that the non-ops will not accept this legislation. If this becomes a fact then I contend that the responsibility for this mess lies smack on the doorstep of

the Department of Labour and the Liberal cabinet. The history of settlements forced on the workers, at times when Liberals or Tories were in charge of legislation to put workers back to work, might be compared with putting Dracula in charge of the Red Cross blood banks!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: If this government's Minister have become so locked in to the protection of the corporate welfare bums of this country that they cannot see beyond their noses, then they must shoulder the responsibility for the repercussions. It is not the duty of the non-operating rail workers to continue to subsidize the economy. Why should the rest of the economy ride on the backs of the railroad workers? But Mr. Chairman-


Gérald Laniel: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. The hon. member for Ottawa West.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Chairman I shall try to follow the advice of the hon. member for Skeena who admonished us earlier to keep our remarks brief and then proceeded to use every minute of the time allotted to him. I can tell you-


Frank Howard: You should tell the truth for a change. I know it is a shock to you, but you should.


Peter Reilly: Well, Frank, as I recall you were cut off.


Frank Howard: Try to be truthful.


Peter Reilly: l want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I will support the amendments proposed by my leader.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Peter Reilly: All of them.


An hon. Member:: Which leader?


Peter Reilly: I see the hon. gentlemen opposite have- well, perhaps I should not say it.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Chairman, earlier today we heard from the hon. member for Verdun who, as a result of what I think is his quite humanitarian approach to the problems of the working man, was dispossessed and practically disowned by his own party. We also heard from the Minister of Transport, a man for whom I have the most profound regard. In the early 1950's when the so-called quiet revolution was getting under way in Quebec he virtually put his life on the line for the very workers he is now talking about. Unfortunately, I cannot speak as well of the present Minister of Labour who has contrived to throw the entire collective bargaining process into such a shambles that management and labour may never recover from it.
We cannot force people back to work without giving them a decent break, but even though I hate the idea of forcing people back to work when they want to strike, I submit there is no alternative. The minister knows that, and all members of this House know it. Even the hon. member who spoke a few minutes ago knows that.
August 31, 1973

We cannot allow the strike to go on, but there does not appear to be any way of solving it short of legislation. The minister, and anyone who has had experience with labour management, as I have, know that a strike has never produced anything worthwhile at all unless it is a strike for recognition. We have to provide a means by which these men and women can go back to work and resolve their disputes with their employers in a way which will not disrupt the lives of the people of this country. I believe that the body of the bill plus the amendments that we have before us now constitute the most acceptable way of accomplishing that aim. I urge all hon. members to vote for the bill, as I shall. As I promised, Mr. Chairman, I did not use all my time. Thank you.


Mr. Dionne:: Mr. Chairman, we have now before us a bill entitled: "An Act to provide for the resumption and continuance of operations of railways and for the settlement of the disputes with respect to terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees."
The proposed wage adjustments are based on the conciliation report submitted in July.
The minister will not succeed in making us believe that he has made an effort. Those proposals have already been made. I recognize that many other seasonal, part-time or often unemployed workers would appreciate the opportunity of obtaining a steady job under those circumstances, but it does not satisfactorily settle the problem of railway employees.
With a patched-up labour legislation, this government has favoured the spreading of a type of contagious disease that we could call the strike disease, and what is unfortunate is that it is spreading at such a rate that we ought to change as soon as possible this legislation so as to avoid this multiplication of strikes with all the inconveniences involved: loss of pay, disorganization of the economic situation, not to mention disgraceful scenes such as we have seen yesterday. Altogether, the legislation will bring a slight improvement in conditions existing before the strike but it must be possible to set pay rates more in keeping with the workers' demands.
Furthermore, there are several other factors besides the salary to be considered and that the legislation does not even refer to.
No doubt some would be ready to point out that negotiations will continue. It has been said in this house today that there were no negotiations, but I see that the negotiations have failed. Therefore, there should be something done which at least looks like negotiations and which would satisfy the demands of the workers.
There are other points, some of which have been discussed, which could be solved later. But if we base ourselves on previous developments, the railway employees have not received much satisfaction. There are important factors to consider in setting the working conditions of an employee. It must be taken into account that the employee is a human being and not a machine and that he wants security and stability. Generally he also wants the place
Railway Operations Act
where he works to be well organized and well managed. It is normal that he be treated fairly. He also wants to be informed on the financial situation of the firm, so that he may be sure that he will receive a fair income. These are basic realities inherent to the human condition.
I hope that this legislation providing for a return to work will be modified and applied in all fairness by all parties and that it will respect all legitimate opinions when the time comes to solve a dispute over working conditions. I remind you once more that there are many other things to consider besides salaries.
I seconded, at the beginning of the session yesterday, a motion by my colleagues the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) asking for a detailed inquiry on the administration of the Canadian National Railways; I urge once again that such an inquiry be undertaken. Without a doubt, the people would better understand the causes of misunderstanding. A complete revision of the pension plan would enable us to see that the benefits could be shared more equitably amongst the employees.
We might be surprised to find out the cost of maintaining luxurious trains and organizing picnic cars or palaces on wheels. It might be wise to look into the salaries of some directors, starting with the president who earns $75,000 a year, and a whole series of assistants and deputy-assistants several of whom, it seems to me, are more favorites of the regime than rail transport experts. Judging from the railway timetables, we can better understand the claims of the railway employees.
We are now going through a sufficiently perturbed evolutionary stage in union movements to make the supporters of collective bargaining pause and think things over. Succeeding disputes leading to numerous strikes of all kinds certainly do not reflect mutual agreement.
Supporters of today's strike will find reasons to justify their right to strike tomorrow. An endless renewal leads us into adventures without solution and helps to maintain, to the detriment of the interested parties, an atmosphere of collective disagreement, instead of fostering the agreement hoped for by the majority.
I have already mentioned on various occasions that I consider strikes as en evil that is sometimes necessary and that must be kept from spreading. Any serious observer will admit that unions were born to meet a need and that need continues to exist.
I assumed for over ten years the duties of president of a union local and I have an excellent recollection of labour-management relations. However, I find it abnormal to conclude that strikes are the best solution to right the discomforts that emerge in such relations. One must not lack imagination to the point of thinking that a whole series of mistakes can be corrected by setting out to make more mistakes. Those concerned should rather pursue the line of reason and act as adults. In a democratic country everyone has a right to express his views and may even wish to have them respected. However, he will have to have enough understanding for those of others.
The important thing is to pinpoint the many causes of misunderstanding and set the bearings of labour legislation towards the protection of the rights of the weak, the
6132

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
small, the poor, mainly those who need protection the most.
A brief summary of the causes of conflict could undoubtedly provide grounds for reflection for those who really care about improving the situation: the steady increase in the cost of living through the multiplication of taxes, rates, control boards, commissions, inquiries, etc. Add to that the complexity of laws which result in lengthy and costly legal procedures and you will better understand the reasons which contribute to building up a striking mentality about which both management and workers are concerned.
It is rather strange to see some propensity for organizing small union battles on various fronts. We now have a situation of mutual misunderstanding. And why in most cases? To obtain salary increases which are immediately reduced by increases in product prices and taxes of all sorts.
There are fights to obtain true salary increases, the missing dollars without thinking too much about who makes them, who controls them and who determine their value.
What is the use of earning $4. or $5. an hour, if a dollar is only worth 50 cents or less. This is a matter of wealth and purchasing power distribution.
Labour agreements were negotiated in a truly harmonious atmosphere a few years ago. Things have changed since then: strikes come first and bargaining follows which is too often the case. Although some of the claims are really legitimate, there has been lately a certain amount of irresponsibility which is not conducive to the spirit of understanding which ought to exist during bargaining, through illegal strikes if necessary, while trying to exert pressure on the employers at the same time.
I would say, however, that a good many employers and the government as well have not set too good an example in this regard, allowing considerable delays in negocia-tions and thus aggravating the position of their employees for months. Such is the situation with the railway workers.
On two occasions, employees have returned to work hoping for an improvement in their working conditions, but they never obtained what they had been expecting.
Since Parliament has now reconvened to put an end to the railway strike, why not take this opportunity to assure workers-not only those on the railways, but all those whose working conditions come under federal jurisdiction and most of whom are quite understanding-through adequate legislation, of decent working conditions, in order to avoid the continuous conflicts we are witnessing now?
We often find that private enterprises and some administrators of public services make a lot of fuss over the violence which often erupts during disputes, but these people rarely mention the mental and physical suffering which thousands of workers must bear, year after year, to earn a living in difficult and often painful circumstances. A well-balanced legislation should aim at eliminating abuses of this kind. Labour legislation should be written in a clear style to enable union leaders and workers to understand their scope without calling too often on the

services of lawyers who apparently do not need to go on strike to increase their fees.
Union dues could be used more effectively to help individual members in difficult circumstances through illness or accidents, instead of paying for the costs of slow and expensive procedures or finance struggles pitting unions against unions which foster nothing but animosity between them.
Let all legislators draw from the same inspiring sources the salary adjustment grounds that were brought forward at the time of the pay increase for ministers, members of Parliament, senators, judges and some senior officials and we shall thus avoid useless and harmful strikes.
The right to live is derived from a natural right and that right must be recognized long before the right to strike or the right to exaggerated profits and steps should be taken by legislators to provide every one first of all with the right to live. We should have enough clearsightedness to organize an intelligent distribution system for existing goods without resorting to strike when the vast majority of citizens wish to work.
In the present case and in order to promulgate a balanced legislation, we should create a committee secure from undue influences, made up of experienced people, well informed about labour and management problems, including a few experts qualified to provide accurate data on the changes in the cost of living index and determine the bases of wages in various industries, considering all relevant factors whenever a normal production of goods or services is required.
In public services, an arbitration court made up of qualified labour and management representatives should apply a salary adjustment mechanism based on the cost of living index and check-up should be made every six months. Members of such a court should also assume the responsibility of ruling on employee grievances concerning working conditions, and that within a maximum of ten days, and organize a secret ballot system enabling employees to vote freely for the union of their choice and the decisions that should be made.
Let us stop thinking in terms of compulsion when it comes to contributions or arbitration and let us consider rather a fair and just distribution of the firm's profits and of the workers' salaries and peace shall prevail in relations between employers and employees; the solution will not come without some effort, but the current situation compels us to take the proper means, and without delay.
It is imperative to restore the equivalence of the purchasing power on the basis of the needs of individuals and the value of the wealth, considering that physical work tends to be replaced by machines.
The worker is in search of means to live and earn the living of his family; let him be treated in fairness so that he may not have to wander around holding a sign to demand the right to enjoy rights and to bargain for agreements which often become disagreements.


Mr. Turner (London East):: Mr. Chairman, I want first of all to extend my good wishes to the Minister of Labour.
August 31, 1973

None of us in this House envies him the task with which he has been confronted during the past three weeks. He has toiled long and hard and worked night and day trying all avenues to secure a negotiated settlement of the nonoperating workers dispute. No one in this nation can say that the minister shirked his duties throughout this difficult period.
Having worked on the railroad for 27 years, I believe I am very close to railroading. I cannot, therefore, escape taking a very close interest in this dispute, although I pledge to you, Mr. Chairman, that I will be as fair and as unbiased as I can.
The legislation which has been presented to the House represents a starting point from which continued collective bargaining, mediation or binding arbitration can begin. The employees of the railroads will have a lump sum of retroactive pay in their pockets at an early date. I am sure that the negotiations which take place will consider the allegation that the railway workers' wages in past years have fallen below the wages being earned by organized labour in general, working in other industries across this country. I am also quite sure the negotiations will include a long, hard look at the increases in the cost of living which have occurred in Canada in recent months.
The question of job security is another very important consideration which must be given attention in future talks. This item is exceedingly important to the workers' peace of mind and sense of well-being. The announcement which the Minister of Labour made, setting forth an industrial inquiry commission, is essential to the attainment of a good settlement. The costing of pensions has remained central to the negotiations which have transpired. Further, they represent the salary on which one day the employees and their families will have to live.
We have been told for many years that the railways are essential to the well-being of the nation and her people. This fact has once again been proven through the last few weeks, especially during the days of the total shutdown. It is, therefore, also essential that the members of this parliament remember that the railway workers are essential people in our economy and must have the right to a decent living wage, good working conditions, reasonable pensions, and job security.
I think that every member must realize that every hour during which the Canadian railroads remain paralysed worsens the tragedy which is affecting millions of our citizens. Right at this moment more than 1,200 men, women and children are stranded on Cape Breton Island, desperate for transportation to Newfoundland. The establishment of immediate ferry services between North Sydney and Newfoundland must be considered an absolute priority. Crews must be provided to man ferry services immediately. The amount of mental suffering, agony and anguish is already beyond belief.
Western farmers must have their grain shipped to markets throughout Canada and internationally. Interruption of essential transportation links with our island provinces and with Vancouver Island has serious implications. Workers all across the nation are being laid off and great financial losses are bound to result.
Railway Operations Act
All the railway workers realize the hardships their strike is causing. They also know that in terms of dollars per week they do not take home enough money. These workers are responsible people who are only looking for a fair and just settlement without the use of the only weapon which they usually have, that of the strike. Having talked to hundreds of workers, I am convinced that the men and women involved do not like the idea of a strike. All they want is the right to work and earn a decent living wage so they can maintain their homes and raise their families at a decent standard of living.
At the present wage level, I am told, many rail workers do not even qualify for a National Housing Act loan. Mr. Chairman, it is unthinkable that in this great country of Canada many employees in an essential service cannot afford to own the roof over their heads. This is what married life is all about: this is the dream-the right to work hard to save a down payment, followed by the purchase of a home of a married couple's choice and then, again through the process of hard work, to pay for the house and also to make improvement to it, all the while making monthly payments.
I must say that the railway workers are all hard working, responsible citizens. During the war years many of them responded to the call of their king and country so that our way of life would not fall and our right to freedom would be maintained. Also at this time all the railroad unions agreed not to strike. The membership of the non-operating unions, shopcrafts and running trade unions agreed to work longer hours. These were all very patriotic gestures, but since the war all these good deeds have been forgotten. The workers have fallen behind other workers in wages as well as working conditions. Mr. Chairman, these workers, all solid citizens, are working for wages in the lower brackets. I think it has to be said that this group of workers has been very patient since last November and they have waited a long time. I know these men are law-abiding people.
For a moment I would like to imagine something. What I would pretend at this juncture is that I am an arbitrator. What I will relate to you is the way in which I would approach these talks as an arbitrator. First, however, we must note that I am certainly no arbitrator. I am one of the little men. I was one of the men who worked for these meagre wages. I am not a mediator or arbitrator who receives $50 per hour or $250 or $300 a day for the sole purpose of recommending what workers should receive in terms of benefits. However, it does raise the point that I may be in the wrong business.
Maybe, indeed, we should all take a look at the field of labour relations. At any rate, given that I were an arbitrator, I would approach the wage situation as follows. I would work on the principle that the workers' wages should in some way reflect the annual growth in the company and in the economy. I know quite well the growth which has been achieved in our gross national product. I know equally well the growth in revenue experienced by both CNR and CPR. I am also quite aware of the subsidies which are provided to them.
As an arbitrator, and being conversant with management and labour's position in this case, I feel that many of the workers' requests are not unreasonable. The average
26454-24!

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
wage of non-operating railway workers is $3.54 per hour. That is $141.60 per week, with a take-home pay in the neighbourhood of $100 per week for the employee. Some take home a little more and some take home a little less. But you do not need a BA, an MA or a PhD to know that workers who have families to support cannot make ends meet on the wages they are presently receiving. We must remember that $3.54 per hour is the average. Some of the employees work at rates of pay as low as $2.32 an hour. The welders, steel bridge gangs and bridge tenders work for around $4 per hour. If the non-operating workers are so essential, surely they should be compensated for their labours.
As an arbitrator, I would also remember that members of these unions also form part of the general public and the public interest, a phrase members of the opposition parties have bandied about. They are taxpayers, and also heavy consumers. We must never fail to remind ourselves that in our society today, as always, it is the working person whose purchases make the wheels of industry turn in this country. Thus, the money spent by millions of workers filters down to the transportation industry through the hauling of goods that these workers help to produce.
Given the state of affairs I have outlined, if I were an arbitrator I would certainly look favourably upon increasing the men's salaries above that which is being sought as a floor in this bill. However, in saying that I must repeat my earlier comment that I strongly believe the temporary measures and the minimum increase in retroactive pay placed before this parliament represent a fair process through which the railway workers can get a better deal.
In arriving at an exact figure as to what wages should be, definite consideration must be given to the industrial inquiry commission's report on the exact cost of the pension package. The arbitrator will also have to take into account increases in the cost of living. This is how I would act if I were an arbitrator and this dispute were put before me.
I should like to make one point perfectly clear at this time. I feel the bill before us is the tool by which a fair and just settlement can be reached. This bill should facilitate a settlement which is just and fair for the worker. Strikes are not the answer to labour disputes. Both sides, labour and management, in addition to the general public, suffer. If we can send men to the moon, surely we have men in this democratic society of ours who can sit down and come up with an idea that is fair and just to both sides to a labour dispute, so that we can eliminate the problems facing the most precious and valuable asset this country has-its working people.


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I had hoped the Minister of Labour would be in the chamber at this time as I should like to ask him a question. As he is not here, I will address it to his parliamentary secretary. Before coming to the question I should like to say that, speaking on behalf of the non-operating workers in the area of my home in British Columbia, there is no question whatsoever that these workers are badly behind in terms

of wages paid to people performing the same kind of work outside the railway trades.
I will give some examples because the disparity may be greater for those people in British Columbia than in other parts of the country, and I recognize the arguments used that wage settlements have to be on a national scale and applied equally everywhere. All hon. members ought to realize, when considering this question, that there are regional disparities and that an award that may be sufficient in one area is not necessarily sufficient in a high-cost area. This is a problem somebody will have to look at. I hope the minister will do so because I think it will recur.
At the moment, in Vancouver a man working for CP Transport as a warehouseman gets $3.50 an hour, but outside the railway trades a man doing exactly the same job gets $5.05 an hour. A warehouseman-tractor driver for CP Transport gets $3.54, but a man outside the railway trades gets $5.15 an hour. A rate clerk gets $3.69 an hour, but outside the railway trades he gets $4.95 an hour. A CP switchboard operator gets $3.15 an hour, and outside he gets $4.33. If there is a member in the House who does not see that these people have fallen a long way behind, he should see me after my speech and I will give him the rest of the list. They are behind, and something must be done.
The second thing I want to say is this. I hope all hon. members will support the amendments put forward by this party, and I hope all the people who are presently on strike will recognize that this bill, if these amendments are adopted, will at least provide a decent base upon which to continue negotiations. The amendments to be proposed by this party will ensure that negotiations cannot drag on indefinitely.
The Minister of Labour in his statement yesterday referred to the establishment of an inquiry into railway pension plans. As some hon. members know, pension plans in the railway industry have been for a long time, and still are, causing great concern to workers in the industry. Also some hon. members know, an association has been established called the Canadian Railways Employees Pension Association, the purpose of which has been to bring the pension matter to the attention of the public, to the Department of Labour and, I am sorry to say, the leaders and the members of the unions within the railway trades. The Minister of Labour said:
-I intend to appoint an industrial inquiry commission ... to estimate the cost of the negotiated settlement relating to pensions, and comment on any differences between his cost-estimate and that of the railway companies.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the Minister of Labour whether this inquiry would consider the total pension problem within the railways. I am happy to see that the Minister of Labour is now in the chamber. As I understood the minister's answer this afternoon, he suggested he would be willing to have his appointee look at more than just the question of whether the estimate of cost as put out in negotiations to date is necessarily accurate. In this regard I want to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that as recently as last July 27, in a publication put out by the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Railways Employees Pension Association, the position of this associ-
August 31, 1973

ation on the matter of pensions, funding, advantages and benefits was put as follows:
The railway companies and the bargaining agents are all spreading the same propaganda about the new pension formula being a 2 per cent formula. Many of the statements made are misleading. Tens of thousands of railway employees will retire with railway pensions of 1.3 per cent for each year of service, not 2 per cent as many believe.
I am not for one minute saying that is accurate or inaccurate, because I do not know. But I do know that the contributions the companies are making to the pension plan, as opposed to the contributions being made by the workmen, represent a substantial disparity. This is also a matter of great concern. I think it is proper to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that evidently a press release has been put out today by the pension association. I am sure the minister is aware that there are over 20,000 such people in the country. The effect of the press release is that they want the terms of reference of the appointee the minister has referred to broadened so that his inquiry will include all aspects of the Canadian National, and I suppose they mean also the CP, pension fund.
So my question to the minister is, can he give us some assurance that this whole question will be gone into? If the minister does not want to go that far at this time, can he give us the assurance that he will meet as soon as possible, which means almost immediately-and I recognize the demands on his time at the moment-with representatives of this pension group so that immediate negotiations can take place with a view to setting up an inquiry to end once and for all this running sore; because the complaints the pensioners have are justified or they are not? It seems to me-and I think all hon. members will agree-that it is now time to advise these people that the problem will be independently considered and settled.


John Carr Munro: In answer to the hon. member for Vancouver South, may I say that I indicated earlier today to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the very significant improvements that were made to the CPR and CNR pension plans were signed, sealed and delivered, so to speak, in March as a result of a lot of work that had been done. These were agreed to by all the leaders of the railway unions. This was a significant improvement going back to 1956.
What the pension association and some members of parliament, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Vancouver South, are asking is that we now take a further look at the benefits structure and the over-all plans to see whether they can be improved over and above the improvements agreed to in March. That is a quite legitimate suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With reference, of course, to those already retired.


John Carr Munro: Yes, with reference to those already retired. I think this is quite a legitimate position, but I do not think it can be accomplished relative to the bill before us today. I think we would have to go into all sorts of questions. The parties should be consulted in that regard. There is the question of whether it could be
Railway Operations Act
done through a joint committee, something similar to what was done before with assistance from governmental officials, if you like, from my department and the Department of Transport.
If it should appear that is not the best method, then perhaps an industrial commissioner should look into the whole broad question. So, as I assured the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I am now assuring the hon. member for Vancouver South that I would be prepared, as would the Minister of Transport, to bring the parties together to see what further significant changes can be made to improve these pensions.
If this can best be accomplished by an industrial commissioner, I have already indicated that I will consider that. At this stage, however, I do not think this should be confused with what is pertinent now, relative to the dispute before the House, that is, the whole question of costing. As a result of representations made to myself, particularly, by the unions, it seems they had considerable suspicion concerning the costing figures of the CPR and the CNR and asked that these be analysed quickly. If the assumptions of the actuaries, and so on, were accurate and the figures of the company were exaggerated, they wanted it all examined quickly, in the event that an arbitrator is appointed under this legislation, so that he could get the views of the industrial commissioner immediately. This might be very beneficial to the workers, because if they could establish that the figures of the railway companies were exaggerated, the arbitrator could take that into account and it might benefit the workers in respect of wages and other matters in dispute.
This could be pretty important. I can tell you it is very important in respect of the union leadership in this particular dispute. So if we, in a too hurried fashion, impose upon the industrial commissioner who was appointed yesterday, John Deutsch, other duties, we would be very concerned that not enough discussion had gone on and that this might delay his coming to a conclusion concerning the accuracy of the costing that has been arrived at by the CNR and the CPR and would delay the turning over of his findings to the arbitrator appointed under this legislation.
I think we must keep in mind that in the unhappy event, which now seems inevitable, that an arbitrator will be appointed under this legislation, it is important that he get his decision out quickly. If these men are to receive a further increment in wages and have other matters resolved, they do not want the same type of delay that has already occurred. That is the reason for not broadening the terms of reference of this particular industrial commissioner to include the subject about which the hon. member is talking.
I also indicated earlier that in respect of the costing analysis to be done by John Deutsch, I have received representations today as to how his terms of reference can be further improved. I hope to be able to give all hon. members further details on that particular matter later today.

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act


Gérald Laniel: It being six o'clock, pursuant to special order made earlier this day I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The House is again in committee of the whole on Bill C-217. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has the floor.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words in respect of the pension issue. The hon. member for Vancouver South quoted the minister on the pension issue, but it could stand being mentioned again. The minister said:
Consequently, I have appointed an industrial inquiry commission pursuant to Part V of the Canada Labour Code, to estimate the cost of the negotiated settlement relating to pensions and comment on any differences between its cost estimate and that of the railway companies. I might add that today I appointed Dr. John Deutsch to be the industrial inquiry commissioner to conduct this inquiry.
I have respect for Mr. Deutsch. As a matter of fact I served on the Economic Council of Canada at the time when he was chairman, and I find him to be a man of considerable ability. I wonder what role the representatives of the unions will play in this inquiry. Will they have the right and the privilege of appointing members to this inquiry? This is one of the matters which the minister may wish to clarify.
I want to say to the committee that in the time that I have been a member of the House the men who work on the railroads have expressed a profound dissatisfaction with the administration of the pension fund by the CNR and by the CPR. The CNR of course is owned and run by the people of Canada. If the minister or this government think that they can divorce the matter of pensions from the over-all settlement of this rail dispute, then let me tell them that they are wrong.
Let me point out that in the election of 1972 the railroad workers called a meeting to which they invited all the candidates who stood for nomination in the constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar in that year to appear and talk to them. Let me say, for the information of the Creditiste party members, that one of the nominees who appeared there was a member of their party. I may say that being a Creditiste he would have received no cheers if he had advocated the policy which the members of that party have advocated today in the House. They understood the situation all too well.
These men wanted to know what the pension fund was, what their share in it was, and what their benefits were going to be. They no longer easily accept the idea that they are putting money into a fund which they do not control and, worse than that, of which they do not even have an accounting. They no longer accept that sort of approach. Also, they are far ahead of the management of CNR and CPR in that they know it is not necessary for a man to

work until the age of 65 in what is essentially an arduous occupation. They know that it is not necessary. They know that there is a sufficient work force in Canada for them to be able to take a pension at a younger age if they so wish, and that they should be able to obtain the kind of pension which would give them a decent standard of living. They are not prepared to end their days in poverty.
I say all this to the committee in the hope that some hon. members who are not closely associated with the people who work on the railroads may have a greater understanding of their thinking. This is what the railroad workers are saying to me when I meet them. They should have the right to know what is in their pension fund, and they should have an accounting of how much money is available in it because they are putting money into it. They should have the same rights as has the shareholder in a corporation or in a co-operative.
They should know how much money they have put in, how much is available and what rate of interest it is earning, because it is their money. They are not getting this information. If the Minister of Labour institutes an inquiry and if it is not going to bring to these men on the railroad the information which I have described, he will find that they will not be satisfied. They are very sceptical even of the proposal that was put before the general chairman and which the general chairman recommended to the men working on the railways. They may have to accept it, but I tell you that whether they voice that protest or whether they do not voice it they will accept those recommendations under protest. They wanted to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications but they did not have the opportunity to do so because the government did not refer the CNR financing bill to the committee in the last session. Why? Why did it not do that. Why did the government not put before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the matter of CNR financing, so that it could be examined?
Representatives from the constituency of Saskatoon-Biggar wrote to the chairman of the transport committee, the hon. member for Crowfoot, and asked for the privilege of appearing before that committee. They were never given that opportunity, because the government would not put the CNR financing bill before that committee, and that committee sat in idleness. This government wanted it to sit in idleness.
The government did not want public hearings and an investigation into the financing of one of the largest businesses which the government controls. So, that group of railroaders who spoke for pensioners never had the opportunity to come before that committee and say "This is our problem. This is what we think, and this is what we know." They had even arranged to engage a man who was fully knowledgeable in this matter, but they did not have the opportunity to appear before the committee.
The Minister of Transport may again make impassioned speeches, as he did today, and tell us about the nitty-gritty of negotiations, but he has much to learn about railroading. If the government does not satisfy the demands of the
August 31, 1973

men who are working on the railroad, it will be in for trouble.
When you go to Saskatoon people ask, "Why did the CNR sell the hotel in Saskatoon?" We have been given no answers. I wrote to the Minister of Transport 10 days ago, but he did not even have the courtesy to answer my letter and tell me why the CNR sold its hotel in Saskatoon. The citizens of Saskatoon are asking this question. The minister has not answered, I suspect, because he does not know. Apparently the CNR can build a needle in Toronto, but it cannot maintain the single hotel it had in Saskatoon.


An hon. Member:: The city of Toronto got the needle.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The city of Toronto said it would have the needle. I suspect the people there are right. However, that is an example of the kind of indifference displayed both to the railroaders and other citizens in my constituency, and no amount of rhetoric on the part of the volatile Minister of Transport will cover that indifference and contempt which have been shown and which are still evident here tonight. The government will have to do better than that.
As has been said before, the government has brought the farm economy of western Canada to a standstill. Grain is not moving. The elevators are full. Feeder cattle are moving south to the United States because there is no means for moving them east in Canada. The government has slapped export controls on fat beef and pork which would move to the United States, and has not considered what ought to be done now that rail transportation is at a standstill. One wonders if ministers really know what is going on and what the people of Saskatchewan are really thinking. There is a foul-up in the feed grain market, to such an extent that no one knows what the real basis of pricing is.


An hon. Member:: Otto knows.


Otto Emil Lang: It is up 30 cents.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: You know, when we asked the minister responsible for the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture to appear last night, they did not appear.


Otto Emil Lang: Where?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In this House. I am not surprised that the minister did not know that. That is part and parcel of this government's total indifference. It slapped an 18-month freeze on freight rates, without regard for what is to happen, because it was too damn much trouble to consider freight rates item by item, and policies item by item, to see what would happen if certain things are done.


Otto Emil Lang: Are you against the freeze?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It is like the freeze of the Conservatives. They propose a freeze on over-all pricing.


Otto Emil Lang: Are you against this one?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It is like taking a sledgehammer to swat a
fiy-


Otto Emil Lang: But this is not a fly.
Railway Operations Act


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Let me say this about the pension program, Mr. Chairman, if this House can persuade the minister to carry out a full investigation into the pension plan of the CNR, it would be doing something useful. I will tell him what the railroaders of my constituency say and think. They think the CPR exercises a veto over any move that the CNR makes with regard to pensions. That may be true, or it may not be true. I think they are right. That is what those people think, Mr. Chairman. If the minister and his assistant from London, Ontario, do not know this, I am very surprised. I think most of the railroaders know it, and they will tell you if you ask them.
We want to get away from the situation in which a private company which is not responsible to the people, but which has received millions of dollars from the taxpayers of Canada, exercises a veto against policies that this government or parliament may set with regard to Canadian National Railways, which is owned and financed by the people of Canada.
I see that the Minister of Transport has left the chamber. I do not think it matters much. He was not paying attention. Anyway, he does not answer letters. I do not think he gives a damn about what happens in western Canada anyway.


An hon. Member:: Certainly he cares. The government cares.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If it cares, why did the CNR sell the only hotel it had in Saskatoon, eh? How much did the friends of hon. members opposite pay for the hotel? That is what the people of Saskatoon would like to know. When will you tell us how much your friends paid for the hotel? When will members opposite come forward with records, because we are waiting to find out? And do not be so sure that the people of Saskatchewan are going to forget. They are not going to forget. You ignored the people. You refused to put the item before the Standing Committee on Transportation so even that committee cannot find out the facts. You do not want us to know the facts because you cannot bear to see them exposed to the public. I am saying to you in this House what I intend to say out on the hustings, so be ready to answer.
[ Translation]


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my modest contribution to the consideration of the bill before the House.
That bill is designed to bring railway workers back to work as soon as possible, Indeed, I think that the consequences of that dispute have been assessed in many ways, sometimes with partisanship, sometimes very objectively.
I believe, like all hon. members, that it is unfortunate that the government should have to legislate on such a matter. All hon. members nevertheless have respect for the worker, regardless of what some here may think, who believe that they alone are interested in safeguarding the interests of the worker. I think that all members want to give workers their fair share and do them justice. Of course, it is easy to play politics with such a debate. The Standing Orders of the House specifically allow members

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
to make foolish remarks, but they do not have to. Therefore, I shall try not to do so, Mr. Chairman.
I think that we must also consider the growing concern of the people over the dispute. They want to know whether the government has acted in a cautious way at the appropriate time. It is very easy to condemn the government for not having acted sooner. We now have had the opportunity to listen to several hon. members and to acquire certain information. If the government has not up to now adopted rigid positions, it is because it wants to leave this to the responsible parties in the dispute. In fact, I wanted to give them time to explain themselves and to find a solution through the present negotiation process without necessarily coming up with the bill now under study.
On the other hand, I would be tempted to say, if I wanted to act in a partisan way, that the government waited till the population demanded the adoption of legislation to justify its position. I honestly think that if the two parties do not come to an agreement, considering the great difficulties and the inconveniences that this dispute has caused to the Canadian population, it is absolutely necessary that the government should legislate.
Therefore, the population expects action from Parliament and not necessarily from the government. I think this is where the role and responsibility of each hon. member comes into play. What should each member do and what should be the attitude of Parliament? We know perfectly well that the government needs a majority to adopt a bill and I think that, as hon. members, we must consider in a very objective way the interests of society.
Therefore, it is not time to rejoice from the embarrassment that this has caused to the government. It is not a question of finding out if the official opposition could find there some political capital. It is not either a matter of showing, as the NDP is doing now, that the workers are opposed to the bill, which would be close to political partisanship. I think that what is important now is that the people have proof that the members of Parliament are behaving as administrators in the case of a dispute which is so expensive for the country. It is this way, I think, that Parliament will regain confidence from the people.
Therefore, in the case of this dispute, it is the interests of society which must concern us and guide our decisions. I know some amendments will be moved. I therefore appeal right away to hon. members, to the government: be objective enough to accept amendments that can help the workers and do justice to all interested parties.
Now, I feel it is imperative that the government should see the problem in that light. It is also imperative for the parties of the opposition to present amendments that are truly objective and not merely of such a nature as to prove, in an eventual election campaign, that one party was more favourable than another to the employees concerned in this conflict. To my mind, we will not deserve the respect of the people if we do not hold the government responsible for all the difficulties the employees are now up against.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) stated this morning that we are not here to solve the conflict but to bring back order. We also know that this bill will not

necessarily solve the problems of the workers. It will enable the parties to resume negotiations in the hope that they will reach an agreement. It seems to me that through the proposals made on both sides the initial stands of the interested parties can be drawn closer together. I hope that a satisfactory settlement will be arrived at for the employees, as we should protect them. We also know that we should be realistic as regards the possibilities of the companies concerned.
I could also avail myself of this opportunity to blame or to invite the government to watch closely the problems, as stated by the hon. member who preceded me, as far as the pension fund is concerned. I too have seen employees who are affected by this dispute and are far from pleased with this plan. Other employees told me about sick leave, a field where glaring defects exist. Therefore, I shall limit my remarks to those two problems which directly concern those employees by inviting the minister responsible to correct the situation for the good of the employees and bring about the justice to which they are entitled.
Like many others, I am inclined at the outset to be greatly disappointed with the slowness of negotiations; we are naturally inclined to blame the government for its failure to establish negotiation mechanisms capable of bringing those negotiations to an end within the stipulated time. It is hard to accept that a group of workers should have to finance an eight or nine-month retroactivity period. It is absolutely unfair. On the basis of that consideration I stand, of course, on the side of the employees who complain that they have to finance salary increases which come with a year's delay. To what extent have the companies concerned in those disputes benefited by those amounts of money they did not have to spend during those months? They certainly made profits. When the settlement takes place, and I hope it will be acceptable to the employees, there will surely be a retroactivity period, but what guarantee or what compensation will be given, for instance, to the employees who lost a salary increase during eight or nine months? The bill does not mention it and I feel that we should consider the possibility of compensating the employee who has lost money during a certain period. The company has surely collected interest on that money. It is therefore a glaring injustice suffered by the employee. We must ask the government to set up some permanent consultation procedures to carry out the negotiations within the prescribed time.
I learned this afternoon that there was something more important than the negotiation procedures and the information made sense to me. It seems that it is still more important to provide unions with information on productivity; the unions should obtain data on future markets. We are well aware that during negotiations or when a union is seeking a salary increase for the employees of a certain industry, the large companies have the necessary means to obtain data on future markets. It may be that when a company readily accepts a settlement it is in its interest to do so; the union being unaware of that is pleased to see the negotiations concluded in such a short time and feels that it has made a good deal. However, since the company has information on the future market and well-grounded information on the general productivity, it

realizes that it is advisable to sign a collective agreement today, aware that it will make additional profits tomorrow.
I think I am well justified in claiming from the government the possibility of organizing information mechanisms at the union level. Of course, the unions of Ford or General Motors are well enough organized to have research offices. But thousands of small unions do not have enough information to be able to discuss at the same level as the company. And, of course, the unions and the workers are discriminated against.
I think it is important to ask the government for information mechanisms so that the unions be able to discuss, given equal datas, at the same level as the employer. I think that the unions would then have the necessary information to ensure the future of Canadian productivity. We must ask the government to modify the consultation mechanism.
But if we were to limit ourselves to the development of a consultation mechanism ensuring the negotiation of a settlement within the time prescribed without taking the productivity into account, it would be wrong because the unions do need this information at the production level.
And the information that has been given to me on the subject allows me to believe that it would be of great help to the unions, to the employee, if they were given the same information as the employers.
1 felt I had to rise in this debate and since I want to be very practical and very brief I would also like to ask the government to give particular attention to subsidies granted in respect of railway transport. I know that those subsidies are necessary. The freeze on rates was put into effect but we know that there are two means of transport in Canada, rail and trucking.
Recently the president of the Quebec Trucking Association, Mr. Archambault, made his views known to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I have here a clipping from a newspaper which gives details on the subject:
In his letter to the Prime Minister Mr. Archambault stresses that the government must not favour a policy which boils down to "two different sets of weights." If Ottawa subsidizes the rail industry every time there is a strike or a labour dispute it will have to grant the same privilege to trucking companies when they are faced with a work stoppage or tough bargaining.
The people of Canada actually have two modes of ground transport, rail and trucking. To subsidize only one mode is to prejudice the other.
The Quebec Trucking Association is asking the federal authorities to "put an end to the exclusive privileges granted to railways." It adds that the current situation should not lead to further paternalism in that field.
So I think it is important to point out that request made by the Quebec Trucking Association. That association and its members who drive the trucks are also entitled to some security.
Of course, the government must consider the subsidies necessary to maintain the rates at their lowest level but, if it does not want to have problems in the field of trucking, it must also grant that industry subsidies allowing it to compete with railway systems.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that I had to make those comments and to be practical I say that I agree with the bill
Railway Operations Act
even though I regret that the government is forced to follow that course of action. I hope that the railway workers will understand the necessity to resume operations and that they will respect the legislation that we will adopt within a few hours.
I hope also that the bargaining process which will follow the passage of the bill will produce a satisfactory and acceptable minimum. And because we have been summoned to discuss that legislation and that apparently Parliament will sit again next week to deal with the cost of living increases, I will keep my comments for next week.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make that brief comment with the hope that the government will pay special attention not only to a legislation calling back workers to work but that it will invite the executives at the bargaining tables and that the minister will improve some imperfections and unfairness in respect of those employees.
If hon. members show the objectivity that the population is waiting for and is requiring, I believe that the government will have taken the right step. If it has not enough motivation, it will effectively obliged to do so. But I hope that the government will not wait for that. Through the co-operation of all members, and with the proper objectivity, we will succeed in suitably improving the lot of those workers.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I regret again being here to order the railroad employees back to work. This is not the first, but the third time I have been here on such an occasion. I find this occasion even more distasteful than the others. For the past seven or eight years, and during the last two in particular, the government has shown absolutely no interest in the railroads, how they operate, their financial structure, pension plan or anything else.
The contribution made by the government to the railroads in Canada has been the addition of a relatively small number of hopper cars to the rolling stock in western Canada and the introduction of a new ferry here and there. I am sure the government and members of the Liberal party who sit on the transport committee have concluded that the railways are not very important in the national scheme of things. Yet when the railway workers go on strike for two or three days there are cries from all parts of Canada about grain piling up, about shortages of food, about people starving.
I was very interested in the comments made by members who come from Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. I have been to both of those islands. They are very attractive. Certainly, the people who live there try to sell the idea that they are very attractive. Yet they have been raising hell because people who went to visit those islands found that their stay has been extended. I would have thought that the hospitality of the islanders was such that they would make these people welcome and enable them to pass a very pleasant stay, rather than having all this fuss.
The railroads only become frightfully important when something happens to prevent their operation. Few mem-

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
bers of parliament have shown the slightest interest in the fact that maintenance of way crews have been largely removed. They have shown little interest in the fact that seldom a day passes when there is not an accident on one of our railroads, that seldom a day goes by when there is not a derailment somewhere or other simply because the railways are being poorly operated and because insufficient maintenance of way personnel are employed.
In most cases the companies have got rid of five out of six of the section gangs, the people who used to walk the rails to determine whether it was safe to run trains over them. Now they run an inspection trolley over the lines twice a year and this process decides whether or not the rails are safe. Nobody cares a damn. Nobody cares about the accident rate. Nobody seems to care about the railways at all. The government spends a lot of money in Rockcliffe establishing a STOL airport so that people can fly between Ottawa and Montreal, despite the fact that a train could travel from Ottawa to Montreal much faster than passengers could make that journey by aircraft, counting time taken for travel at both ends.
But nobody cares. Nobody is interested in the railway. Nobody seems interested in the fact that the railways are not carrying passengers any more, that we are not using the railways to the best advantage. Nevertheless, when there is a strike, everyone gets alarmed and the CPR calls in its friends, the government, to do something about it. The companies are not interested in negotiating. Indeed, the workers have not been interested in negotiating on occasions. I think it can be said in connection with some of these contracts that the union has been willing to drag its feet hoping the government would make a decision.
Most members of parliament have not looked at the financial statements of the two major railways. Today they are making money hand over fist, just as the banks are. They are making a fortune. The government has not even asked us for the money needed to pay the interest on the CN debt for the last two years. Maybe the company is making enough money to afford to pay the interest without the benefit of legislation.
There is another problem which parliament has not faced, and it has to do with pensions. Other agencies in Canada have been told that in order to be acceptable for income tax purposes, a registered pension plan must be vested. This has not been done in the case of the Canadian National. We have said to the CN, "Just put in an IOU." The company borrows the money paid in by contributors and invests it to do all sorts of things which are not necessarily in the interests of the workers.
I have heard a number of people say they have helped to negotiate contracts. Everybody knows all about the way in which unions or companies should be run, when it comes time to settle a strike. That is not important. But what the Minister of Transport said today was important; and if he thought it was important, why should we not act along the lines he suggested? He said we should allow the unions and the companies to negotiate, that they should use the strength they have. The financial position of the railroads is not bad at the present time.
So far in this debate we have listened only to those who say we must get the railroad workers back to work. Nobody has mentioned an alternative. In my riding there

are railroaders employed by the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific and the Ontario Northland Railway. These people are interested in running the railways, but they are also interested in achieving some dignity while they are working for these companies.
Let me give hon. members some figures. In 1950 the Ontario Northland Railway employed 2,500 workers. Today it has less than 1,600 employees. Its pension plan is fully vested. The government of Ontario has made a commitment to put in nearly $1 million a year in addition to other contributions to the plan. But check the figures contained in the financial report of Ontario Northland and you will find that the average wage of all the employees, including the supernumerary people in Ontario, all the hangers-on in the Ontario Railways Commission, is only $8,500 a year: and some of the supernumerary people are getting between $35,000 and $40,000.
There are many in my area who make less than $4,000 on the railway. No one can say this is a reasonable amount of money to earn. I agree there comes a time when the public interest becomes so important that one has to override principles. I am sure there are few women who, if they were offered enough money, would not put principles behind them and take the money.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I might have overstated the position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: The argument I was trying to put forward is that there is a point at which all would agree that a settlement should be arrived at. The suggestion I make is that we have not yet arrived at that point; we have not allowed negotiations to continue up to that point. If we decide to satisfy all the people in this country who believe that the railways are important and that the railways should run, we must do better than the workers would have been able to do for themselves, because we are asking them to do something on behalf of the public which they themselves did not want to do.
I have talked with many railroaders and I know they want to go back to work with enough wages so that they will again be in a position to hold up their heads in their communities. There was a time when railroaders were the top blue-collared workers in Canada, but that is no longer so. Many of them earn less money than a garage worker, a plumber or an electrician. In fact I am sure that in many cities these men earn less money than a garbage collector.
We represent the people of Canada and the people have an interest in this strike. I suggest that before we pass this piece of legislation each member should consider increasing the amount that is proposed. When the non-operating unions began negotiations many months ago they put forth a number of proposals they felt were fair and just.
These people have suffered as much as anybody else from the high cost of living, and I suggest that whatever
August 31, 1973

we give them should be accompanied by a guarantee over the lifetime of the contract so that at the end of 1974 their standard of living will be maintained. I am sure this would be salve to my conscience as well as to the consciences of the people of Canada.
The people of Canada are not opposed to the railway workers getting a fair deal. What they are opposed to is the inconvenience they have been put to in relation to the operation of our national transportation system. I am sure they find no satisfaction in the fact that this government has had to recall parliament to ask for a piece of back-to-work legislation which provides only the minimum sought by the workers when they prepared their proposals probably 18 months ago.
I suggest that if parliament wants to be fair to the Canadian public it will accept the responsibility of putting these men back to work on the terms we propose in respect of wages, with a guarantee that their standard of living will be maintained to the end of 1974. The only way that can be done is including an escalation clause based on the cost of living, and I am prepared to move such an amendment.
Within 10 or 15 years in my area we have lost 1,000 of 2,500 employees of the railway, and seniority is now a major issue. These men want to be sure of their jobs. I do not think this is a matter that should be left to compulsory mediation or arbitration. I believe we should solve this problem.
I am prepared to say that for humanitarian reasons, if for no other, there should be two men in the caboose.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


William Arnold Peters: I presume the hon. member disagrees. I can remember when trains only had 40 or 50 cars, but now trains have as many as 80 or 90 cars. These trains operate with as many as four units. They are being operated with one engineer, probably one fireman and a head-end brake-man. They have one guy in the caboose. The railways now want to get rid of another man on each of these trains. I suggest for humanitarian reasons there should be two in the caboose, because that guy a mile back has to stay there for seven or eight hours.


An hon. Member:: Give him a tape recorder.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I hope the railroaders hear these remarks and realize how much sympathy they will get for their solitude from members of the Conservative party, who probably now feel there are too many people in the caboose. I suggest they are discounting the safety factor. The best they can do is suggest we give that man in the caboose a tape recorder.


An hon. Member:: Let's settle the strike.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Get out of the caboose.


William Arnold Peters: These men in the caboose will get little comfort from a tape recorder. An hon. member suggests that we should settle this strike at any price. He reminds me of Chamberlain who said: "Peace at any price". An
Railway Operations Act
hon. member wants peace at this time at any price so he can go home, but I suggest this is too important a problem. Parliament should not pit constituents across Canada against workers employed in this industry. We must not only be fair, we must appear to be fair. In fact, we must be more than fair.
We have a responsibility to solve these problems which face the railroad worker, one of them being this matter of seniority, and another relating to the number of men in each train crew. A great many non-operating employees have lost their jobs through attrition. In my area I suggest this would be four out of five, and I am sure that is the situation in many other parts of rural Canada. I think this reduction of crew through attrition has reached the point where safety becomes an important factor, particularly if there is to be any further reduction in this area. Members of parliament should be better informed before making decisions in relation to the curtailment of railway staff. This is not the time to make such a decision.
This government has not placed the CNR annual report before parliament for consideration. I suggest that until the Minister of Finance gets off his fanny and appoints some new auditors, and places an audited statement before parliament, we will not get around to discussing these problems. Such a consideration might have been of assistance to the railways and the workers in this situation. I will not be satisfied with this legislation until we provide a guarantee to the workers that they will be no worse off in 1974 than they are after we pass this bill. As it stands now we will have implemented a contract by law, and will have taken from these workers their process of labour negotiation. Any settlement less than what I suggest would represent a shirking of our duty to those constituents we represent across Canada.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4: Railway services to be resumed.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak briefly in respect of Clause 4 as it has a specific application and concern to those who represent the two island provinces on the east coast of Canada.
I was very delighted when the Prime Minister, making his speech to the nation earlier this week, referred specifically to the extreme transportation difficulties faced by Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. I was somewhat less delighted when the Minister of Labour in making his opening remarks in this debate yesterday did not make reference to the particular difficulties created in those two provinces.
Earlier today one of my colleagues from Prince Edward Island asked the Minister of Transport, who unfortunately is not here this evening, whether we have now seen the last of these disastrous strikes and the specific effects they have in those island provinces. During my term here in parliament, which has not been that long, we have twice experienced the serious effects of a dislocation created by a strike by workers providing basic transportation services to and from Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
I think it is incumbent upon this government, in addition to the reply by the Minister of Transport earlier today, to give an undertaking to the governments of both Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island-which by the way, acted in a very similar manner in respect of the suspension of basic ferry services to those provinces-that in the succeeding weeks and months a definite agreement will be worked out with these two provinces so that they will not in future be faced with the kind of strikes that cause serious economic harm not to just one segment of the society in either of these two provinces but in a total way. It has been mentioned already in the newspapers and, I believe, in other ways that the premier of my province is taking court action to sue the federal government for its failure to continue service between the mainland and Prince Edward Island. I understand that similar action is to be taken by the government of the province of Newfoundland.
While this action shows in fact the seriousness with which these two governments view the suspension of service, I think you will understand Mr. Chairman, that it is not the basic requirement. What we must arrive at in the very near future is a solid agreement which will for ever and a day prevent a situation arising again where service can be totally disrupted. In the case of Newfoundland we see a situation in which it is virtually impossible for there to be any service in respect of goods or persons by water, and one does not have to conjure up much imagination to realize the disastrous economic effects being felt at the present time in that province.
My province of Prince Edward Island is not faced with a total blockage by water, because we do have the private service operated by Northumberland Ferries. However, the main Canadian National operation between Borden and Tormentine has been suspended. There is not only the problem that the suspension has gone on now for some days, but also the fear of that suspension which has been felt for over a month. One cannot describe the effect in terms of millions of dollars of business lost in our second largest industry, the tourist industry, plus the related effects to the farming and fishing industries and the effect this has on the other industries within the province.
I would suggest that at a very very early date the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport convene a meeting with responsible officials from the government of Prince Edward Island, as well as with representatives of both management and unions of the railways, to work out a new format and a new structure that will prevent this kind of disastrous result that is felt in particular by these two island provinces.
It is perhaps a truism to say that by the terms of confederation both in respect of the province of Prince Edward Island-which ironically is celebrating its centennial year of confederation this year-and the province of Newfoundland which is celebrating almost 25 years of confederation, a basic fundamental agreement was to continue transportation and communication with the mainland. That fundamental agreement has been destroyed. We must, in the context of working out the particular problem that affects the non-operating and other employees of the railways of this country, deal with the specific and very

difficult problem concerning the ferry operations to Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.
I would invite, in particular, the Minister of Labour to make a commitment this evening that as soon as we have dealt with the immediate crisis concerning the non-operation of railways that there will be convened at the highest level a meeting of himself, the Minister of Transport and responsible officials from the governments of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and the railways, in order that we may arrive at a structure and method whereby we will not have to see an individual group of employees suspend the vital transportation link to these island provinces.
I do not think I would be a responsible member of this House if I did not receive that kind of commitment from the Minister of Labour and his colleague. Without that commitment, this kind of approach to end this crisis is merely a band-aid approach in respect of a fundamental problem that has become increasingly recurrent in the last two decades. In 1950, in 1966 and again in 1973 we have seen the kind of serious harm that results to the economy and society of these island provinces when there is in effect no continuous transportation or communication link between these provinces and the mainland of Canada.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to the hon. member. I realize, as does the government, the tremendous inconvenience and indeed suffering in many cases to Prince Edward Island, the hon. member's home, and of course Newfoundland. I think really what the hon. member is getting down to is that he wants some assurance that a strike will not occur. In essence, that is how I interpret the hon. member's remarks. If he wishes to tell me otherwise, I will listen. In other words, he wishes assurance that a strike will not occur in those areas where such service is so essential to the survival of the people of islands such as he described.
We have already had some debate in this House in respect of how we can deal with strikes in essential services. I think the hon. member's leader indicated he would set up an essential services disputes commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: There have been other remarks in respect of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition relating to the Mills task force study. It might interpose various stages, but ultimately it comes down to the question of whether we are prepared in certain specific cases to deny the right to strike and impose compulsory arbitration.
No matter how we clothe it, and no matter how edgy we might be in respect of this fundamental question, I can answer the hon. member right now by saying yes, we could correct that situation assuredly so that it would never happen again. The answer to that type of question, some people would be prepared to say, is compulsory arbitration. In that way there could be assurance that there would be no suspension of essential services in terms of transportation to Prince Edward Island.
However, the hon. member's party is not advocating compulsory arbitration. No party in this House advocates compulsory arbitration. This points up the necessity that
August 31, 1973

there must be another answer than compulsory arbitration in dealing with some of these very essential areas which are involved, without denying the right to strike. In other words, the right would be there but the motivation for its utilization, hopefully, in the future would not be there.
Some time earlier I suggested in respect of a question asked at the time we were talking about bringing back parliament that we ought to bring together a group, when this trying matter is over, in which labour would be adequately represented, in an effort to come up with a technical answer other than the standard ones we have been hearing today. I do not believe an essential public services disputes commission, or the method the Leader of the Opposition was talking about in respect of the Mills study, is the answer because it is clear that it may involve, when it is essential and necessary, compulsory arbitration. There is no sense hiding this fact. The Leader of the Opposition has reached no other conclusion, and neither did the Mills study, concerning how you can ensure services which are necessary, as the member has described, when such serious consequences result from their disruption.
No one has come up with any other solution as yet, to ensure that such a situation will never happen again, other than adopting compulsory arbitration as a last resort. I am suggesting that there must be some other solution. I think the government is aware of this. When the strike is over we are prepared to give some study to this whole matter. What I am saying to the hon. member is that I do not think at this stage the solution offered by the hon. member's party, or the one in the Mills study, is the type of answer that can give the hon. member an assurance for eternity that this will never happen again.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be wise to clarify a couple of points so that the minister firmly understands what I am talking about. I think the minister was trying to go from A to Z without stopping at a number of intermediate points. I asked him specifically whether he would see to it that the high level meeting arranged between himself and his colleague, the Minister of Transport, and responsible officials in the two provinces as well as union representatives of the railroads, takes place.
I think it is very clear, for instance, that in the situation of the last two strikes with which I had some contact, a very large part of the ingredients of the walk out in effect in Prince Edward Island was its being tied into the national strike situation which, in many ways, was not directly related to the situation as it applied to the ferry operation in PEI. We should look at that carefully to see whether another kind of arrangement could be made. This does not mean that we should be asking particular employees in this service to forego the right to strike.
Second, I think we have to consider these two provinces in a totally different category from that of the national railroads. We have already taken certain steps with respect to essential services, whether these be with regard to the armed forces or the RCMP. When we look at a service that affects the whole economy of a province, I do not think we should look at it in the same light as we
Railway Operations Act
would look at the railroad situation as it affects one of the other provinces where there is a variety of means of transport.
All I am saying to the Minister of Labour at this point is that now we have to realize, having gone through this situation three times since 1950, that we must not put these two provinces in the same jeopardy again. In order to achieve that purpose I think the minister must give an undertaking that in the course of the next few months we will work out a new structure which will prevent the same situation from occurring again, not in total terms because we know we cannot prevent it in total terms, but to go a good deal beyond the present situation which is merely a bandaid approach.


John Carr Munro: I hope to achieve that.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Egmont and in so doing to ask the minister, or the Prime Minister, who is at present in the House, whether the government, consistent with the constitutional responsibility that it has to maintain ferry services between the mainland and these two island provinces, will directly take over the operation of these two essential services, in view of the fact that the ships which provide these services are owned by the Department of Transport?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about subclause (3).


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I directed my question to the Minister of Labour.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The minister did not rise and the Chair recognized the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. I think we could come back to the hon. member for St. John's East afterwards.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to paragraph (a) of subclause (3) of clause 4 which sets out the conditions that the railways must observe when employees go back to work, if and when they do, following any settlement that parliament may choose to impose on them. I am concerned that justice be carried out in any settlement that we achieve. I was a little shocked, and indeed surprised to hear the Minister of Transport say earlier today that what we should be concerned about was a settlement, and that equity or fairness was not a prime consideration in spite of the fact that ordinarily in contract negotiations between employee and employer the matter of the power that rests in the hands of either party is the prime consideration in the type of settlement to be achieved.
I say that since the matter has been put into the hands of this parliament we must be concerned with justice and equity. We are dealing with this matter because of the failure of management to bargain with its employees. Management has failed in its responsibility to its employees, and to the people of Canada by not providing them with the service that they need, because in each case the railroads have a virtual monopoly over the type of service which they are giving to Canadians.

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
I think the employees have suffered enough and we should ensure that they get fair treatment when they go back to work.
I do not know whether the House in general is aware of the attitude of the Unemployment Insurance Commission during this strike. More than one worker has telephoned me because as an individual he was thrown out of work and, although he was not directly involved in the labour dispute, he was denied any opportunity to collect unemployment benefits, despite the fact that he had been unemployed for two or three weeks and would probably continue to be unemployed for at least another week. He was denied unemployment benefits despite the fact that he had consistently paid into the fund.
We have the spectacle of the Unemployment Insurance Commission deciding that it would treat all the people who were connected in terms of work with the two railway transportation systems as though they were in effect out on strike, when in fact many of them were not on strike at all. It adopted a blanket approach.
I question the right of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to adopt a blanket approach. I thought the commission was responsible to each employee because he paid into the fund and therefore was entitled to be treated as an individual. However, this government does not treat people as individuals but rather as a mob. That is what it did with people who were thrown out of work. One worker telephoned me and said: "I do not have a job any more and probably will not have one any more".
I think that this clause does not adequately protect those persons because it refers in paragraph (a) to workers who went on strike, but I am also concerned with those who are idle as a result of the strike, that is, who are idle involuntarily. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia:
That paragraph (a) of sublcause (3) of clause 4 of Bill C-217 be amended by inserting after the word "Act" in line 25 the words "or were laid off as a consequence of the strike".
I would say that if the minister responsible would see fit to incorporate this of his own volition, it would be acceptable to me. My purpose is merely to see that this protection is contained in the act.


Gérald Laniel: At this time I will put the amendment. The amendment is as read by the hon. member.


Mr.   Muriro@Hamilton East: Mr. Chairman, I might add that there is considerable merit in this amendment. I fully realize the intention of the hon. member to protect those who were laid off as a result of this strike. In many cases they were not strikers themselves, but were either with the trainmen or the shopcrafts. Many non-ops were laid off who were not part of the selective strike and who lived in some other geographic region.
Although the amendment has merit, I think it can be improved, After we examined the NDP amendment we thought that a second part should be added to it. I suggest that the following words should be incorporated. We could stand the clause and return to it after we have had a chance to consider the amendment, which might read:

That no such employees shall again be laid off by any such railway company as a consequence of any such strike.
In other words, even though we may pass the hon. member's amendment this may happen: a person who has been laid off may be called back for a day and then may be laid off again. I think, as a consequence of our amendment, he could not be laid off again. If the clause could stand until we have had a chance to do some checking on this particular wording, we could move an amendment along these lines. I take it that the NDP would agree. In that case, this amendment would apply not only to subclause (3) of clause 4 of the bill but to the other lay-off clauses further on in the bill. The NDP has given advance notice of their intention to move amendments to these clauses.


Gérald Laniel: Is it agreed that we suspend discussion of the amendment put by the hon. member and thus give the minister time to draft the appropriate wording? We could come back to the point raised earlier by the hon. member for Egmont and the hon. member for St. John's East.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, we think the amendment is reasonable and we think the minister's suggestion is reasonable. We are prepared to wait until the minister has had a chance to examine the clause and submit an amendment of his own.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear, as do other hon. members, that we are just standing the amendment. I understand that would leave the clause open for further discussion. I hope that is the case, because I have another proposal to make with respect to another part of the clause.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member read the mind of the Chair. The Chair feels that other hon. members want to discuss generally the subject matter of clause 4, and by standing the amendment and coming back to it later I think we would not prevent hon. members from participating in debate at this stage.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise another matter somewhat analogous to that put forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. It relates to railway workers some of whom were on strike and some of whom were laid off as a result of the strike. It flows from an experience that railroad workers went through in 1966 following the passage of the law that time. The wording of subclause (1) of clause 4 is almost identical to the wording that was contained in the act of 1966. That related to the resumption of operations. In that sense the wording was identical. That is what I want to talk about.
In 1966 we discovered, following passage of the law that required the railway companies on the coming into force of the act to resume operation, and required every employee then on strike to resume the duties of employment, that although the railway companies resumed operations the law did not require the railway companies to call their employees back as soon as the companies had resumed operations. In 1966 we found that although the railway companies resumed operating the railways, some
August 31, 1973

employees had to wait days and even weeks before being called back to work.
That action stemmed partly from the attitude of the railway companies to further-I apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for splitting an infinitive-penalize railroad workers. I do not think this parliament should stand for that sort of activity. I do not know if that was an oversight in 1966, but that was the result. Inasmuch as the wording in this clause is identical to the wording in the 1966 bill in part, I think we should insert a provision that says that not only shall the railways resume operations on the coming into force of this act, but that the employees who were on strike and those who were laid off as a result of the strike should not be further penalized but should be called back to work at the same time, immediately. The companies should not allow this matter to drag on for weeks.
I apologize to the minister, to the Chair, to members of the official opposition and others who may be concerned, for my having only one copy in handwritten form of my proposed amendment. I prepared it as I was looking at the clause and thinking of what happened in 1966. Perhaps I could read it slowly so that the minister can grasp it. If the amendment is acceptable, perhaps we could set it aside for further drafting. The amendment proposed is as follows:
That subclause (1) of clause 4 be amended by inserting between the words "suspended" and "and" in line 5 thereof, the following:
"and shall call back for employment every employee as soon as the operation of the railway is resumed-
Please notice that I use the word "employee" as distinct from "non-operating employee" who might have been laid off as a result of the strike. The subclause, if the amendment were accepted, then would read:
Forthwith upon the coming into force of this act, every railway company shall resume operation of the railway and subsidiary services the operation of which is suspended-
Now comes the amendment.
-and shall call back for employment every employee as soon as the operation of the railway is resumed-
Now I revert back to the clause as it is.
-and non-operating employees shall resume the duties of their employment with the railway companies.
If the minister would accept that amendment, I think it would alleviate any sense of frustration and feeling of antagonism on the part of people who were put out of work. They feel that they are being further discriminated against just as they were in 1966.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, clause 4(3) directs the company to take back all those who have been on strike and allow them to resume their duties. It requires that they be given their jobs back. Even if their job is guaranteed, however, it does not say that they will be able to commence work immediately the act comes into force. If we insist on being that specific I think we will find that a great many employees whose jobs are guaranteed will be idle. I might add that not only now, because of the act as it is, is the job of the striker guaranteed, but in the amendment that is coming with respect to lay-offs the company must call all of them back and not lay them off
Railway Operations Act
again if the lay-offs have any connection with or are a consequence of this strike.
There is protection now in terms of jobs for all those who were laid off, and all the strikers. The only difference here is that the company would not be required to call the men immediately, but gradually, while under the proposed amendment every employee, whether laid off or on strike, is to be called back immediately. All the evidence that is at our disposal and that, I am sure, is within the knowledge of the hon. member and his party, indicates that there will be a tremendous number of men standing around for a few days with nothing to do until things get rolling again. I think that could lead to a somewhat ludicrous result.


Frank Howard: I know the minister wants to accept the principle that I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman. He talks in terms of a few days, but in 1966 we saw that stretched into a few weeks in many cases. Examination of the attitude of the railway companies in 1966 showed that at the community level, where the railroad workers dwell, there were cases of discrimination by the company; they delayed the resumption of duty by some of their employees who went on strike, just to penalize them. That should not be permitted this time.
The minister says that it may not be possible for the railroads to commence operating completely the day after the act comes into force. He mentioned "a few days". I wonder if he could spell that out as a number of days and put something in the clause to ensure that it is a reasonable length of time. If it is left wide open as it is now in the act, I can foresee the same situation developing-and things are going to be difficult enough as it is. Could the minister go along with that idea?


John Carr Munro: Yes, if the hon. member is-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Before the suggested amendment is put, I think I should put the debate in order procedurally by reading the amendment as it would be before the committee officially, not only in the words of the hon. member for Skeena. I shall read the amendment to the committee so that it will be in the name of the Chair instead of in the name of the hon. member for Skeena. It is moved by the hon. member for Skeena:
That subclause (1) of clause 4 be amended by inserting, between the words "suspended" and "and" in line 5 thereof, the following:
"and shall call back for employment every employee as soon as
the operation of the railway is resumed"
The hon. member for St. John's East rises on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, we do not have a copy of the amendment before us, and consequently cannot address ourselves to it except to suggest that perhaps the minister and the hon. member for Skeena could get together on this matter. Our position on the original amendment moved by the NDP is that we believe that no employee of the railways should suffer punitive action or reprisal as a result of this strike.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the hon. member for Skeena that we have already an amendment that guarantees jobs for those laid

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
off. There has also been some improvement suggested to the NDP amendment, and the hon. member agrees that the wording in his amendment is very restrictive: almost every employee would have to go back immediately. I am sure the hon. member has not tried to create a ludicrous result, but to ensure that they would go back with reasonable promptness and without the delays experienced last time. Perhaps we could stand this clause and some wording could be worked out with reference to the hon. member's suggestion. This would also give us an opportunity to strengthen the lay-off section.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The suggestion is to stand the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys is seeking the floor and I wonder if he wishes to speak on these two amendments only, or on another point; otherwise I think we should wait until we come back to these two amendments and the solution which might come back to the committee.


Mr. Muir:: Mr. Chairman, I tried to get your eye on a couple of occasions but was not successful. However, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and the hon. member for Skeena to some extent brought out what I had in mind. Even if we are to stand these proposed amendments, I think we must have something more concrete than just the minister saying that it would be ludicrous, or that we cannot say everyone has to go back to work and there would be nothing for them to do, etc. We must have something more concrete to provide protection for these men.
Clause 4(3) provides:
No person acting on behalf of a railway company shall (a) refuse to permit, or authorize or direct another person to refuse to permit, an employee who went on strike before the coming into force of this act to resume the duties of his employment forthwith-
I have been around here for quite a long time, Mr. Chairman, and I have heard lawyers talking about legal terminology, the meaning of terms such as "may", "shall", and "forthwith". Perhaps the minister could tell us just what "forthwith" means. Does it mean one day, two days, ten days, five days? In the past, in cases where there was a pretty rough foreman or superintendent, sometimes a worker was never taken back to work. I am informed that in certain areas now the word is out from foremen and supervisors to this effect, "We are going to fix you. We had 64 employees and now we are going to get along with 40." Much as we may dislike the situation, now that it has been introduced into this chamber we are responsible for what takes place. Are we going to arrange it so that these men go back to work one day after the act comes into force, or are they going to be tagging along for several weeks, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Skeena? Indeed, in some instances where there is a personality conflict or a clash of some sort, the worker will probably not get back. The minister has said that the workers would be standing around doing nothing. From my knowledge of the CN there is plenty of work to be done around the yards and the stations. If they want to get the work done, and have excess labour for a few days, they can easily find work for them.
[Mr. Munro (Hamilton East).)
I think it is the duty of the minister to tell this committee during the discussion on the amendment just what he means. He is speaking now on behalf of the government. Are these men going to be penalized? Are they going to suffer? Are they going to be discriminated against? Are those who went on strike on a certain day going to be working the day the trains get moving again? Are they going to be called back as soon as everything gets moving? I suggest that they should.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated that it is the government's desire to protect all the strikers, all those laid off. It is also our desire to see that not only are their jobs protected, but that the railways, which are ordered by this legislation to resume operations immediately, act with promptness to bring these men back on the job.
One of the protections in the bill is ordering the railways, as soon as this bill comes into force, to resume operations immediately. The legislation guarantees the jobs of the strikers and of all those laid off as a consequence of this strike. They will be brought back with reasonable promptness. Their jobs are protected.
It is certainly the government's desire not to leave any employee open to discrimination or to prevent him from getting back his job reasonably promptly after this bill is passed, and after the railways get back into operation. We can attempt to devise some wording that will cast a burden on the railways to act promptly.
I wish the hon. member would appreciate that we cannot very well come up with wording that imposes an absolute obligation from the minute this bill comes into force to bring every single solitary person back. It will take a considerable number of days before the railways can be in full operation just as they were prior to the commencement of the selective strikes. I am cure we can devise some appropriate wording that will be satisfactory to the hon. member who just spoke and to the hon. member for Skeena. That is why I suggest the clause should stand to see what we can work out.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a suggestion. This illustrates the points that have been made here before. There are 264 tried and true men and women trying to write legislation. I stood with 12 lawyers and 12 politicians trying to draft proposals. I know how difficult it is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I should say lawyers and would-be politicians. I suggest that the minister and his officials exercise their ingenuity and try to come up with a general covering clause, something to the effect that no person acting on behalf of the railway company shall allow, or permit, any form of discrimination to be exercised against any person who has been on strike who lost his position temporarily by reason of the strike. If you do that, you cover everything. If we try to cover every case without a covering clause, we will be in trouble. We will be here all night.
August 31, 1973


John Carr Munro: I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. The act already prevents discrimination. The problem is the promptness in bringing back the people. With our ingenuity I think we can devise some wording that will be satisfactory to cover the whole thing.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about management being the big bad guys. The real problem is that this government and this minister refused to take the responsibility of preventing this strike.
We have heard a lot about the men on strike. They may wind up not having a job. For five weeks the railways have not been in operation. Alternative methods have been found to ship goods. Do we expect the railway to take on people it no longer needs? Should it be a great big feather bed?
It is about time the government started talking about the people in this country, the lost business, lost trade, and everything else. This government did not bother with its constitutional responsibility. It has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that transportation exists between the provinces. This government has not come up with any subsidy for the businessmen, the tourist industry and others who have lost their shirts because this government could not fulfil its responsibility.
Let's get down to reason. Let's get these railways operating again, but let's not have a great big feather bed to protect everybody forever.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I was glad to hear the last speaker make the comments he did. They were certainly revealing to any person who stands up in this House and says he is really concerned about the workers.
I just wish to point out that the security of jobs for these men is very important. We must consider what was done in 1966 in terms of calling the men back to work. I am sure there are many things to be done to get the railways back in operation. These men have been standing around not doing anything for the past five weeks. It will be some small compensation for the company to pay these men, even though they may not be doing anything for the next two weeks, waiting for everything to get rolling again.


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: Is it agreed that clause 4 be stood at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: Clause 4 will stand at this time.
Clause 4 stands.
On Clause 5-Terms of collective agreements amended.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, we have a very important amendment to clause 5. Our amendment is consistent with the views put forward in the House today by my leader and the views I put forward in the House yesterday on behalf of my party. Very simply put, we believe that the very least that the unions should have as a basis for operation is the real rate of inflation that exists in the country at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Railway Operations Act


James Aloysius McGrath: As a consequence, I move the following amendment to clause 5:
That subclause 5(1) of Bill C-217 be amended by striking out the word "thirty" where the same appears in line 39 on page 3 thereof and substituting therefor the word "thirty-four", the word "five" where the same appears in line 1 on page 4 thereof and substituting therefor the words "six and one-half", and the word "three" where the same appear in line 6 on page 4 thereof and substituting therefor the words "one and one-half".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on clause 5 and the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John's East. It was said in this debate last night, and again today, that we are not legislating a settlement. What the government has in legislation is a minimum base package below which future arbitration cannot fall. I should like to suggest as strongly as I can that the base package proposed in the legislation is neither just nor fair. It is not sufficient. I know there is concern in the minds of many members, particularly those on my right, lest we become involved in some sort of bidding game. I want to avoid this as much as they do.


Gérald Laniel: May we have order, please? It is very difficult to hear what the hon. member is saying. This is an important piece of legislation and the co-operation of all hon. members is desirable.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for York South gave notice yesterday of our feelings on this point. In spite of remarks made by the Minister of Transport about the difficulty of knowing what is fair or just, I see no reason why members of the House should not form an opinion for themselves and be ready to express it. We have taken on this responsibility. What we are doing is legislating at least this minimum package.
We have heard much about the national interest-how it ought to be placed above an individual interest or the right to strike in any kind of service, public or otherwise. I submit we cannot allow the principle of public interest to be subverted by legislation which is unfair, legislation which compels people to go back to work on a basis which is unjust. I assume all members of this House are reasonable men and that they wish to be fair. This is not a bidding game to see who can get the most cents an hour for the non-operating unions. I hope all of them will listen carefully to the recommendations of Professor Weldon and his reasons for making them, and then come to the conclusion that they are not unreasonable.
I submit that the Canadian public does not expect parliament, in the course of protecting the broad public interest, to be unfair to the smaller number involved in this labour dispute. I am sure my good friends in the official opposition who have sat with me on the transport committee for the last five years know whereof I speak and that they would agree with me when I say the proposals made by Professor Weldon are fair and just. They represent, I submit, the least we can do by way of a base package in our back to work legislation.
Let me remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the union demand of November 1, 1972, was 55 cents an hour for 1973 and 15 per cent for 1974, plus some premiums for shift

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
work. It is perfectly true that Professor Weldon was the union's appointee to the conciliation board. What he recommends, however, is substantially less than the nonoperating unions demanded of the railroads. Professor Weldon recommends 10.79 per cent in the second year of the contract and 38 cents an hour in the first year of the contract, and he does so on the following grounds: 5.45 per cent of the increase represents the inflation factor. Note, this is not the inflation factor arrived at by the non-op unions or by Professor Weldon himself, but the inflation factor arrived at by the Time magazine board of economists, and one would hardly call them a bunch of raving radicals. We all know that inflation at its present rate will amount to 7 or 8 per cent in 1973.
Professor Weldon also recommends a further 3.34 per cent to cover productivity increases-not those related to the railways, which are in the neighbourhood of 6 per cent, but the national productivity increase which the same economists put at 3.34 per cent. Surely hon. members will agree that this is reasonable. He also recommends a further 2 per cent in each of those two years for what the trade union movement and the non-op unions in particular call a catch-up.
There is little disagreement with the claim that the non-operating unions have fallen behind those engaged in comparable industries, that their position has worsened with respect not only to workers in the manufacturing industry but with respect to their counterparts in the United States. Professor Weldon measures this discrepancy as being around 6 per cent. He carefully recommends that these workers get 2 per cent of the 6 per cent in the current year and a further 2 per cent next year. Hopefully, they will be able to negotiate the remaining 2 per cent in a future year.
Mr. Chairman, would you be good enough to ask my colleagues to soften their conversations so that you can hear me?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Again, I would invite hon. members again to co-operate with the Chair, even those standing behind the curtains, by asking them to make as little noise as possible so we can hear one another, and at least so the hon. member who has the floor can hear himself and get the impression that he is being listened to.	,


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my usual kind and soft manner I am trying to be as persuasive as possible. I would remind the hon. members for St. John's East, Moncton, that railroad town, London East, Crowfoot, St. Boniface and others who worked on this subject of transportation in committee over the last several years, of the discussions, and the information we had received long before Professor Weldon submitted his report.
Professor Weldon's recommendations are substantially less than requested by the unions, but they amount to 26 cents per hour, over two years, more tha.. :s provided in this bill. As was said earlier today, I think this is the least we can do to ensure that we legislate the end of this emergency. What is more important, I submit, is the fact that Professor Weldon's proposal is necessary to ensure

protection to the broad public interest, and to ensure that we are being just and fair to the railway workers of the country.
This suggested award would cost the consumers of railroad services and, or, the taxpayers of this country something in the order of $8 or $9 per capita in each of these two years. I submit to hon. members that this is a reasonable price to pay for good and efficient rail service. More important, this is a very reasonable price to pay for the provision of fair and just treatment to these employees we all agree are so essential. That is not an unreasonable price to pay in order that we be fair, just, and properly reward these essential, trained, conscientious and efficient workers.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish to move a sub-amendment as follows:
That the amendment be amended by striking out the words "thirty-four" and by substituting therefor the words "thirty-eight", and also by deleting all the words of the amendment after the words "thirty-four" or "thirty-eight", as the case may be, and substituting therefor the following words:
"and by deleting all the words after the word 'Part' in line 1 on
page 4, and substituting therefor the words 'by 10.8 per cent
effective January 1, 1974'".
The clause with the sub-amendment and the amendment would then read:
The terms and conditions of each collective agreement to which this Part applies are amended forthwith by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1972, as established by or pursuant to such agreement, by thirty-eight cents per hour effective January 1, 1973 and by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1973, as established by or pursuant to such agreement and pursuant to this Part, by 10.8 per cent effective January 1, 1974.
The remainder of that clause would be deleted.
May I close this portion of my remarks by appealing to hon. members on both sides of the House to decide that this amount is the least we can provide in order to be fair and just to railway employees while serving the broader public interest in ending this emergency situation created by the interruption of our rail services.
Nobody can suggest that this amount is unreasonable. Those on the management side of negotiations have literally agreed that this is not an unreasonable position. May I repeat, for the benefit of my hon. friends in the back corner here, that we are not interested in some kind of a bidding game and do not want this bill to fall into that situation. We have moved this sub-amendment and I can only wish that the hon. member for St. John's East had suggested these figures. We have moved the sub-amendment in a further attempt to persuade members in all parts of the House that this is a more fair and just piece of legislation than originally proposed in order to send our railway workers back to work.
If anyone can point out any unreasonableness in this proposal, or show in any way that it is excessive or inflationary, I would be glad to hear from him. I would invite the Minister of Finance to indicate how it is unreasonable, unjust or excessive.
One might expect that a union appointee to the conciliation board would bring down a higher amount than was suggested. I think the fact that he did not is further
August 31, 1973

evidence that this board was very careful, and that Professor Weldon made a reasoned study of this whole matter.
My own personal feeling is that the chairman of the conciliation board came up with his figure because it was half way between the other two, but did not make the effort that Professor Weldon made. When one looks at the differences in the thicknesses of the two reports it is not hard to realize that Professor Weldon devoted more time and effort than anyone else on that board.
May I close by urging hon. members not to subvert the wider public interest by legislating unfair and unjust wage conditions on those railway workers we are sending back to work.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Hon. members of the committee have heard the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, we now have the amendment from the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. He is indicating Weldon at 10.8 per cent, I take it, and is recommending Weldon the second year between 10 per cent and 11 per cent. We anticipate from the Conservative Party 34 cents for the non-ops in the first year which, if you want to translate it into percentage points, is about 9.6. They have developed their rationale for that. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has developed his rationale. I understand that before the night is over the Social Credit Party will have its variation in respect of what the wage package should be. This is briefly where we are now. We are engaged in an auction while the strike is on. Every party will have its varied and different position with regard to what it feels is just.
The hon. member asked me what I felt was fair and just. It is not for the government or myself to determine what is fair and just in this particular case right here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Surely what is for us to decide in Parliament is how we can inaugurate a process, the best in our imagination, to guarantee a fair and just result in terms of wages and all the other rights. Perhaps in answer to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre when he asked me whether I consider Weldon-I think that is how he put it-at 10.8 per cent is a fair and just determination, I should say I do not know. Maybe in the view of others, the chairman, the companies and so on, who were involved in all the hearings to which I was not a party, it is too low. Also I might add maybe it is too high. But that is not the point that we are here to determine. We are here to determine what is the fairest and most equitable process by which we can guarantee that the non-ops, the shopcrafts and the trainmen after final determination, undoubtedly by an arbitrator, can get a complete package in terms of wages and the other considerations that will be in the hands of the arbitrator we are talking about.
There is the question of job security. We have talked about pensions. I will have suggestions later tonight in terms of amendments to guarantee improvements in these particular areas by special reference to the arbitrator,
Railway Operations Act
letting him know that this Parliament wants him to look at them. There are other ways to do it. We could have a special reference in the legislation directing the attention of the arbitrator to certain areas which concern parliamentarians.
The non-ops are concerned about catch-up. The allegation is that their basic rates are too low and that percentages do not favour them. Maybe there is some validity to that. However, that question is not on the floor of the House for us to determine. There can be a reference to the arbitrator to look into questions of this kind and make his determination. In the meantime we have the chairman's report in each case as the base. If we pay that now, the workers will receive it retroactively based on that recommendation. They will get it while the arbitrator is at work.
However, in respect of all these other questions as to whether the base rates are too low, whether the relationships between the non-ops and other groups is correct or not, and whether the levels between the non-ops and other occupations of the railways are equivalent to other similar and analogous classifications in the private sector, these are all questions which surely, on the floor of parliament, we are not qualified to determine. We can ensure by reference to the arbitrator that consideration will be given to these questions.
I said yesterday, on the introduction of the bill, that I would expect automatically that the first thing the arbitrator would take into account would be the cost of living since the date of the conciliation report. So, why do we have to negotiate this on the floor of the House? We now have the bidding system in respect of 34 cents and 38 cents, and we have not yet studied the suggestion of the Social Credit Party. Why do we not let the arbitrator decide it?
I wonder whether anyone has considered the implications of what might happen in terms of labour disputes relative to this parliament and labour disputes falling within federal jurisdiction. By the time this bidding system is over tonight, and if there should be a variation of the procedure in the bill, I would try to convince all those people who believe in free collective bargaining that the procedure in this legislation is the best defence against the advocates of compulsory arbitration. I will tell you why.
If we start negotiating on the floor of this House, and making our own subjective judgments instead of leaving it to the other process, then the worker may decide that he can get a better deal from the parliamentarians on the floor of parliament. Why then should he go through the conciliation process and receive a conciliation chairman's report which often forms the basis for the settlement arrived at later? The parties to the dispute may say that parliament is prepared to enter the picture and make suggestions. I think in this way we would have added another step to the whole process.
The parties involved may say: let us go through negotiation, through mediation and through conciliation, and then let us go to parliament on them all. I would think that those who advocate the bidding system here should in the future be fair and honest enough to accept some responsibility if this should be a start down the road to many more labour disputes coming to the floor of parlia-

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
ment, particularly when they should be settled outside parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Let those who advocate the bidding system tonight also take on the responsibility if there are more strikes which are pre-conditioned to be determined on the floor of parliament and if this should involve compulsory arbitration-and sometimes we hear this-let the people who are part of this bidding system take the responsibility for compulsory arbitration, something which none of us really want. I think this is the first disastrous step toward that end, and I think we should stop it right now and get back to the fundamental issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: If all parties concerned are convinced-and I am sure this is a reasonable thing to ask-that an arbitrator will be appointed, one who is a fair and reasonable man, he can then take into account all the factors and all the points that were made. He can look at Hansard and the arguments that have been advanced, the concerns of parliamentarians and of everyone else, and no doubt he will do that. That is also one of the fundamental guarantees of a fair and equitable settlement outside of parliament, the only place where it should be made.
There is no sense in my repeating these remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: There is no sense in my repeating what this may do to the whole bargaining process, how it may lead to further disputes winding up on the floor of parliament, with each parliamentarian proposing a new variation and making subjective judgments with respect to further disputes that will wind up here in the future. Are the Conservative party and the NDP going to influence the conciliation board chairman with respect to one or another dispute?
I think that the step we are taking tonight is a very serious one indeed, and I believe that my party, and the government of which I am a member, are prepared to stand behind the principle that is embodied in this bill. We are in opposition to the amendments which get us into a bidding system, with the disastrous results which I have described.
I want to assure hon. members that I am not one who, during my involvement in political life, has ever been unsympathetic to the workers, especially the group of workers at the low end of the totem pole. Never in my political life have I been opposed to their interests.


An hon. Member:: Except now.


John Carr Munro: What I am ensuring is that they have an 8'/2 per cent floor and 30 cents instead of 34 cents or 38 cents.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why 30 cents?


John Carr Munro: Because Mr. Justice Munroe recommended it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is this immutable and forever?


John Carr Munro: No, not immutable, but because he made that determination and because under the bill we can appoint an arbitrator who can take into account all the wage considerations. If you want to talk about the non ops, who are the main concern in the amendment, perhaps the arbitrator will come to the conclusion that more than 34 cents or 35 cents should be given, but it is he who should make that determination and take into account the differentiation in the cost of living since Mr. Craig Munroe's report of July 13.
I also want to point out that we do not want our position nor do I want my position to be interpreted as meaning that somehow we are opposed to these workers getting more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: It is quite the opposite. Any effort that I have made was to assist the parties in arriving at a settlement outside of the House which in my view, had it been successful, would no doubt have resulted in the workers getting more than is proposed in the bill. I am now saying it publicly that, in my own judgment, I feel that that might have been the result. But it was not, and we are here, and I think we should follow this line because otherwise we will end up in a hopeless quagmire when it comes to the resolution of future labour disputes.
For those reasons I think I have the support of my party, and I believe these amendments, and the bidding system which started off with the 34 cents and the 38 cents, should be rejected by all hon. members.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a word because I have been over this ground earlier today. I will repeat my understanding and my approval of the fact that we are not here to try to write a collective agreement, and certainly we should not be involved in any bidding or auction game, or anything of that sort.
I want to emphasize that with regard to the second year of the agreement the change that we are proposing is a change which gives the non-operating unions the same percentage increase, as good a deal or no worse a deal, depending upon one's point of view, as the other two unions. It is not justifiable to ask non-ops to go back to work on a poorer settlement in percentage terms for 1974 than the other two parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I doubt that there is any real difference of opinion about that so far as 1974 is concerned. So far as 1973 is concerned, we are simply prepared to support a determination by parliament that the rate of inflation for 1973 has exceeded expectations by that per cent, and it is on that basis that we are recommending the 4 cent increase. But I want to say that that is the only departure from the recommendation of the chairman of the committee that I am prepared to support. Therefore, I am not prepared to support the subamendment recommending 38 cents, and I will be voting against it.


Jean Marchand: Why?
August 31, 1973


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Because in my judgment we are not here to effect a settlement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are here to put a bill to the House that will get the railways operating on a fair basis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Your bill is not a settlement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, in clause 5 of this bill we come to the nub of this legislation because it sets forth the financial terms upon which we will require some 56,000 non-operating workers to go back on the job pending future compulsory arbitration. The government is forcing parliament to go through a ritual dance which would be a charade if it were not a tragedy.
For 25 years in this country there has been no genuine process of collective bargaining for railway workers. The railway workers have had hanging over their heads, like the sword of Damocles, the knowledge that if they went on strike the government of the day would convene parliament and force them back to work. The railways have known that, and have used that for their own sinister purposes.
The railways have never bargained in good faith. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, who is the hon. member for London East, himself has said that the railways have not in this case bargained in good faith. They have always known that if they dragged their feet and delayed reaching a decision, the government would call parliament together and force the workers back to work.
What we are facing in this country at present is a contrived national crisis in which the railways have deliberately brought about a situation where the public is being deprived of essential services, where the economy is being dislocated, and where the public is demanding that the strike be brought to an end by some means or other. That is why this entire debate is a charade, because the real process of free, collective bargaining does not exist in this case.


Peter Reilly: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister said that there will be certain implications if the amendment or subamendment are accepted. I submit there will be implications if they are not accepted, because the railways will know once again that if they refuse to bargain in good faith in the future, and precipitate a strike, the workers will once more be sent back to work at a basic wage which is acceptable to the company, even if it is not acceptable to the workers. If the minister, who says he wants to preserve the process of free collective bargaining, is sincere, the best way he can demonstrate that sincerity is by putting into this bill a figure which will be acceptable to the employees, and the railways will not be so quick in future to precipitate a
Railway Operations Act
situation which will require parliament to send men back to work.
Why does the government not do this? We listened to a fine demonstration of rhetoric on the part of the Minister of Transport. This proved the adage that no one is so vehement and enthusiastic as a recent convert to the establishment. He asked, "Who knows what is a fair settlement?" Tonight the Minister of Labour got up and said, "We are not here to make a fair and just settlement." He said he does not know what is a fair figure at which to send the men back to work.
I point out that the Minister of Labour has in his possession all the records of the hearings of the conciliation board and all the advice of the officials of his department, of the conciliators and of the mediators; yet he does not know what is a fair settlement. No wonder his intervention was such a disaster when he tried to bring the parties together. Both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour say, "We cannot negotiate this matter on the floor of parliament." The Leader of the Opposition even said that we cannot draft an agreement. Mr. Chairman, this is precisely what we are doing, and the government will not deceive anybody with this kind of rhetoric.
What is the government doing? It is asking this parliament to take from a group of men the right to withhold their labour, and to send them back to work at a figure set by parliament. The only other recourse available to those men is to go to an arbitrator, who is unknown, and who will make the final decision as to what their incomes will be for 1973 and 1974.
Is there any other group in Canada whose income will be dependent on a bill passed by this House and on the decision of a single arbitrator? Will any arbitrator set the price of cars sold by General Motors? Is anybody going to say what people should sell a television set or radio for? Is any arbitrator going to decide what the fees will be of lawyers, doctors and insurance agents in this country? Is any arbitrator going to decide what interest rates will be charged by the banks?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Under this legislation the government is asking parliament to send men back to work at a figure that is not acceptable to them, and to leave the final disposition of their income rates for 1973 and 1974 in the hands of an arbitrator. I submit that if the government is to ask this parliament to deprive a group of workers of their basic rights in a free society, we have an obligation to put into this legislation a guaranteed minimum that will at least be acceptable to them. It may not necessarily be all they want, but it ought to be acceptable to them. We must then hope that the arbitrator will give them some additional income in order to compensate them for having lagged behind steadily for the last 15 or 20 years.
The Minister of Labour says that we are now engaged in a bidding contest. This is not a matter of bidding. The question which faces this committee of the whole, this parliament, is twofold. First, what is a minimum, just figure which ought to be given to these men in return for compelling them to go back to work?


Mr. Railton:: Do you not want them to go back to work?

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member asks if I do not want them to go back to work. I want the men to go back to work, and the best way to get them back is by treating them fairly and justly and giving them a wage that is fair and just, and this bill will not do it.
The minister talked about bidding. We are not talking about bidding. We are not talking about 55 cents; that is what the employees are asking, but the non-ops have indicated they would be prepared to go back to work on the basis of 10.8 per cent in 1973 and 1974. Surely that is the very least they ought to be given.
I agree that here, in the House of Commons, we cannot deal with job security and the pension plan. That is too complicated. We may be able to discuss these matters in some standing committee of the House at a later date. Yet when we are legislating, surely we have the responsibility to legislate a figure that is acceptable to these men.
I do not agree with the right hon. member for Prince Albert who talked about an attempt to blackmail parliament, since I think the officials of the non-op unions were quite right to tell this government what their attitude would be before this legislation was passed, and to say that they are perfectly certain they cannot sell the provisions of this bill to their union members. They would not have been fair to us or to the people of Canada if they had not expressed their views.
I remind the Minister of Labour that this is not a matter of bidding. This is a matter of finding a figure which is not only fair and just, but which is also acceptable. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink; or, as John L. Lewis said many years ago to President Roosevelt, "You cannot dig coal with bayonets." You cannot force men to work against their will. Ever since the day when Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, no one on this continent has been compelled to work against his will.
The railway system is so essential that this parliament is ordering men back to work. If we are going to order them back to work let us do so in terms that are not only acceptable to the men but are acceptable to the Canadian people.
I want to tell the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport that they will live to regret the speeches they made today, and the Liberal party will live to regret them. Not only do the men who are affected feel that the offer made in this legislation is too low, but that is also the reaction across the country. Read the newspaper editorials-get the reports coming in from all over the country which show that the public is convinced that these men are being treated shabbily and that parliament is being asked to use its muscle to impose an unjust settlement.
I want to remind the Minister of Transport, who said this morning "You can't change this thing when you get into committee; we are not going to start changing it in committee of the whole." The President of the Privy Council will recall that in 1966 the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson brought in a similar piece of legislation to send the railway workers back to the job. He made certain proposals in that legislation, but when it was pointed out to him in the House, and in committee of the whole, that the figure was unacceptable, unfair and unjust, the gov-

ernment of that day brought in an amendment and raised it. The result was that the legislation passed and the workers accepted it.
If the government is prepared to accept the figure of 10.8 per cent that we are proposing for each of the years, 1973 and 1974, I think the House would accept it. I think the country would accept it and, most important the workers would accept it and get back on the job. That is the principle task that faces this House-to get a settlement that the workers will accept.
[ Transla tion]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately it would seem that this extremely important debate will go on and on but the situation remains. We have been called back for an emergency. However, after having heard the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), it is my duty to speak at this moment and to define certain issues that have been raised.
Mr. Chairman, when we were recalled at a moment when the rotating strike had become a national crisis, people were speaking of the isolated Maritimes provinces, of industries that could not get supplies. What happened? We were recalled here to tell the 56,000 workers "the negotiations have failed, mediation has failed, arbitration has failed and now you will go back to work". And on what conditions? These conditions are set forth in the government bill itself.
The Minister of Labour seems to have forgotten that it is not Parliament that has established the rate of 30 cents or the 5 or 3 per cent. The Minister of Labour should know that it is not the members who have put that in the bill but that he did it himself with his senior officials.
Mr. Chairman, in this manner, the government admitted the power of Parliament to amend this bill, to improve it, because the goal of this Parliament is to establish justice in this country and therefore we submit that we have the right to amend the bill.
If the argument of the Minister of Labour were logical and according to procedure, it would mean that the only power Parliament has is to say to the ministers and to the government: Yes, we approve entirely of your bill. Now, if such were the case, Parliament would no longer be a democratic institution, the hon. member would no longer represent the true interests of the Canadian workers, including railwaymen, and that would mean a total waste of time on our part.
Mr. Chairman, the minister would like Parliament to ratify all of the failures of mediation, of negotiation and of arbitration. Now I do not know what the other parties will do but I know that, for our part, we are here not only to see that 56,000 workers will go back to work, but to stand by an ideology in which we firmly believe, namely that every Canadian citizen should have the right to live decently, to earn a living under healthy and acceptable working conditions. And if the renewal mechanisms concerning the collective agreement, mediation and arbitration have failed to work, it means not that those workers tried to overdo it, but merely that those mechanisms are out of date, that they no longer can cope with the requirements of labour and that it is extremely urgent to modern-

ize the negotiation mechanisms so that Parliament will no longer find itself in a situation like this one.
The minister has been referring to some kind of bidding and said: The Progressive Conservatives want this figure, the NDP want a different one and the Social Credit Party still a third one. Mr. Chairman, we are not trying to outdo others here. It is our duty as members to do what bargaining, mediation and arbitration should have done, and if those processes have failed, Mr. Chairman, it is for the Minister of Labour to improve them rather than to blame members who really want to discharge their duties.
Mr. Chairman, that is why our party intends to propose an amendment later through one of my colleagues. That amendment will not be intended to do one better than others. It will be moved consistent with the philosophy of the Social Credit according to which each Canadian citizen has a right to be reasonably well off and it is the primary duty of the government to ensure an honest living to Canadians whether or not employed. And it is not because 56,000 workers in Canada have decided to improve their lot that we will behave like sheep, that we will approve the government and tell them to return to work without doing them justice. Our primary duty is to do justice to those workers without forgetting all the while that justice should extend to the whole country.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is not in the House at the moment. Perhaps he is calming his frazzled nerves behind the curtain. Perhaps he needs to, because he has been through a very difficult period.
I should like to remind the minister that when he castigates members of this House for becoming part of the auction system and part of the bidding system, he himself started the bidding. One of the difficulties with his bid is that it is the low bid. In my view it is the kind of bid that will be unacceptable to most of the people who are concerned in this labour dispute.
The men may go back to work-some of the men may go back to work and some may not. My riding is affected by the strike in negative ways as there is a poultry industry, a dairy industry and a cattle industry there, and the feed situation is difficult at this time. I am not going to go into details because nobody is in the mood to listen tonight anyway.
We seem to be locked into a fixed position, but the amendment put forward by the Official Opposition may very well be passed. I certainly intend to support it. I am only sorry that I have to support it if our amendment fails. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition, by being "responsible", has seen fit to grant these men nothing to catch up after 25 years of being behind.
These men were once kings of the road. They were number one in the industrial world all across Canada. Because they have been put into this position they are now twenty-seventh or twenty-eighth. Why? They are in that position because they do not have access to what is guaranteed to other workers-free collective bargaining.
Railway Operations Act
What are we doing? We are legislating them back to work under a system of compulsory arbitration, for the good of the country. We know they must go back to work. However, what kind of a situation are we placing ourselves in if we, as responsible legislators, legislate 56,000 or even 156,000 bitter, resentful men who are trapped in their jobs, many of which are lousy, back to work because they are essential?
The patience of these men is exhausted. If the Minister of Labour does not know that by now, he has no sensitivity about the feelings of these men and the dynamics of the situation, certainly in my part of the country. Some people have talked about 38 cents. We are part of the auction. Give them the world. Give them a buck. Give them anything because you support organized labour. However, that is not the case. A CNR switchman with a wife and two children in my riding, working full time, would be better off on welfare. That is the situation. What has a man like that got to lose by not going back to work? He has a lousy job, lousy working conditions, a lousy pension and no security. Are you going to appeal rationally and reasonably to people who are being pushed around like this?
I want the strike to be settled. I want it settled with the minimum of fuss. I want reasonable justice for these men. To try and avoid fuss would be wasting everybody's time. If you avoid a fuss, there will be real trouble. It is not just wages. These men are being subjected to kangaroo courts. They do not have any grievance procedure. They have company spooks with them on the job.
I humbly submit to the Minister of Labour that we are in trouble. A very serious situation is brewing in the railroad industry all across Canada. No one can be blind to that. The minister has sent people out there to look into the situation. The minister was powerless before, and tonight he is again powerless.
I do not advocate disobeying the law. However, I am not going to vote for any resolution, motion or bill that will send these men back into the situation they have been in for the past generation. The former minister of labour, the hon. member for Verdun, says there will be more flexibility. This means that if you are earning 30 cents you might be able to go up to 37 or 38 cents. However, if you are at 38 cents, there is no flexibility. Are all these people going to be driving Cadillacs next week if they get 38 cents? That is nonsense, and everyone knows it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: This session an opposition member is chairman of the transport committee. Do members know what has been brought before the committee so far this year? Nothing! This country is crippled because of transportation problems, but nothing has been referred to that committee. Why not? Because the chairman is an opposition member. Because someone had the temerity to move that he be chairman, the committee did not get anything to consider. The committee did not get the CNR financing bill. How is the CNR being financed? Every year the CNR financing bill, which involves $500 million or $600 million, is trotted out. We have not seen it this year. Where is the CNR annual report? We cannot have it. The committee wanted to travel throughout western Canada to look at

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
some of the problems. Were we permitted to do that? No. We might have headed off this sort of strike. Many members of parliament could have been considerably more knowledgeable about the dynamics and injustices of this issue if we had had that opportunity to travel.
Obviously, the CNR is not going to let down the CPR. The CN is a Crown corporation. Or is it? I do not understand the niggardly position of CN on wages and, for that matter, pensions. The top pension for a retired CN employee, 65 years of age, is $228 a month. What is it for Air Canada and the public service? It is $322. What happens when we talk about pensions for these people? Usually there is talk about some scandal, or the funds having been invested at very low interest rates. Why does CN not want to pay higher wages? It is because they are trying to maximize the return to the bond holders. We do not know who are the bond holders.
The CN is in the unusual situation of being its own transfer agent. We know that 42 per cent of the ballots are held privately. The only other corporation in that situation is Ontario Hydro-and look at the fun they have been having lately. In the past two years, $59 million was paid to private bond holders. They expect a settlement might cost that or even a little more. Are these shares going to the pensioners or are they going to retired school teachers, the Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Royal Bank, the Banque Canadienne Nationale, TransCanada Pipe Lines, or insurance companies?
The CN might have started originally as a trusteeship to liquidate the Grand Trunk debt and the debts of other little railroads. However, this situation was changed in 1960. We are here to protect the advantages of Canada. I am not sure whether the preoccupation of the CN with its bond market satisfies that intention. Neither will the niggardly, pitiful proposal of a 30 cents increase do that. That is not in the best interests of Canadians: all members of this House should realize that. Members should vote for the subamendment. I hope that some kind of sanity will prevail here sooner or later so that we can get this country back on the rails.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, there should be no question about why we are here tonight. We are here tonight for two reasons, first, the failure of the government to deal with inflation and, second, the failure of the Minister of Labour to settle the dispute. We are not here to participate in any bidding game. Since the report of the conciliation board was brought down, since the report of the chairman was delivered to the Minister of Labour on July 13, inflation has run rampant in this country and as a consequence my leader, whose remarks were misrepresented by the Minister of Labour tonight, has taken the responsible attitude he ought to take as Leader of the Opposition by acknowledging that fact.
The Minister of Labour talks about the opposition participating in a bidding game. The fact of the matter is we accept the arguments put forward today by the Minister of Transport but we feel the government does not recognize the gravity of the inflationary situation we face. The Minister of Labour failed to take that factor into account. Incorporated in the bill presented by the government is a

report of the chairman of the conciliation board. I agree with the Minister of Labour that this is the report which should be before the House tonight because we, as parliamentarians, have no business settling this dispute. We should accept the report of the chairman of the conciliation board because he is supposed to be neutral. But we have a responsibility to protect the workers of this country from the effects of inflation, and this is what we are trying to do by way of our amendment.
We put forward our amendment as a responsible amendment. We go one step further and try to narrow the disparity which exists between the non-ops, the shop crafts and the trainmen. This is why we have "upped the ante" for the second year. We cannot and will not accept the sub-amendment put forward by the NDP because they are in fact engaged in an auction game, and theirs is an irresponsible move.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that we moved our amendment as a serious amendment in the honest conviction that, notwithstanding the failure of the government to recognize its responsibility, we have a duty to protect the workers of the country from the effects of the spiralling inflation we now face.


John Paul Harney: I must admit, Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat impressed by what the Minister of Labour apparently intended to say, but I was stunned by one phrase he used, a phrase which apparently he did not intend to use. He referred to the crisis which is before the country now as being a labour dispute. I submit it is prejudicial to refer to this conflict as a labour dispute. It is a dispute between labour and capital; it is a dispute between employer and employees. It is not a labour dispute. It is most important for members to recognize that it takes two sides to tangle. Surely, if we allow this kind of thinking, as exhibited by the Minister of Labour, to form the presupposition for the reasoning we use in order to settle such disputes, we obviously will always come down much more heavily on one side than on the other.
This is why, in this kind of legislation, which is an aspect of bargaining, we say three things. First, to the railways: You will operate the railways forthwith. Second, to the workers; You will go back to work. Then, to the workers again, we say this: You will go back to work at a certain rate. But because of the attitude of mind built up in so many of us we have failed to tell the railway companies that they must operate the railways at a certain profit and no more. What would be so irrational about doing this? If we can legislate workers back to work and tell them we accept a certain payment, why should we not look very closely also at the operation of the companies, and their profits, and what they are doing in terms of the savings of the Canadian people invested in their enterprises?
I rose, really, to establish just one point. It concerns the right of the House of Commons to make an act of judgment in this matter. The government initiated this act of judgment by calling us all back and presenting us with a bill containing a number of specifics having to do not only
August 31, 1973

with a money settlement but with other important matters.
For example, the bill contains a clause which says that the wage settlement shall apply retroactively. It could have been presented to us without such a clause. This was an act of judgment on the part of the government. It was also an act of judgment to specify a minimum rate as a basis for further negotiation and arbitration.
The Progressive Conservative Party presented its own act of judgment. It said the government proposal did not go far enough. I do not care whether they call it an adjustment or what they call it, they are simply saying: you are not paying these men enough. We in this party reserve the right to do the same. Our view is that the settlement is niggardly. Our view is that we have the power, the right and the duty to discuss this settlement fully, including the question of wage rates.
I listened carefully to the Minister of Transport this morning. It was hard to avoid listening to him carefully, he was so eloquent. He spoke to us with candour, with intensity and with fervour, as well as with considerable logic in relation to the unimportant bits and pieces of his speech.
I respected him for addressing himself squarely and clearly not only to the parliamentary situation in which we find ourselves but to the real nature of the conflict between management and railway workers. I notice that the members of the Official Opposition applauded the minister's speech enthusiastically. I do not think they applauded because they liked him more but because they liked us less. It was fairly obvious that the minister was tearing a strip off us this morning. I suspect he realizes that the only effective criticism of his position can come from this quarter of the House and not from hon. members to my right.
We are all bargaining, and let us admit it. The government party put in the first bid; the Conservative party put in the second bid, and we are putting in our bid now. The Social Credit party will put in their bid in other kinds of money. But we are all bargaining. We are all judges and we, in turn, whether the Minister of Transport likes it or not, will be judged by the people of this country.
Unfortunately we are here not only as employers but as arbiters; we are the judge and the jury. This is why members of my party have advanced the very correct thesis that it is totally invidious for parliament to be in this position.
I should like to say to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport that if they do not think parliament should be involved in bargaining, the choices open to them are simple; not to call parliament back, or to do the kind of thing the right hon. member for Prince Albert did back in 1961, that is, not to bargain but to tell the people to go back to work. This is a very cruel but logical kind of procedure.
What I am stating is very simple. The logic of the government's position has to be followed through to its conclusion. Once having begun the process by bringing us back and by placing the bill before us, it must accept the
Railway Operations Act
validity and the necessity of continuing the bargaining right here and now.
I do not know how I could possibly add to the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. I cannot find the words from my own repertoire so I will do a little bit of quoting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Paul Harney: A number of years ago one of North America's foremost social critics, Paul Goodman, wrote in a book called "Growing Up Absurd" that we have a cockeyed way of distributing remuneration for work done in our society. He set forth three very simple principles which describe the way we pay people in our society, not the way we ought to pay them, and he said that the more the work is hard, the more the work is necessary, and the more the work is in the public realm, the less people get paid.
This is certainly the case when we are dealing with railroad workers. Perhaps there are some people who work harder than they do, but I doubt if you will find work that is more necessary than theirs. Their work is certainly public, and they are the very people in every case that we put up against the wall.
I discovered a little bit of cant in the speech of the Minister of Labour in his use of the term "labour dispute," but we are all guilty of using cant in these matters. Many of us have said: "Well, management may have its point of view, labour may stand for its point of view, but the only people who get hurt are the innocent public". There is no such thing as an innocent public. We are all participants in the marketplace, we all have our responsibilities, and we here in parliament cannot hide behind the so-called innocence of the public. We have a responsibility to see that the very mechanism of the marketplace, so lauded by my colleagues to the right, works.
This is Labour Day weekend and many of us, if parliament rises tonight or tomorrow, or by Sunday, will be heading off for a Labour Day holiday, probably participating in Labour Day events and making labour speeches. Let us remember one principle, not only on Labour Day but tonight when we are discussing a matter which has to do with labour, and that is the principle of using the services that people provide rather than using the people who provide the services.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


René Matte: Mr. Chairman, since there is before the House an amendment and an amendment to the amendment which have aroused the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) himself, I had intended to wait till the end of the discussion on this sub-amendment before moving a further amendment. But since my proposed amendment solves the problem of the amendment and the sub-amendment before us, I believe it my duty to explain at this point how, by way of an amendment slightly different from the one proposed, unanimity in this House could be achieved.
It is always extremely ticklish to arbitrarily fix any figure. Why 30 cents, 38 cents or 34 cents? What does that
6156

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
represent? It represents a fixed amount which may well prove inadequate.
However, we are faced again with the same thing when we talk of percentage because that is also a fixed amount. It says "5 per cent." Why 5 per cent? At one point the same paragraph says "3 per cent." Why 3 per cent? Three per cent of what? Nobody knows. Those are arbitrary figures. Now, as my colleague from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) put it so well earlier, we believe we need a more realistic base for the decisions we are going to take since we are unfortunately left with the possibility of doing that as a result of the bargaining failure.
In view of those arbitrary figures which mean nothing why not base our decision on something fair to the employees, something reasonable and especially logical? That would be quite preferable to the proposed amendments which are simply based on the normal increases that those employees could have received due to the increase in the cost of living index. So it would be quite simple in order to solve the problem with which we are faced to replace the words "thirty cents per hour", "five per cent", and "three per cent" which are found in paragraph 5 (1) by "an amount based on a percentage equal to the increase in the cost of living index." That amount would be based on the average salaries of all railway employees. I think that whether you are an employee, a member of management or a member of parliament, that is perfectly fair, reasonable and understanding.
We all appreciate that the increase in income to be granted to those workers should be similar to that granted to workers in other fields, since in this century of progress we have provided nothing but obsolete and cruel means which might have been acceptable in centuries past. Indeed, it is unfortunate in this age of progress that people have to resort to compulsion or to medieval methods such as strikes to solve their problems. It is absurd, but we cannot blame the workers for doing so, because it is the only way available to them to obtain justice.
Therefore, we do not blame the workers for going on strike, but we blame the government for tolerating such a situation. Considering the present emergency situation, we are motivated to find a solution which will not aggravate the employees and will not push them to anarchy as we are told that the 30 cents an. hour increase will not be accepted nor the back-to-work order incorporated in Bill C-217.
Then, why not avoid all those conflicts by simply substituting for the word "thirty cents an hour", "5 per cent" and "3 per cent" the wording "an amount based on the increase in the cost of living index"? If this amount is 38 cents, so be it. If it is 40 cents, it will be 40 cents. If it is a lesser amount, it will be so, but we will be assured it is fair.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the House should not at once consider this amendment which I have not yet moved but which I would like to do, to determine whether it would replace adequately the amendment and the subamendment now before the House. In this manner, we could resolve the problem very quickly, that is on August 31 instead of September 1 perhaps. I wonder whether we should immediately study our amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. member who has just taken his seat and I wonder whether he is proposing to put his amendment at this stage, or whether he expects to put it after the other amendments have been disposed of.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Champlain did not present to the Chair an amendment or propose an amendment in due form. This is why the Chair cannot even make a decision. Procedurally, I think there is a difficulty.
[ Translation]
The hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) has referred to a proposed amendment, but according to the procedure prevailing in committee, it is impossible to accept any subamendment without having disposed of amendments already before us unless the committee decides to set aside the amendments before it.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
That is exactly what we have been asking for and we know very well that we cannot debate more than two amendments or subamendments at the same time. This is why we have merely referred to our amendment in the hope of getting unanimous consent in order that it may be discussed at the same time and voted on. That is why we have proceeded thus, but if the committee would let us introduce our amendment, then, Mr. Chairman, the problem would be solved.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for rising so late on this subamendment, but I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member from the Social Credit Party that his arithmetic is not all that good. He cannot blame the whole cost of living on the wages of the railway employees.
If the members of the New Democratic Party cannot hear, I can talk loud enough to tell the hon. gentleman who last spoke from the New Democratic Party that when he puts employer against employee and worker against boss, that type of thing went out of existence 65 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: At least the hon. gentleman who had the good fortune of being born in Quebec City is honest in his philosophical approach as compared with some of the speeches we have heard from that end of the House today. It is obvious that the New Democratic Party once again wants to have it both ways, and it cannot have it both ways.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Now, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Because I am overwhelmed I will sit down.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committtee ready for the question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on the amendment to the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Amendment to the amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Maybe hon. members are confused, but the hon. member for St. John's East has moved a motion to amend the bill, and the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is an amendment to the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East. The question is on the amendment to the motion.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Benjamin) negatived: Yeas, 26; nays, 181.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the subamendment defeated. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a few words at this stage on behalf of my colleagues and myself. I did not participate in the debate on the subamendment because I felt that last night I had stated our position and there was not much purpose in my repeating it. But I must say that I listened to pieces of sophistry from the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour that are really disturbing. As a matter of fact, what the government and what this parliament had before them was a number of suggestions as to how this dispute should be settled and on what basis the workers should be ordered to go back to work. The government chose one set of suggestions and the NDP chose another, not in a bidding or an auction but because we sincerely believe that the set of suggestions we make to this parliament gives the workers justice in a way which the set of suggestions that the government proposes does not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: And then there is this sophistry about our not being in a position to make a choice, to use our judgment. It has been said, who are we to know? That kind of hypocritical modesty does not impress me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Every day of this government's life it makes judgments of that sort. It makes judgments on who shall receive a LIP grant and who shall be refused one; who shall receive an OFY grant and who shall be refused one; whose sentence to death shall be commuted to life on the basis of evidence that someone else has received, that the cabinet looks over and then decides on the result. The
Railway Operations Act
government had all the information that any blessed arbitrator could have. It had the briefs from both parties; it had the verbatim report of what took place before the board of conciliation; it had the reports of all the mediators; and it had all the information about the cost of living, about productivity, about salaries and wages in comparable occupations outside the railways.
All that information was before them. It is fatuous, hypocritical and dishonest to say that they were not in a position to make a judgment. The fact is that they made a judgment to give the workers as little as they conscientiously could. So they dragged out the chairman's report, and I say particularly because the railways had announced two or three days ago publicly, for the benefit of the eloquent and misleading Minister of Transport-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I am not saying that the proposal made by the NDP is more than the amount the employees were ready to accept.


David Lewis: I do not know where the Minister of Transport got that, but I do not think that kind of remark is appropriate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I say the government made a choice, one which is unfair and unjust to the workers and would force parliament to make the workers go back to work, against their will and without justice or decency.
Then, as I see it, my friends in the Conservative Party decided that some increase had to be given. They agreed with the government that we should not make the judgment on the best and most just basis on which to send the workers back, but that some increase should be given. The workers had spoken to them, and they agreed it should be higher. So they concocted a validation to give them a few cents more. I do not care what their concoction was. I am not satisfied with what they propose. But I know that this bill will pass before this night or next morning is out, and that the workers will be required by law to go back to work. Therefore, my colleagues and I will vote for the Tory amendment, much as we think that it is not enough. We will support the amendment because we want the workers to get as much as possible when they go back to work, even if that is not enough.
I must admit that I say with a great deal of hesitancy and regret that I have to support the amendment. The Leader of the Opposition says that his party wants to give the non-operating employees justice in the second year, and they want to give them the same increase as the other groups are getting. Let me tell him first that they will not receive the same increase, because the same formula of 6 Vz per cent on January 1, 1974, and another l'/2 per cent on July 1, 1974, on a base of $3.80 odd, which is what it will be, is a great deal less than the same percentage on a base of $4.40. So he is not giving them the same, and the increase he proposes is three-quarters of 1 per cent on an average.
What he has proposed in place of what the government has in the bill is an average increase for 1974 of 7.25 per cent instead of 6.5 per cent. In other words, he offers them
26454-25(

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
an added three-quarters of 1 per cent. This is the great Tory generosity to the non-operating employees. Three-quarters of 1 per cent for the whole of 1974 is offered. But I am not surprised. The people to my right months ago wanted to impose a freeze, so that the operating and non-operating employees, if it had come into force, would not have been able to receive any increase. So I suppose I should be grateful to them for agreeing to any increase.
I say as seriously as I can that this kind of situation in this parliament is sad. It is sad for parliament and sad for Canada that some 50,000 men and women-and there are women in the non-ops union-who have been out on strike for weeks without a single cent of strike pay or strike benefit are to be forced back to work by a law which does not provide for a settlement that is acceptable to them, or that is fair, just and reasonable. It is even sadder that this parliament should engage in an exercise which will take from the shop crafts union and the running trades employees the right even to begin a strike, and force on them a proposition that they are not prepared to accept.
Well, if that satisfies the government and if that almost satisfies the Conservatives, that is not news to us. We know, and we have always known, where the parties that spend their efforts helping to assist the development of the strong and privileged in this country stand. We have always known where they stood, and now they have proven it.
As I said, we shall vote for the Tory amendment, inadequate though it may be. I also want to say that when this measure reaches third reading, we will again oppose it as unjust to Canadians in their work.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. McGrath) agreed to: Yeas, 111; nays,
100.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the motion carried. Shall the clause as amended carry?
[ Translation]


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Chairman, further to the remarks of my two colleagues, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), I must say we feel that it is quite improper for us to bargain as we did tonight. We should solve the problem efficiently and not, as the hon. member for Champlain explained, play around with figures; we can solve it only by basing our decisions on the cost of living index. Then, and only then will we solve the problem adequately for all, the railroaders concerned. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That subclause (1) of clause 5 of Bill C-217 be amended as follows:
By deleting in lines 6 and 7 on page 3 of subclause (1) the words "thirty cents per hour", in lines 1 and two on page 4 of subclause (1) the words "by five per cent" and in line 6, on page 4 in subclause (1) the words "by three per cent" and substituting therefor the following: "by an amount based on a percentage equal

to the increase in the cost of living index calculated on the average salary of all the railway employees."
Adopting that amendment would spare us what we have witnessed this evening, that is bargaining from 30 cents to 34 and then 38 cents, according to the arguments of the Progressive Conservatives who suggest that salary increases be based on the cost of living index, which has gone up by 4 cents since the last recommendations of Mr. Justice Munroe, or according to the NDP which maintains that 38 cents would equal 10.8 per cent in relation to the cost of living index. Why fool around with figures, percentages, when it would be so simple and salutary for the workers to solve the matter by simply indicating, as we are now proposing, that the increase be based on the cost of living index. We would not be grappling in a year or two with a recurrence of the problems confronting us today, but that would be the ideal solution.
So once again we have presented our motion, and we hope that the House will understand its merits.


Gérald Laniel: Order please. I wish to inform hon. members that the motion that is proposed by the hon. member for Charlevoix does not seem to meet the rules and regulations and practices of this House. I want to make my comments directly to hon. members and refer them to citations on the acceptability of the amendment that is before us.
[ Translation]
I must point out to the hon. member for Charlevoix that the proposal he is making now relates to a decision just made by the committee and if the hon. member wishes to be referred to various citations of Beauchesne's, particularly citations 146, 194 and 202, he will realize that the Chair cannot accept a proposal with respect to which a decision has already been made. The Chair is quite willing to understand the intention of the hon. member, but nevertheless he would have had to propose his amendment before a decision had been arrived at concerning the amendment agreed to a short while ago. Citation 146(1) of Beauchesne's provides that, and I quote:
No member shall-


André-Gilles Fortin: That is definitely not that one, but another one.


Gérald Laniel: It is rather citation 148, which reads as follows:
148. (1) It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
Also, I would invite the hon. members to examine, on page 164, Subsection (1) of Citation No. 194, and I quote:
194. (1) A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided

I understand that the hon. member proposes a new alternative to the committee, but he is dealing in fact with a matter which has already been decided by the committee.

The quotation continues:
-because a proposition being once submitted and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House. This Rule applies to the decision taken on amendments to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Finally, I would refer the hon. member to Subsection (1) of Citation No. 202, on page 169 of the same work; I should rather say Subsection (1) of Citation No. 200, on page 167, and I quote:
200. (1) An old rule of Parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House." Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of motions of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.
And I think that it is precisely on the last part of this citation that the decision must be based because, should the motion presented by the hon. member for Charlevoix be voted upon, the committee could reach a decision completely in opposition to that which has just been reached in connection with the motion submitted by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
For all these reasons, and according to British procedure and to the practice of this House, it is impossible for the Chair to accept this proposal.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Lot-biniere is rising on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: First, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for not having given me the opportunity to defend our amendment!
Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
As to the British reforms which you mentioned with so much eloquence. Mr. Chairman, usually when a motion is put forward, the mover or one of his colleagues is given the opportunity to discuss the procedural acceptability of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in the circumstances, I am extremely surprised to see that your ruling was made before we could make our point; moreover, you started ruling by referring to clauses which were not relevant.
This is why I ask that we be allowed to state our views.


Gérald Laniel: Order please. The Chair does not want to engage in a debate with the hon. member for Lotbiniere. It is nevertheless a prerogative of the chair when, in his mind, a question is not clear; but as this question was obviously clear and considering the citations quoted as well as the late hour, I think that hon. members would not want us to engage in a long procedural debate.
The ruling was based on facts and it has been made.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. You said: "If the question was clear". I would like to know why then, when you decided at the beginning that our motion was not in order, you referred to Citations 146 and 202 which were not relevant while you later quoted
Railway Operations Act
Citations 148 and 200, on the recommendations of your advisors?


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: Order. Is the committee ready for the question on clause 5 as amended?

Shall clause 5, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege Mr. Chairman, I really feel there has been some misunderstanding. When Your Honour rose immediately after the amendment was moved, as I understood what Your Honour was saying, it was to the effect that you wished to make comments to indicate your position. I thought it was clear that you were going to permit comments from the floor. If that had not been clear I certainly would have been on my feet at that time. It seems to me the ruling has come pretty quickly, and as a matter of fact I certainly feel that there are arguments the other way. If Your Honour takes the position that because the House has passed an amendment to a clause therefore we have made a final decision, I do not think that can stand up. If that position is taken then Your Honour is saying we cannot even defeat clause 5. We have not finally taken this position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it is quite unfair for hon. members opposite not to be heard with respect to the procedural admissibility of their amendment. I do not happen to agree with the amendment, but I do think they have the right to be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérald Laniel: Order please. Maybe the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is well taken. However, as far as the Chair is concerned the hon. member for Charlevoix did give advance notice of the content of his proposed amendment a few minutes before. The Chair even had a chance to call for Beauchesne's French edition and to look up a few citations. Of course there might have been confusion in the numbers, but the Chair did make the correction and referred to Citation 148 and Citation 200 instead of Citations 202 and 194.
[DOT] (Midnight)
After a decision has been rendered it is not the practice of this House to reopen a discussion. A decision has been rendered by the Chair. I do not think there is anything against the Chair making a decision if the Chair is definitely sure of the decision it is rendering. The hon. member may want to cite precedents whereby the Chair was refused the opportunity to make a decision without opening a procedural debate. Citation 200(1) of Beau-

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
chesne's is quite clear. I based my decision mainly on that citation.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we have before us an amendment to clause 5. Regardless of whether I agree with the decision that was made, I wish to make an additional proposition. On behalf of parliament I wish to add a cost of living bonus for those who are covered by this and other clauses of the legislation. I do not feel it is in competition with what has been done in the amendment which the committee just approved.
As I said this afternoon, if parliament makes a decision on behalf of two conflicting parties to implement legislation forcing the workers and the companies to resume their operations, we should at least ensure that those who are affected are not worse off at the end of the legislative process than at the beginning. I sincerely believe that justice will be done for the workers in the three categories which are affected by this clause, the non-operating members of the railway fraternity. I therefore, move that the following be added at page 4, line 7:
-and by increasing each basic rate of wages by a percentage increase, equal to the cost-of-living increase, as determined by Statistics Canada, effective on the dates such cost-of-living figures are released by Statistics Canada subsequent to January 1, 1973 and continue for the life of this legislation.
This means that if the cost of living remains static, the workers forced back to work will be no worse off than they are at present. However, it if increases, the cost of living increase determined by Statistics Canada will be applied. As the Minister of Transport said, this technique has been used in collective agreements by various organizations, not to get a wage increase, but to retain the standard of living. This was done in the late 50's or early 60's in a contract in which I was involved.
Adding this subclause fulfils the responsibility of parliament to ensure that those legislated back to work will be assured of retaining the same standard of living. This should be supported by all members in order to retain for these people the standard of living which they were able to convince the chairman of the conciliation board was fair and just. This and other groups will be able to do that throughout the life of this legislation.


Gérald Laniel: I hope the committee will not prevent the Chairman from accepting the amendment without procedural debate. At this point, the Chair finds it acceptable. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: Yeas, 29; nays, 172.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the motion to amend clause 5 defeated. Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Orlikow:: Clause 5 deals entirely with wages. The government has studiously avoided another subject which is of equal concern to the railway workers. I refer to job security. As I listened to the Minister of Transport making his eloquent speech this morning, I came to the conclusion
[The Deputy Chairman.]
that the more difficult his position becomes, the more eloquent he becomes as compared with the years when he led workers as a labour leader, and the more his views change. As I listened to him I could not but realize that there was not a word of consideration on his part for the difficulties which the railway workers experience. What we heard was a 100 per cent defence of the status quo in the railway industry as it has been and as it will continue if the government has its way.
In less than 20 years the labour force in the railway industry in Canada has been reduced by more than one third. No other industry has experienced a reduction of this size. Railway workers are worried about their lack of job security and by the fact that the tremendous increase in the productivity of the railway industry has gone entirely to the profit of the company.


John Carr Munro: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is talking now about job security and he makes some valid points, but he is speaking on the subject with reference to clause 5 which deals with the wage question. I suppose he may be doing so because the NDP has prepared an amendment with respect to the Weldon report tied in with the wage consideration. However, I suggest we have a proposal which would accomplish the same purpose with respect to job security. It pertains to clause 16(3), which is on page 12. There we are talking about special references to the arbitrator concerning job security. This is a general application clause which applies to all three groups. I suggest the hon. member would find his comments more pertinent to that clause.


David Orlikow: Could I ask the minister whether the government intends to move an amendment which would spell out job security provisions for railway workers?


John Carr Munro: I have a proposed amendment involving a direction to the arbitrator which I think the hon. member will find acceptable.


David Orlikow: If the minister has an amendment I am content to wait, but I tell him right now I shall not be satisfied to leave the question of job security as one of the unsolved problems to be dealt with unilaterally by an arbitrator.


John Carr Munro: Before the hon. member prejudges the question, I suggest he look at the amendment. He may find that the special direction to the arbitrator which would be contained in the statute gives him a sense of security.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in the day the President of the Privy Council requested that those of us who were planning to submit amendments should produce copies of those amendments in advance. We readily complied. Even my friends to the right complied in due course. I suggest that if the government has further amendments to move, they should in all courtesy let us have copies of them now.


John Carr Munro: That is quite agreeable. I will send them over now. I should like the hon. member to appreciate that some of the amendments took into consid-

eration arguments which have been advanced, and we only worked them out in the latter part of the day.


Mr. Morgan:: Mr. Chairman, as a rookie member I have been sitting here all day wondering what the House is attempting to do. We have a serious responsibility and I sometimes wonder, with all the rhetoric and so-called logic which has gone on amongst us, whether we are really taking our responsibilities seriously or whether we are here only in a pro forma position. I have listened to what the leader of the NDP has to say, and hearing all the rhetoric and double-talk which has come out of him I am reminded of a little rhyme. Perhaps it is the hour of the day which brings it to my mind. It is:
There was an old man from York South,
Who knew not what the truth was about.
So to save himself trouble.
He spoke at the double,
At once from both sides of his mouth.
That is an example of what he and his party have done here. The so-called government has failed to set a good example. It has done nothing. It has caused chaos in this country, with inflation running rampant. The government sat on its hands, and the Minister of Labour has not contributed a thing toward that which we want done in this country.


An hon. Member:: Hallelujah!


J. Trevor Morgan: Perhaps because of the hour my mind is cast to the thought that "When Munro went from "health" into "labour", the government said, "Here is your saviour". But to say the least, there was no star in the East, and the pain was just greater and greater."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Trevor Morgan: I am satisfied that the members of this House have the ability and the intelligence to solve the problems that come before us, but sometimes I am weary about what goes on. I admit I am a rookie and perhaps I must get used to this kind of nonsense that goes on and on. But things must be done-inflation must be corrected, and the people of this country must be looked after. I submit that this is not being done. We sit here hour after hour discussing things that could be done with any degree of intelligence and if we had a government that knew what it was doing and where it was going. If that were the case, we would not have these problems today. I think that as soon as we can bring to a conclusion what we are attempting this evening, putting the railway workers back to work, the better the country will be served.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I shall take to heart the words uttered by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and make my remarks very brief. We on this side of the House have voted against two amendments to clause 5. We have done so in order to emphasize a principle that was enunciated earlier today by the Minister of Transport, and later by the Minister of Labour-a principle that sought to establish a future settlement, first of all
Railway Operations Act
on the basis purely of the award by the chairman of the conciliation board, and later by the arbitrator, in conformity with the practice that has been established in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: You can't reflect on a vote.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not reflecting on the vote. I am saying that we have sought to emphasize this principle in committee of the whole. The committee has not accepted the principle we put forward, and in accepting the subamendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition it has accepted a different principle. I make no comment about that at this stage. However, facing us now is a decision in respect of the clause as amended. When the Chairman calls the clause as amended, the clause as a whole will be before the committee.
I want to indicate to members of the committee that we on this side of the House will be supporting the clause as amended because we take the view that it is essential that this bill be passed in order to end the national crisis in the transportation system; and in addition to that, an effort to defeat this clause would deny the workers a wage settlement or would be an effort to deny the workers a wage settlement-and that is the very heart of this clause.
Certainly it is not our intention to frustrate that objective, and for that reason it is entirely consistent for us to indicate to members of the committee and the country that we support this clause as amended in order to reach the objective I have stated.


An hon. Member:: You have no choice.


George Harris Hees: What else could you do? You have been licked, and you have to accept that verdict. In other words, you have been knocked out and you have now announced that you have been knocked out. That is real Liberal honesty.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, we have tried in various ways to amend clause 5 with which we could not agree in any way in principle. This clause provided for an hourly rate which was inadequate and established standards which were not indexed on the rise in the cost of living, which went against the objectives of the workers.
Mr. Chairman, while accepting of course the principle of an increase of 30 cents, we believe it is not sufficient and this is why we were putting up a fight: we wanted the increase provided for in clause 5 to be geared to the ever increasing cost of living. This is why our party supported the motion moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who wanted to see this clause to provide a constant rate for the increases in the cost of living. We wanted to see this amendement to clause 5 based on a amount calculated on a percentage equal to the rise in the cost of living index computed on the average wages of all railway employees.
Mr. Chairman, such was the principle that we upheld as forcefully as we could and it is exactly the same as the one put forward by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters); that is why we voted with him. Now we cannot go

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
any further, except to pass or reject clause 5. It is obvious that in keeping with our position, we will support this legislation as amended.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the House to note that I am still wondering what difference there is between our argument and that of the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Shall clause 5 carry?

Shall clause 5 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Arnold Peters: On division.


Gérald Laniel: All those in favour of clause 5 as amended will please rise.
Clause 5 agreed to: yeas; 173; nays, nil.


Gérald Laniel: I declare clause 5 as amended carried. The hon. member for Skeena rises on a point of order.


Frank Howard: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether we might propose something to the committee to expedite what we are doing.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I think we could move matters along a little more quickly if we now take the opportunity to revert to clause 4 which we stood earlier. I had moved an amendment earlier and, on reflection, I think I would like to withdraw it.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am asking unanimous consent to revert to clause 4. We must do that in order to get to the next stage. We cannot jump over one set of procedures.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee agree that we revert to clause 4.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 4.-Railway services to be resumed.


Frank Howard: Earlier on clause 4 I moved:
That sub-clause (1) of clause 4 be amended by inserting between the words "suspended" and "and" in line 5 thereof, the following:
"and shall call back for employment every employee as soon as
the operation of the railway is resumed".
I would like permission of the committee to withdraw that amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I must remind hon. members that we have to follow certain rules. The hon. member can withdraw his amendment only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Howard) withdrawn.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, upon reflection upon the original amendment which I moved has now been withdrawn, and in an attempt to approach this in a better way I should like to move:
That sub-clause (1) of clause 4 be amended by inserting between the words "suspended" and "and" in line 5 thereof, the following:
"And shall call back for employment every employee within
four days of the coming into force of this act".


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I sent over to the hon. member for Skeena an amendment I propose to move to the present clause on page 10. That clause not only dealt with the earlier amendment raised by the New Democratic Party with regard to protection for those people laid off but added a further provision that once those people laid off are brought back to work they could not be immediately laid off again as a result of the same strike. Then the hon. member for Skeena indicated he wished to move an amendment to clause 4 which would impose a reasonable time limit on the railways to bring back both the strikers and the laid off people.
We took that into account in the further strengthening of the lay-off provisions which I sent over to him. I have sent to the official opposition a copy of the proposed amendment. Hon. members will notice that the proposed clause starts off with the words, "Forthwith upon the coming into force of this Act". That is very strong wording in terms of the immediate implementation. Really in layman's language it means as soon as possible. This can impose upon the railways a legal obligation to proceed with haste. Then it goes on in the next four lines to say:
-every railway company to which any part of this Act applies shall call back to work every employee of the railway.
So, I think this affords the hon. member for Skeena every possible protection he wants. Again I would point out that the clause I sent over refers to every employee and not just those laid off or on strike.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, we believe the amendment proposed by the government is a much stronger amendment than that put forward by the hon. member for Skeena and consequently with some reluctance we will have to vote against the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Skeena if he intends to proceed with it. However, we make clear that we intend to support the amendment proposed by the minister.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for St. John's East can run into a trap. Let me say first that the Minister of Labour stood up and said he sent over to me a copy of the proposed amendment to which he just referred. It arrived here while I was on my feet moving my second amendment. That was the first time I saw it. The second point I want to make is that clause 4 says at the outset:
August 31, 1973

Forthwith upon the coming into force of this act, every railway company shall resume operation-
"Forthwith" means immediately, right at that very moment on the very day. The first amendment I moved carried with it the same implication that the workers would be called back to work forthwith. The minister rejected that earlier today saying that that was an impossibility because all the people would be standing around doing nothing.


Mr. Nielsen:: He changed his mind.


Frank Howard: He does not have a mind to change, like the hon. member for Yukon. If the minister now intends to say clearly and unequivocably that he accepts the first principal point I put forward in the amendment that the workers be called back on the very first day this bill comes into force, then he is accepting the point I put forward earlier. If that is not it, then he is playing games with me. What does he mean?


John Carr Munro: I could dwell on what has been going on. "Forthwith upon" can impose an obligation upon the railway companies to proceed as quickly as possible. It does not mean that it will be done immediately. It does not mean the next day.


An hon. Member:: What does it mean?


John Carr Munro: In all honesty I cannot say to the hon. member for Skeena that it will be the next day. The reason I am saying this is simply that it may be impossible for the railways to get everything in working order and ready to absorb all the employees within a day. I suggested at one point that even if there were adherence to this legislation immediately by all the workers it is not possible for the railways to be in full operation by this weekend. There are people on the railways who disagree with me publicly in that respect, including union leaders.
I am saying that the time interval which is permissible and which is limited should give the needed flexibility. Otherwise it seems to me to offend logic to cast an obligation for all this to happen within one day. That is simply my point.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, I wish to have some clarification. The minister said "as soon as possible". Does that mean that if a foreman does not like certain workers or their attitude during the strike he can make "as soon as possible" three weeks from the end of the strike, four weeks, or two weeks from its completion, and when these people approach their members of parliament about not being able to return to their jobs, to whom do we go? Do we speak to the Minister of Labour or do we go to the CNR and, if we do, what is the interpretation of "as soon as possible"? I have sat in the House for many years and even asked the minister who is now in charge about when such and such a thing will be done. His answer has been "as soon as possible". Six months later someone else asked the same question, and again the answer was "as soon as possible".
What is the interpretation of these words, and what will happen to these workers? The reason I ask this is that I am
Railway Operations Act
concerned about the workers of this country. No leader of any party in the House has a monopoly on concern for the workers. They stand up so sanctimoniously and wrap themselves in a cloak of purity. They say they are the only ones who care about the poor, the disabled, the widows, the orphans and the workers of this country. As I look around this House on all sides I see men who were formerly hardrock miners, fishermen, coal miners, farmers, and many types of workers. For example, the Minister of Veterans Affairs was a farmer. Are they all great millionaires and men who only worry about the rich guy? I think we all worry about the worker. I certainly do. I have spent my days in the unions and in the coal mines and I have worked hard for the unions and the coal miners. I have been on picket duty and on strike and I did not receive a retainer fee of $100 a day from the CLC or from anyone else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: I ask these questions because I am concerned as an ordinary Canadian about the workers of Canada. No leader of any party, no one in the House, has the right to say that they are the only ones who worry about the worker. For many years the Minister of Transport has worked in the labour movement. Has he thrown his concerns out the window; has he forgotten about the workers? I ask the minister about this because I have been listening to certain people to my left. I want certain assurances- and here I agree with the hon. member for Skeena-about how soon these men will go back to work and whether they will be given their proper duties to fulfil, and will not be discriminated against by a boss who feels he wants to get back at the workers. I am sure that many of us are concerned. Let us not listen to a lot of damn foolishness from one man rising in the House and saying he, the little god above all, is the only one who cares about the workers of this country.


John Carr Munro: In reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys may I say that these words were used in an effort not to tie this down to a particular day in case it was not workable. The hon. member liked the phrase "forthwith upon". The closest analogy to that would be "almost immediately". You do not impose an obligation within a day if the results are likely to be ludicrous.
This casts a definite obligation on the companies to proceed in all haste to hire each and every employee regardless of whether or not they were on strike, and they are obliged to do so almost immediately. I think it would be unreasonable to require them to do so in almost one day within the coming into force of this bill, in terms of the practicalities involved and the knowledge of how much time the railways will need to achieve full operation. I think this clause does give the protection sought by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys as well as that sought by the hon. member for Skeena.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps we could settle this simply by referring to the Oxford dictionary. We said at the outset that we thought the minister's amendment is a much stronger one than the one proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. That is borne out by the definition of "forth-
6164

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
with" in the Oxford dictionary. It says simply "immediately, without delay".


Robert Muir: May I ask the minister one brief question? If all that he says should be done is not carried out, is he prepared to assure the House that it will be carried out as soon as these discrepancies are brought to his attention?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I might add that also under the Canada Labour Code there is protection against discrimination against workers. I discussed the matter fully with the Minister of Transport and he is prepared to co-operate in terms of dealing with the companies to ensure that the intent of parliament is carried out as rapidly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for his reply, but I regret to say that it has brought up another question. Is the minister prepared to prosecute the railway companies if they do not carry out the letter of the law as contained in this legislation?


John Carr Munro: Obviously we are satisfied that if the companies do not carry out the will of parliament they will be in breach of the statute and will be committing an offence and should be prosecuted.


Gerald William Baldwin: The same as anybody else who does not obey under the criminal law.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena?


Frank Howard: I drafted the four day proposal after consulting with members who sit in the party to my right with the thought that they might support that proposition, but the hon. member for St. John's East has dashed that commitment to the ground, thus indicating that some Conservatives are not to be trusted no matter what the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any such consultation, and may I suggest to you with great respect, even though the hour is late, that we are realizing what the hon. member is trying to achieve and we support his objective. All we are saying is that the minister's amendment states it much more strongly and effectively.


Frank Howard: It does not help the matter a bit, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: I have noticed one thing about the gentlemen who sit to the right of me. They can dish it out, but they sure can't take it. I am trying to put some facts on record so that those who may have dealings with them in future will know about them. I also wish to see whether hon. members will be generous enough to give me a second opportunity to withdraw the amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Am I to assume that the hon. member is seeking the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw his second amendment?


Frank Howard: Certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: We are generous enough to get the hon. member off the hook.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw his amendment to clause 4.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Howard) withdrawn.


Gérald Laniel: The committee will now consider an amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar which reads as follows:
That paragraph (a) of subclause (3) of clause 4 of Bill C-217 be amended by inserting after the word Act in line 25, the words "or were laid off as a consequence of the strike".


John Carr Munro: I believe this is a similar amendment to the one which the hon. member for Skeena withdrew. I think the basis on which the hon. member for Skeena withdrew his amendment also takes care of the concern of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar concerning lay-offs. Indeed, there is to be some further assurance that the person who is laid off and then brought back to work cannot immediately be laid off again. That amendment, of course, can be inserted in the general section at the back of the bill at page 10 and applied to the entire bill. I think that would take care of the situation and perhaps the hon. member would be prepared to withdraw his amendment or take care of the matter when we get to page 10 of the bill.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am concerned to see that justice and fairness are observed and that workers go back to work following the action of this parliament. I accept that the minister in good faith has suggested this course and that the proposed wording in this act will give as much assurance to the workers as possible. I appreciate what the minister has done, and with that I am satisfied with the proposal as it stands.


Gérald Laniel: Am I to understand that the hon. member wishes to withdraw his amendment.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar to withdraw the amendment he proposed to clause 4?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gleave) withdrawn.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The committee will now consider clause 6. Shall clause 6 carry?
August 31, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Railway services to be resumed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we gave notice of an amendment to clause 8 similar to the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar to clause 4. I take it that the minister will move his amendment when he reaches clause 14 and that it will cover this group as well as the others.


John Carr Munro: Quite so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Therefore we shall not move that proposed amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 8 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9-Terms of collective agreements amended.
Mr. Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to propose an amendment to clause 9. As, not surprisingly, a similar amendment was shot down in flames previously by the "friends of the workers," I expect mine will get short shrift. Nevertheless, I feel there are a few things I have to contribute, in the hope that hon. members on the other side of the House and hon. members to my right will take them into consideration when the "proverbial" hits the fan in the next few weeks, because I expect it will.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Earlier today the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Verdun told this House about the expertise they had derived from their many years of negotiation. Prior to coming to this place I spent 27 years as a full-time trade union leader. Most of that time was spent in negotiations, in arbitration and conciliation covering every aspect of this question federally and provincially. I like to think that during that 27 years a little expertise rubbed off on me.
In those years I learned two things specifically that have concerned me all day, and I want to relate them. One has to do with the problem of arbitration. I have never advocated arbitration, and have never advocated compulsory arbitration in my life-and I have no intention of doing so tonight, tomorrow, or Sunday, if we stay that long. I want to give you some idea why. In British Columbia, the previous government brought in legislation which provided for compulsory arbitration. They called it the mediation act. There is a senator sitting in the other place who agreed to compulsory arbitration in British Columbia. The settlement, after arbitration in that case, was less than the workers had been offered during negotiations.
Two years ago in British Columbia, 40,000 construction workers were out on strike. They were ordered back to work by the provincial government and refused to go, but went back into negotiation because the government did not enforce the legislation. Subsequently, they got the best settlement they had ever received in all the negotiations I
Railway Operations Act
can recall in British Columbia. That gives you some idea of what arbitration is all about.
I have never known arbitration to give a better settlement than that previously offered. What has been offered in this case is the bill that is before us now. I also know that the railroad workers have some knowledge of arbitration, because they have been sandbagged-not for two years, nor for ten years, but for over 40 years in this country. If you go back in history you will find that during the depression they took any kind of job they could get. Then the war came along and their wages were fixed by law. As a consequence they got nothing more. Since the war, even though the Minister of Labour talks about the right of free collective bargaining, the railway workers have not had it. Nobody can tell me that an employer will negotiate in good faith if he knows that at the end of the road there is compulsory arbitration.
We talk about honesty and fair bargaining on both sides in past settlements just because we have not had to force them back on every set of negotiations. But there were only fair and reasonable negotiations on one side because employers knew all along that they just had to sit tight and offer practically nothing in order to force the workers to strike, and then this House would order them back to work under compulsory arbitration.
Years ago there was a song called "King of the Road," which had something to do with hoboes. That is not the true meaning of King of the Road which was introduced at about the time Eugene B. Debbs was leading railroaders in the United States and led them to higher wages. Even with the amendment that we have passed this legislation does not bring the railroaders level with the cost of living.
The minister accused the leader of my party of blackmail when he suggested that my leader said they would not order their people back to work with this legislation. If you think that is blackmail just listen to this. I have had telephone calls and telegrams from people in the railroad unions in western Canada who have told me that even if their leaders order them back to work they will not go. I know the west has always been a little more militant than the rest of the country, but the militancy seems to be spreading east in the labour movement. I expect real problems after we have supposedly fixed up the situation and settled the dispute.
I have been talking to railroad workers in British Columbia and would like to give some examples of how they have slipped behind other workers. An engineer in the yards told me that after 29 years' employment he earns $36 a day. At Vancouver Plywood we start girls with no training at $38 a day.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a point of order?


Norman Augustine Cafik: No, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to know if the hon. member would permit a brief question. He indicated that he had received a great number of telephone calls and telegrams. I would like to know where the telegrams came from, in view of the strike.
6166

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: The telegrams were phoned to me. I do not know whether the hon. member expects me to telegraph my punches, but I do not intend to do that as long as I am standing here, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I should like to ask the hon. member a question through you, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: The Chair can always agree, but does the hon. member agree to answer a question?


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Mr. Chairman I shall be very brief and then entertain any question from either side of the House.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I will send him a telegram then.


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: I was just going to cite one more example of the dire situation of the railroad workers. Their basic wage rate is $2.39 an hour, according to my information. Most of the workers I talked to would get more money if they went on welfare in British Columbia. I cannot understand why they work eight hours a day for that money.
For the information of the hon. member for Temis-camingue who constantly attacks the government of British Columbia, I would point out that the basic wage in British Columbia will soon be $2.50 an hour. That is 11 cents an hour more than the present base rate paid by the railroads. I cannot understand why the hon. member is forever attacking the government of British Columbia when he knows so little of what goes on in his own province, let alone in one so far from La Belle province.
I want to conclude by saying that this is just a charade that we go through with the railroad workers. We try to point out to them that they have a right to free collective bargaining when we know they have not. Sooner or later we must devise some other system to resolve their problems or we are going to find ourselves right back here. Even if we force them back to work now, we will be back here in two years in the same position. When that time comes they will not only be asking for an increase to match the cost of living but will be asking to catch up with other workers, and they are entitled to that.
We had better take a good look at what we are doing, Mr. Chairman, because I expect to see serious dislocation in the railroads across the country.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Westminster that subclause (1) of clause 9 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
(1) The terms and conditions of each collective agreement to which this Part applies are amended forthwith by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1972, as established by or pursuant to such agreement, by ten and eight-tenths per cent effective January 1, 1973, and by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1973, as established by or pursuant to such agreement and pursuant to this Part, by ten and eight-tenths per cent effective January 1, 1974.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Shall I read the amendment?


John Douglas Reynolds: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Order please. I shall put the motion first. Shall I dispense with reading the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


John Douglas Reynolds: I wonder if I could have the permission of the House to ask the previous speaker a question.


Gérald Laniel: The time of the hon. member had not expired. Is it agreed?


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Yes, I agree.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the previous speaker on some points and know that he is a very well respected labour leader in my province. I know he has been in contact with the union people and their leaders today, as I have. I should like to ask him this question: when parliament does pass this bill, as we expect it will shortly, and the bill becomes the law of the land, will the hon. member do his duty as a member of parliament and advise his workers that they should go back to work?


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Mr. Chairman, I said previously that I would not telegraph my punches and I do not think that kind of question even deserves an answer in this House.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for St. Boniface on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Chairman, possibly my question may be easier for the hon. member to answer. I should like to ask why his party now accepts the suspension of the right to strike for railway workers. Is this a new policy of the NDP?


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Mr. Chairman, there is another question that requires an answer. We have not said we agree with lifting the right to strike. We have not yet voted on this bill.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 26; nays, 153.
Clause 9 agreed to.
On Clause 10-Railway companies and unions to negotiate.


Mr. Alkenbrach:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to put a protest on record. During this debate it has been pointed out more than once by members from all parties that the non-operatives now on strike are receiving no strike pay. This is a ridiculous situation. Throughout their years of service to the railways, these men have paid their union dues. For the most part this money has gone to the United States. They are receiving no remuneration from these American based International unions.
Some time ago in thir House I protested the fact that certain steel workers in my constituency were sending

their money to the United States, to their detriment, when the unions could have been saving these funds in Canada for the use of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I see that my point is understood by the committee. I protest the fact that these 56,000 non-ops are receiving no strike pay. They should be. I want to point out the injustice being perpetrated on these men by their international unions. They should at least be receiving a small pittance to sustain them during this time when they are not receiving any wages.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
On Clause 12-Railway services to be resumed.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is another clause on which we have given notice to amend. However, we believe the subject matter of our amendment will be covered by the proposed amendment to clause 14. Therefore, it will not be necessary to delay the committee with regard to clause 12.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 13-Terms of collective agreements amended.
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Chairman, this is not going to be a long speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Rowland: It is not going to be a very happy speech either. I am sick at heart over what is happening here tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Charles Rowland: Since the admission by the first speaker on the government side this morning, this House has been abandoning any consideration of justice in the wage settlement to be given to these workers when sending them back to work. I am sick at hearing that.
The Minister of Transport said we are incapable of determining the justice of this question. I am not going to argue that because it has been done over and over again. There is no sense to that argument. The facts and figures are there for anyone who cares to look at them.
Let us look at the argument put forward by the government. Let us take it in their terms. First, they told us it was not our business to decide whether the settlement is fair or just, but we must concern ourselves with what we can best do to see that the procedures of collective bargaining function in the railway industry once again. That is what they told us it was our business to do. The job we are here to do is to see that the process of collective bargaining once again begins to operate in the railway negotiations.
The process has broken down because, as was said, on the two previous occasions in the past 23 years when the railway workers went on strike and parliament sent them back to work, the railway companies counted on parliament to send them back to work. It is accepted by members on all sides of this House that the railway companies
Railway Operations Act
did not bargain in good faith. If we want to make the collective bargaining procedures work once again, we must do it in a way that will give the workers a settlement that will make the railway companies afraid to have parliament again bargain in this way. And that is our job, to make collective bargaining work, and that is the way to do it, not to impose on the workers a half-baked settlement.
The second argument is that we cannot make a judgment respecting the justice of the case put forward either by the railroads or by the unions. That is a questionable assertion, but let us accept it for the moment. The Minister of Transport told us we are here to end a rail strike, to get people back to work.


Some hon. Members:: Yes!


Douglas Charles Rowland: How does he expect us to get people back to work with wage provisions which are totally unacceptable to the workers? Unless the bill sets out terms which are sufficiently acceptable to the workers we shall settle no crisis. All we are doing is perpetuating one.
The productivity of the railroads has increased and I think it is only fair that the workers should get a share of the benefits of this increase. After all, they have contributed to it. If it had not been for them there would have been no increase in productivity.
The settlement imposed upon the operating trades by clause 13 gives them about .2 per cent of that increase in productivity. That is the amount which will go to yardmen who are on two-hour call 24 hours a day, men who work under difficult conditions and who are subject to accidents of the bloodiest kind, men whose family lives are ruined as a result of the terms upon which they are employed.
This settlement is imposed on conductors and brakemen who work on trains which have greatly increased in size and which travel at ever greater speeds. They work on trains which now carry exotic chemicals, new products of every kind. This traffic requires increased knowledge on the part of conductors and brakemen. They have managed to grasp this knowledge and keep the railroads running, thus contributing to increased productivity.
Moreover, they have run these faster trains over railbeds which are inadequate by any standards, and they have done so with good safety records. What are we giving them in return? About .2 per cent of a share in the rewards of increased productivity.
I said I intended to be brief, and I will finish on this note. But I am sick at heart that the House could do this to a group of men. I cannot comprehend how we could do it. I intend to move an amendment. I know what the result will be, but I shall put it anyway because I think it should at least be heard.


Gérald Laniel: Does the hon. member for Ottawa West rise on a point of order?


Peter Reilly: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. After the hon. member for Verdun, the Minister of Transport and other members on the government side have spoken so eloquently and, I believe, with deep understanding and conviction

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
about the problem we are facing, I cannot imagine why the hon. member for Selkirk cannot get the attention of the Committee and the courtesy of those present.


Douglas Charles Rowland: I thank the hon. member for Ottawa West for his intervention on my behalf. It is very kind of him. However, it is fairly obvious that it is difficult to get the attention of the Committee at 1.30 in the morning after we have gone through such a process as this. I certainly cannot fault my colleagues, but I had something I wanted to say. I am sick at heart. With full knowledge of what is going to happen to it, I am moving the following amendment.
That subclause (1) of clause 9 of Bill C-217 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
(1) The terms and conditions of each collective agreement to which this Part applies are amended forthwith by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1972, as established by or pursuant to such an agreement, by ten and eight-tenths per cent effective January 1, 1973, and by increasing each hourly basic rate of wages in effect on December 31, 1973, as established by or pursuant to such agreement and pursuant to this part, by ten and eight-tenths per cent effective January 1, 1974.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I know the hour is early, Mr. Chairman, but the Committee decided some hours ago to complete consideration of the question this day. The Committee at that time was fully aware of the nature of the decision the Committee would be required to make, and to interrupt an hon. member who has the floor, and interject with catcalls when he seeks to propose an amendment and put his case is not only rude, not only disorderly, but ill-advised.
It just so happens that there are a large number of people in my constituency who run trains. Somebody, at some time, should talk to some of these people. My hon. friend made the point that there is no comparison between railway productivity now and productivity some years ago. Just look at the number of units which are hooked on to these diesels that head west across Alberta, through the canyon and into British Columbia. I have talked to these men and they tell me that such is the length of freight trains today that sometimes they cannot see how to switch them through a siding and know they are safely operating those trains. We should be concerned to see that the railroads are giving consideration to the safety of these men and ensuring that they are adequately paid.
We should be concerned about making sure that the railway companies for which they are working are giving consideration to the safety of these men, and to seeing that they are adequately paid. We must remember that they are subject to call at all hours of the night and day. They do not have a comfortable job which starts at 8.30 or 9.00 in the morning and ends at five o'clock at night. With the job that these men are doing there is not the regular family life that so many of us take for granted. I think this should be taken into consideration by members of this committee. I support the plea and the proposal of my colleague.


Gérald Laniel: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: All those in favour will please rise.
Amendment (Mr. Rowland) negatived: Yeas 21, nays 155.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost.
Clause 13 agreed to.
On Clause 14-Railway companies and unions to negotiate.


Frank Howard: I was not rising to speak, Mr. Chairman. I just thought you were rushing a bit and I wanted to give the Minister of Labour a chance to speak.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment I should like to have moved to Clause 14, which is as follows:
That Bill C-217 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the heading "GENERAL" on page 10, the following heading and section:
"Layoffs
14.1 Forthwith upon the coming into force of this Act,
(a)	every railway company to which any Part of this Act applies shall call back to work every employee of the railway company who has been on strike or has been laid off as a consequence of any strike that has ceased to be valid by reason of the coming into force of this Act; and
(b)	no such employee shall be laid off or again be laid off by any such railway company as a consequence of any such strike."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about employees returning to work, what guarantee have you in that regard?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The committee has heard the amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move that amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let us be in order.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall Clause 14 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 14 as amended agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Perhaps we might have order, please. I know the hour is late and there seem to be too many children around right now, but I would ask for order.
On Clause 15-Appointment of mediator.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one or two remarks in respect of this clause dealing with the

appointment of a mediator. I notice that in this particular clause dealing with non-operators, shopcraft employees and operators that there is specific reference to the fact that the railways and the unions shall forthwith enter into negotiations and do so in good faith. I think we all hope that the parties will do just that by making full disclosure and, hopefully, not make unreasonable demands.
It was earlier pointed out by the Minister of Labour how important the role of the mediator could, should and will be, as well as that of the arbitrator. What is most significant is the fact that Clause 15 does not refer to a time limit in respect of the appointment of a mediator. This gives us some concern as we heard on several occasions yesterday afternoon, yesterday evening and this morning that there has been a lack of good faith and that some parties have attempted to stall, thereby defeating the purpose of that phrase "good faith" in respect of collective bargaining.
We feel that the time could possibly arrive when the Minister of Labour will have to move quickly. In this regard I would point out that Clause 15 states that:
The Minister of Labour may, upon the coming into force of this Act, appoint a mediator to mediate the matters in dispute-
In order to give some definite proposal regarding time we would suggest that within 60 days after the coming into force of this act the minister must, if the parties have not reached an agreement, appoint a mediator to look into the matter. Without carrying on further, and I think the principle I am trying to put forward is self-explanatory, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River:
That Clause 15 of Bill C-217 be amended by inserting in subclauses (1), (2) and (3) thereof, immediately after the word "Act" where the same respectively appears in each such subclause, the words,
"and shall in any event upon the expiration of the sixtieth day
thereafter".
* (0140)


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member for Hamilton West moves this amendment with the best intentions, but I should like to suggest to him that it is not a useful amendment. Perhaps he ought to reconsider it. Certainly we cannot support it. What the amendment means is that the minister would be obliged to appoint a mediator immediately. Obviously what the bill now implies is that the minister may decide not to appoint a mediator and go to arbitration immediately. I think it would be meaningless to go through another process.
I am sure the hon. member for Hamilton West knows, as I do, that one of the most aggravating things to the employees in a dispute situation is the continuing delays which take place in going from one procedure to another. These particular employees, the non-ops, the shopcraft and the operating employees involved in this bill have been through many months of negotiation and conciliation.
In the case of the non-operating employees there have been three or four mediators. Therefore it really would be a total waste of time merely to cause some further delays to a final settlement of the dispute if the law forced the minister to appoint a mediator whether or not he considers such an appointment is useful. I suggest to the hon.
Railway Operations Act
member that if he looks at the amendment-I am sure I have read it correctly-he will see that the step he is proposing may be an unnecessary step that would merely delay the final settlement of the dispute, and result in further bitterness and frustration on the part of the people involved. I hope he would withdraw it.
Hon. members know that my colleagues and I do not like the whole scheme, but if it is to be there I hope the minister will take no step that has no chance of being useful. In most cases he will go directly to the arbitrator and therefore get a resolution of the dispute as quickly as possible. For that reason we cannot support the amendment, and I think perhaps if the hon. member looks at the amendment he will see that the suggestions I have made may have some validity.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, my point would be exactly that made by the hon. member for York South. I do not think it was the intention of the hon. member for Hamilton West to inject a further period that would cause delay in having a final determination made. The legal interpretation of his amendment is that it would be precisely that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Chairman, possibly the only reason I intervened by way of this amendment was to give some assurance that this House is concerned about the possibility of footlagging when it comes time to negotiate. Unfortunately the clause in respect of the mediator is there. It must be there for some particular purpose. I have the greatest respect for my friend, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, but he seems to be saying that notwithstanding the fact that we have this clause we should go to clause 16 which deals with the arbitrator. If that is the case I think that is wrong in principle because we have clause 15 which gives the minister the right to appoint a mediator. However, in view of the lateness of the hour and in light of the fact that I know the position of the NDP, and also of the government, I would ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the very significant amendment I have placed before the committee.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Alexander) withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
On Clause 16-Appointment of arbitrator.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to remind the minister that he has an amendment to clause 16. I have one also, but the minister sent me a notice of one he has.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, the whole problem that has been bedevilling labour negotiations in connection with this particular dispute and leading up to it has been the increase in the rate of inflation. This has probably resulted in the efforts of Mr. Justice Craig Munroe's intentional attempt to try to give a fair settlement. However, the problem has been that that settlement talked about a 51/2 per cent or perhaps a 5.45 per cent rate of inflation.

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act
We all know, just by talking to our wives, by going to the grocery store or by reading the paper, that every day the price of groceries, bacon, ground mincemeat for hamburger and macaroni, goes up. So what happens is that members of the union are unable to accept what three or four months ago they would have been delighted to accept. It is in that light that I move, seconded by the hon. member for York Simcoe:
That subclause 16(3) of Bill C-217 be amended by adding the following subparagraph:
and shall in respect of wages specifically provide for the adjustment of wages to any increase or increases in the cost of living
where the arbitrator is satisfied that such adjustment has not
been previously or adequately provided.
The minister has said that the arbitrator, if appointed, will as a matter of course look at the rate of inflation and look at the escalating cost of living. We are saying here to the arbitrator that he must look at the cost of living and the rate of inflation in making an award. We must remember that the 34 cents we have now agreed on for the first year and the 6Vz per cent for the second year, and so on, were based on the assumption that there will be some inflation.
But how much inflation? The arbitrator must make an award and he must look at the last couple of months. I am sure that the arbitrator will want to look at the inflation figures that may come out in a week or so from now with respect to the cost of living index in August. Perhaps those figures will reflect the 6 cents increase on a loaf of bread and the 3 cents increase on a quart of milk. What we say is that you cannot expect men to take home in real terms less than they used to under previous collective agreements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I hope that the committee will accept this amendment unanimously.


Gérald Laniel: The committee has heard the amendment of the hon. member for Peel South. Is there agreement?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, we followed with interest the proposal that has just been made; we support that motion because it takes into account the cost of living, an extremely important factor. It is the basic reason for the present conflict, as it is for most if not all present labour grievances in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I have but one most important observation to make in this connection: we will support this proposal objectively, but I wonder, once again, why the Progressive Conservatives voted against a similar motion a while ago.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, so far as the intent of the amendment is concerned we have no basic objection. The only question I have is whether the hon. member might not want to reflect for a moment and consider whether it might not be appropriate to submit this amendment to clause 16 (2) where it can be embodied

as a special direction to the arbitrator to take into account the cost of living as suggested in the wording of the amendment.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The problem is that subclause (2) reads that "the governor in council may, by order". We are saying that he shall take into account inflation and analyse the figures. Where the arbitrator is of the opinion that the 34 cents, the 6'A per cent and the l'/l per cent do not properly take into account inflation, he will take into account inflation when he is making the award. We analysed this pretty carefully and felt that the best place in which to put it was in subclause (6), which says that no award or decision of the arbitrator shall provide for a reduction in any wage rate established by this act. We want to go further and say that no award of the arbitrator shall ignore the fact that purchasing power has changed.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I think I can now be more specific. Under subclause (3) we are now prepared to move an amendment. We have given to the opposition parties some samples of amendments with reference to other matters, one of them being job security which will be a special reference to the arbitrator under subclause (3) of clause 16. I suggest that taking the cost of living index into account can also be a special direction to the arbitrator if he is satisfied that it has not been otherwise taken care of. So I suggest an amendment to subclause (3) which will read that an "arbitrator appointed under this section shall"-and then we can carry on with the wording of the special direction embodied in the hon. member's motion.
I wonder whether the matter could stand for now, and we could come back later to this clause.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If the minister has an amendment that will embody this direction, that will be satisfactory to me. We are prepared to accept the drafting of the minister.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee agreed that we stand the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peel South?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, is it not now possible for the minister or for some other minister to move the proposed amendment to clause 16? I could send him my copy of it, if he has lost his.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to move the following amendment:
That Bill C-217 be amended by striking out lines 14 to 17 on page 12 and substituting the following:
"section (1),
(a)	shall closely examine the job security demands of the union and fully explore the feasibility of a job security plan based on the principle of attrition;
(b)	shall not alter or amend any existing work rules or practices in a manner that could have an adverse effect on rates of pay, earnings or employment opportunities; and
(c)	shall, for the purpose of the arbitration, have all the powers conferred on a conciliation board under section 175 of the Canada Labour Code".
August 31, 1973


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The committee has heard the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: On a point of order; Mr. Chairman, some of us on this side of the House thought that the minister in his amendment would include some reference to the cost of living. The amendment does not do so.


Gérald Laniel: There is nothing preventing hon. members from moving an amendment afterwards. The minister has now moved his own amendment.


John Mercer Reid: It will be added as a subamendment.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Do I take it that it is necessary to amend the minister's amendment?


John Mercer Reid: That is right.


David Orlikow: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member for Peel South but wish to spend a few moments in commenting on the amendment moved. The fact that the minister had to bring in this amendment is clear proof of the point we have tried to make throughout this debate. There has not been, on the part of railway management, any desire or intention to engage in real, meaningful bargaining. I am not surprised at the great differences of opinion between the companies concerned and their employees with regard to sections of the agreement to do with wage rates. Any company tries to maximize profits and does so by trying to keep its labour costs as low as possible. On the other hand, the employees of any company try to get as much by way of wages and fringe benefits as possible. That there may be differences of opinion in these areas is not surprising.
There have been differences of opinion between the companies and their employees for many years over job security and the employees have had a good deal of experience in trying to deal with this question. Some years ago they negotiated an agreement calling for a job security fund. Money was put into that fund at the rate of one cent per hour per employee. That money has virtually never been used because the terms of that agreement were so restrictive that the companies would not, or could not, use it.
In the current negotiations the unions were prepared to make an important concession in order to introduce a section in the agreement which would protect the rights of their members. They were prepared to give up any craft or job description and, if the company would agree to guarantee the jobs of employees who had two or more years of employment, they were prepared to say that the company could direct any employee laid off as a result of automation, or for any other reason, to any other job and if the employee so adversely affected refused to take the job to which he was directed, he could be laid off without protest by the union.
The evidence submitted by the union and the conciliation board showed conclusively that that agreement would not have cost the companies one cent. Despite that, the companies did not show the slightest intention to reach any agreement in this area. Is it any wonder that railway
Railway Operations Act
employees are angry and suspicious, and that members of parliament are getting calls from their railway union constituents who tell them that no matter what parliament passes by way of legislation, they will not go back to work? I am not saying they are right. I am not urging them to disobey this law any more than I would urge any citizen to disobey any law, whether I agree with the law or not: for the law should be obeyed. Yet railway employees feel this way these days, to a large extent because, as the companies have become used to saying no, they have continued to say no even though such agreement will not cost them one cent.
What are the facts? I touched on them briefly last night. The work force of the non-operating employees has been reduced by more than one-third in the last 20 years. Productivity has increased greatly; it has increased in the railway industry probably more than in any other industry in the country. The age of employees working for the railways is such that in the case of the CNR the normal rate of attrition is about 18 per cent per year, while the attribution in railway employment is less than 3 per cent per year.
It is obvious that normal attrition can adequately take care of the expected reduction in the numbers of nonoperating railway employees, especially in light of the seniority of the present employees. Despite 16 per cent of CNR employees now being over 55 years of age and almost one-third of CNR employees having less than four years of employment with the company, the company simply refuses to deal with the recommendations and with the suggestions made by its employees and their unions. It refuses to take seriously the proposals made by Professor Weldon to the conciliation board, that all employees of four years or more seniority should be guaranteed employment with the railway regardless of the fact that their particular jobs might be eliminated by reason of automation or other reasons. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that the employees are angry. It is sad indeed that we need to deal, by way of legislation, with a problem which should have been freely and willingly resolved between the companies and the employees, as this would not have cost the companies any money at all.
We have looked at the amendment the minister has proposed and it seems to go a substantial way toward meeting the objections which the railway unions put forward about the question of job security being left in the conciliation board report as outlined by the chairman and not being included in the bill as originally proposed by the government. The minister's amendment goes a substantial way to meeting the objections of the railway unions and the employees they represent, and for that reason I will not move the amendment to which I referred earlier.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, as you know, the hon. member for Peel South indicated that he had a further amendment to move to this particular clause. I think he is ready with it now.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, on that same point I think before the subamendment can be approved the motion would have to be accepted, and then the hon. member for Peel South could move his amendment.

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: The question is now before the House as an amendment, and nothing prevents the hon. member from moving a subamendment or an amendment to the motion to amend.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, I have had some discussions with people on the other side of the House with respect to the drafting and the placement of the clause I suggested within the context of the statute. As we are aware, the minister has produced a new subclause 3 with a part (a), a part (b) and a part (c). I would therefore ask this House for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment that 1 previously placed and to make a further amendment. I suppose the best way is first to withdraw what I have proposed and then place another amendment.
With the unanimous consent of the House I would ask leave to withdraw the amendment previously placed to subclause (6) on page 13 of the bill so that I may introduce a further amendment to the minister's amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Peel South to withdraw his previous amendment to subclause (6) of clause 16 on page 13 of the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Blenkarn) withdrawn.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I therefore move that subclause 16(3) of bill C-217 be amended by adding a new subparagraph (d) as follows:
shall in respect of wages, specifically provide for the adjustment of wages to any increase or increases in the cost of living where the arbitrator is satisfied that such adjustment has not been previously or adequately provided.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member would not have any objection if the Chair makes a necessary correction to put the amendment in the proper form. I think it should read as an amendment to the motion moved by Mr. Lang to clause 16(3) by adding subparagraph (d) which reads as follows:
shall in respect of wages, specifically provide for the adjustment of wages to any increase or increases in the cost of living where the arbitrator is satisfied that such adjustment has not been previously or adequately provided.
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order just to protect my position. I wish to move an amendment to subparagraph (b) of this amendment now before us. I would prefer to do it after we have disposed of the new subparagraph (d), but I just do not want to have thrown at me a rule to the effect that I had to do it in order.
Perhaps I might elaborate on my point, Mr. Chairman. There is a rule in the book somewhere which says that subparagraphs have to be taken seriatim. I just want still to be able to deal with (b) after (d).


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I assure the hon. member that he will be entitled to move his amendment to

the new subparagraph that will automatically, by the decision, be added to subclause (3) of clause 16.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I tried to get this thought across earlier before the hon. member for Peel South moved his subamendment which raised a question in my mind. I thought that if he regarded my point as valid he might have been able to incorporate it in his amendment.
Apart from the fact that in substance this is what we attempted to do unsuccessfully earlier this evening, and apart from the fact that there is some uncertainty about what emphasis an arbitrator may place on the cost of living and so on, there is another question which comes to mind.
I wonder whether the amendment is limiting in its impact? In other words, I wonder whether the language of the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Peel South might preclude the arbitrator from taking into account such questions as an increase in productivity that may be reflected in the wage structure as well.
Perhaps the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Peel South would be more broad and definite in its application if it were to include some phraseology to make sure that the arbitrator is not going to look at this in a narrow sense, and conclude from it that because it talks about "specifically provide for" increases etc. he need not feel bound by the law to proceed to tie it to such matters as productivity. I know that it comes down to a question of interpretation and I know that it is not the intent of the hon. member for Peel South that it be limiting but that it be broad in scope. I wonder whether the inclusion of some such phraseology would help. After the subamendment is dealt with, I may be able to say whether that sort of language might be incorporated in some way to ensure that no room for doubt exists in the authority.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, there is clearly no room for doubt. The clause is framed the way it is because the award set out in clause 5 indicates that the figure set out there is partly for inflation, partly for increased productivity, and partly for something the people making the award were concerned with, namely, what is called catch-up.
In this particular clause we are concerned strictly with inflation. We have galloping inflation. This government seems incapable of controlling inflation. It does not want to control it. We are concerned about protecting these men against that. The arbitrator is required to ensure that, in making the award, the cost of living is taken into account, if this has not already been done, and to make variations to cover the cost of living.


Frank Howard: If I can put it gently, that is misinterpreting clause 5. Clause 5 makes a simple declaration about which wage increase shall apply on an absolute basis one year and on a percentage basis the next. It does not talk about catch-up or any other factors. I can understand the hon. member for Peel South in his jealousy to guard himself, in that he voted against the cost of living concept earlier when it was clearly put to the committee on an absolute basis of equality, but he does not have to misinterpret the whole position in order to justify his case.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peel South?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Blenkarn) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: The committee will now consider the main motion moved by the Minister of Justice to amend subclause (3).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, earlier today I gave notice of intention to move an amendment to subclause (2) of clause 16, the effect of which was to deny the right to refer work rules to an arbitrator. The minister in considering that proposed amendment, a copy of which was sent to him, sought to deal with the matter of the amendment which is now before us in the name of the Minister of Justice. This is dealt with in subparagraph (b), the reference being to an arbitrator, which reads:
shall not alter or amend any existing work rules or practices in a manner that could have an adverse effect on rates of pay, earnings or employment opportunities; and
I appreciate the action of the Minister of Labour in considering my proposal and in presenting his wording of the idea. However, I submit he has restricted it by the qualifying words in the latter part of subparagraph (b).
I suspect that many members are aware of the main issue involved at this point. The issue is one raised by members of the UTU with particular respect to the consist of freight trains. This was discussed earlier today. At the present time, the crew consist is made up of the engineer and brakeman up front and conductor and brakeman in the caboose.
There is a move on by the railway management to get rid of the brakeman in the caboose, in other words to reduce the consist of freight trains to three individuals. The UTU feels very strongly that this is a change which must not be made. Their fear is that if the arbitrator is free to change some of the work rules and practices, this is one that might be changed.
I know there are other rule changes the UTU would like to achieve, but they would prefer to achieve those by the process of negotiation. They would rather not win some of the changes they want to win and run the risk of losing their position with regard to the crew consist by virtue of that matter being one that could be referred to the arbitrator. As a matter of fact, the members of the UTU, the trainmen on the trains do not feel that the kind of arbitrator who will be called in to do the job set up under this bill will be qualified to deal with such a matter as work rules.
I feel very strongly that the intent of my earlier amendment should be observed and that the minister in subparagraph (b) should stop after the word "practices". Therefore, I move:
That the amendment be amended by deleting subparagraph (b) therefrom, and by substituting therefor the following words:
(b) shall not alter or amend any existing work rules or practices; and
It will be seen that this is a technical way of putting the amendment so that it will be clear. The effect is to remove those dangerously qualifying words in the minister's pro-
Railway Operations Act
posed amendment. I hope the committee, realizing that members of all parties have had representations made to them on this point by those on the running trains, will agree to accept this subamendment to the minister's amendment.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, I wish to indicate to the hon. member that in the drafting of the amendment, I tried to cope in the best way possible. That is why the wording is in this manner. I think it is a clear signal to the arbitrator that we are concerned about the consist. We are concerned about this fourth man, the brakeman, about whom the hon. member spoke. However, it does not give him a specific direction. In each instance these are items that are in dispute. It does not identify it exclusively, but it does signal to him the concern of parliament. I feel that is preferable.
If we are now going to start to negotiate on the floor, and put certain things the arbitrator can deal with and certain things he cannot, and if management starts to make representations whereby they would like to take a few things out of the hands of the arbitrator which the union would like to have him deal with, we are into this whole business again. For that reason I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will see the artistry we think is contained in the words in subparagraph (b).


David Lewis: The minister has added certain qualifying words. I am not suggesting that my hon. friend should seek permission to withdraw his amendment; he himself will have to decide that. However, I should like to ask the minister whether he would agree to include the words "or safety" as an additional protection. Thus, if the committee does not accept my hon. friend's amendment the paragraph would read:
-alter or amend any existing work rules or practices in a manner which could have an adverse effect on rates of pay, earnings, employment opportunities or safety.


John Carr Munro: I do not see any objection, since we have already added some qualifying words, to adding the words "or safety".


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is willing to do that, I will be prepared to withdraw the amendment I have proposed. Either the minister or I could move that we simply add to the minister's motion, at the appropriate place, the words "or safety".


John Carr Munro: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is seeking unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Since there seems to be a consensus, perhaps by unanimous agreement we could add the words "or safety" after the words "employment opportunities". Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

August 31, 1973
Railway Operations Act


Gérald Laniel: Shall the clause, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of introducing an amendment to this clause, one which we believe will substantially improve the bill.
Yesterday and today, but especially today, we heard a good deal of rhetoric, some of it inspiring, much of it repetitious. It has been said repeatedly, both inside and outside the House, that the process called for by the bill, namely the process of continued conciliation, mediation and, if necessary, arbitration, is a charade; that it will not in fact result in a just settlement. This is a cause for concern. I do not believe this myself, and I sincerely hope it is not true. Nevertheless, our purpose in introducing this amendment is to provide further protection for the employees so that should this process not result in a settlement which will allow the railroads to continue operating, if, in fact, dissatisfaction were to reach such a stage, ten members of parliament could bring this question back before the House for disposition.
A similar provision was included in the 1966 legislation. I should like to point out-and I hope this will be acknowledged by the unions-that we are proposing a realistic safety measure. It is not a gimmick. We are not talking about 40 Members of Parliament, but about ten. I would therefore move:
That Bill C-217 be amended by inserting therein, immediately following subclause 16(6), the following:
"(7) A copy of any decision by an arbitrator appointed under subsection (1) shall be laid before the House of Commons not later than five days after the day the decision is made or, if that House is not then sitting, within the first five days next thereafter that the House of Commons is sitting.
(8)	Where, within five days after a copy of a decision by an arbitrator is so laid before the House of Commons, a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons, signed by not less than ten members of the House, is filed with the Speaker to the effect that the decision be revoked or amended, the House of Commons shall, within the first fifteen days next after the motion is filed that the House is sitting, in accordance with the Rules of the House, take up and consider the motion, and if the motion, with or without amendments, is approved by the House, the decision of the arbitrator shall be revoked or amended in accordance with the terms of the motion as so approved and the collective agreement to which the decision of the arbitrator had applied shall be so amended.
(9)	All questions in connection with any motion taken up and considered by the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (8) shall be debated without interruption and decided not later than the end of the third sitting day next after the day the motion is first so taken up and considered".


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, it would be charitable to assume that this amendment proposed by the Conservative party is in the form we see because of the fact it is 20 minutes to three in the morning. However, I am not in a charitable mood at this time of the morning and I find it completely ludicrous that a member of that party, whose members argued earlier during this debate that parliament should not involve itself in the resolution of conflicts on a continuing basis but only in circumstances involving some kind of an emergency, should now make this kind of a proposal. What is its logic?
[The Deputy Chairman.]
I suggest the logic of the amendment is that if any 10 members of the House find an objection to any decision made by the arbitrator, parliament once again will be involved in a debate on the issue at hand. Surely if that party to my right wants to be consistent with its leader's statement, who suggested we should keep parliament out of these disputes, it would not present this amendment. However, this is fully consistent with that party's totally inconsistent behaviour during this debate, so I am not surprised.


An hon. Member:: Don't get nasty.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 think the amendment should be rejected outright. I am not going to prolong the debate by saying anything other than that the Conservative party has not only committed illogical inconsistencies but, beyond that, has misinterpreted what was done in 1966. If hon. members of that party would get the Statutes of Canada for 1966-67 and look at page 5 of Section 11 they will find there is no such precedent for the kind of proposal they have now placed before the House. In fact the proposal in that section refers to restrictions exclusively in respect of regulations, which is a completely different proposal from the one before us, and I urge that this committee reject it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, unlike the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, I do my best at a quarter to three in the morning. I do agree with what he has said. I think the hon. gentleman did advance this proposal in good faith but has probably missed the point. In 1966 the proposal had reference to 10 members, but the review of the work of the arbitrator was very limited in scope, in fact limited to the terms of reference to the arbitrator. The proposal by this member would involve a complete review of the decision of the arbitrator. That in turn would mean a periodic review, and this could go on and on, forever and ever and ever. I would urge the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
I have nothing further to say, but I hope the employers of the railway employees who are in the galleries will realize that a negotiated settlement a week ago would have been a lot less expensive than what they will have to pay as a result of the amendments that have now been adopted.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, the simple purpose of this motion was to enable members of the NDP to assure the unions that there was a safety valve. In view of the fact that the government and the NDP will obviously not support it, I would ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gérald Laniel: I must remind hon. members that the hon. member requires the unanimous consent of the committee. Does the committee agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
August 31, 1973


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Howard is expediting things again.


Gérald Laniel: I know that hon. members are tired and it is hard for anyone to be attentive.

-as much attention as possible, but it is clear to the Chair that someone is opposed and does not want unanimous consent.

For the third time I will ask whether the committee gives unanimous consent to the request by the hon. member to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, because there seems to be some doubt I would ask you to put the question. In other words, I do not give my consent.


An hon. Member:: Don't ask us for consent again.


Gérald Laniel: Those in favour of the motion will please rise.
Amendment (Mr. Andre) negatived: Yeas nil, nays 126.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the motion lost.
Clause 16 as amended agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Schedules A, B, C and D agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Munro (Hamilton East) thereupon moved that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should, I suppose, at this hour ask the indulgence of the House.


An hon. Member:: Be humble.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words very seriously. As we have indicated, my colleagues and I are disappointed that the bill which has now been carried in committee and which will, of course, with the support of the other three parties in this House, be carried into law, is a great deal less just to the people concerned than it ought to have been. Therefore we will, in line with the position we have taken throughout, vote against the bill.
I said at the very beginning of this exercise that my colleagues and I were as aware as anyone else of the hardships which the present emergency has created for many sections of Canada and of the need at some time like the present for parliament to act to remove the cause of those hardships. But I repeat what I have said-repetition
Railway Operations Act
in this House is not unusual-that precisely because parliament found it necessary to take rights away from Canadians that the law gives them to stop people from striking when they are on strike, to prevent them from going out on strike which they have a right to do by law, such as the employees in the shopcrafts and running trades, when parliament takes on that responsibility it has a duty to be fair and just to the people whose rights it takes away.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: How about the little people who get hurt?


David Lewis: I suggest that the bill which is now to be given third reading is not fair and just to the people who are being penalized by it. None the less, it is a mark of our democratic process and of this parliamentary process that the bill has been improved. I know that in one respect the members on the government benches are unhappy with the change from 30 cents to 34 cents, and so on; but in many other respects, as a result of the recommendations made by members of the opposition parties, by members of the Conservative party and members of my party, other clauses in the bill have provided greater security for the employees involved in the strike and who were laid off. I have watched on television, I have listened on the radio, and I have seen exhibited in the confines of parliament the bitterness and frustration of the people involved in the strike which this bill seeks to end. I heard them on radio, on television and in person yesterday chant that they will not go back.
Many times in this House, many of us have been in a minority on a given subject. We have lost the fight-not only my colleagues and myself but other members of this House. We have lost a cause for which we have fought and which we have considered to be of immense importance to us, to our ideals, to Canada and to its people. But we have learned to accept the result, the democratic result, the decision of this parliament.
I can appreciate the frustration and the anger of those who are being affected by this law and who are to be ordered to go back to work under conditions not fully acceptable to them. But what they do will be their decision. I want to emphasize that in our view, and I know in the view of every member of this House, all Canadians have to accept the decision of parliament. The cause of the strikers and the cause of the employees will not be served by those who set out deliberately to defy the law that has been passed, even though that law is not entirely fair to them. Because it is not entirely fair to the people concerned in the railways, we cannot but vote against the bill on third reading.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to say on behalf of our party that we hope this is the last time we are called upon to pass this type of legislation, because we feel there is a better way.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say very briefly that we will support this bill, but with reluctance, since this is not a democratic or proper way of

August 31, 1973
Division
settling a labour dispute. One thing is sure, however: this bill has been improved by the work of parliament and our party is pleased that at least some hon. members from other parties recognized the importance of speaking of gearing wages to the cost of living. That is something we have been clamouring for in all sectors of the economy and for once, this evening, our ideas made some headway. I heard colleagues of all parties speak of it.
Mr. Speaker, before ending my remarks, I should like to say that the I am surprised at my hon. colleague from York South (Mr. Lewis) paying that he will vote against the bill, against the back-to-work order, when his party spent I don't know how much time proposing amendments in conjunction with the government, which amendments were accepted. Finally, Mr. Chairman, if the NDP vote against the bill, I wonder what logic there is in their attitude.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I perhaps travelled farther than any other member of the House of Commons to get here, and it would be inappropriate if I did not say a word or two about some others who have been completely overlooked in the few days during which this debate has been going on. If it were not for the communications network that was maintained by the CN in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories we would have had virtually no communication with the outside world, electronically at least. That network has been maintained during the strike by supervisors most of whom were workers at one time. Therefore, I think I would be remiss if I did not extend our appreciation to those supervisors who provided the service to these often forgotten areas of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
Trudeau	Messrs: Turner	WatsonTrudel	(Ottawa-	WhelanTurner	Carleton)	Whittaker(London	Wagner	WiseEast)	Walker	WoolliamsBenjamin	NAYS Messrs: Knowles	Yanakis-11 NesdolyBlackburn	(Winnipeg	OlaussenBrewin	North Centre)	OrlikowBroadbent	Leggatt	PetersDouglas	Lewis	RodriguezGleave	Maclnnis (Mrs.)	RoseGodin	(Vancouver	RowlandGrier	Kingsway)	SaltsmanHarding	Mather	Symes-26.Harney	Neale	Knight	(Vancouver	East)
["Pursuant to Section (3) of Standing Order 2, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, September 4, at 2 o'clock p.m.\nAt 6.13 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.", 'Tuesday, September 4, 1973']
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is understood that the bill will go to the other place, so probably we should suspend the sitting to the call of the bells, when we could give royal assent, hopefully, to this measure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if at this late hour the minister is inspired to give a divine decision as to what we are going to do next Tuesday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or, more immediately, what are we going to do for the next hour?


Mr. Speaker:: If there is agreement, we will suspend the sitting to the call of the bells.



[Stage Direction]
At 3.25 a.m. the sitting was suspended.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6 a.m.
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa, September 1, 1973
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Ronald Martland, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be.
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the 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.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-217, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of operations of railways and for the settlement of the disputes with respect to terms and conditions of employment between railway companies and their employees-Chapter 32.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure I express our feelings and thanks when I express appreciation for the services we have received in the course of this long day's sitting from the staff of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that not only the library, restaurant and cafeteria staff, Journals and Debates, but the House of Commons personal staff, the pages and the protective staff have dutifully remained at our service during these long hours. I am sure we appreciate their services.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (3) of Standing Order 2, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, September 4, at 2 o'clock p.m.
At 6.13 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Tuesday, September 4, 1973