Gordon Graydon
Progressive Conservative
Mr. GRAYDON:
Did not the minister use the word "invade" yesterday?
Subtopic: *CANADIAN NATIONAL-CANADIAN PACIFIC ACT- PRESS REPORT AS TO INVASION OF PROVINCIAL FIELD
Hon: LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The Montreal Gazette of this morning carries a Canadian Press dispatch concerning the introduction of Bill 254, to amend the Canadian National - Canadian Pacific Act, 1933, which gives the impression that the proposed amendment is to permit the federal government to invade the provincial field in regard to the labour relations of the railways. The purpose of the bill is to give the federal government jurisdiction over rates of pay, hours of work and working conditions of the employees of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways. Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over these railways, and the object of the bill is to occupy the field in so far as labour relations of their employees are concerned. The government considers it is now time for parliament to exercise its jurisdiction by legislating in the field of labour relations as affecting the construction, operation or maintenance of these railways.
Mr. GRAYDON:
Did not the minister use the word "invade" yesterday?
Mr. CHEVRIER:
Yes, I did use the word "invade", but I intended to use the word "occupy". But then the press report went on to say that a question was asked by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) with reference to whether the government intended to invade this field without the consent of the provinces. I do not think the hon. member used any such word. He simply asked whether we had obtained the consent of the provinces, and I said it was not necessary. The press report stated that I replied, "not necessarily",
and clearly indicated an intention to invade the field. There is no such intention at all. We already have the field.
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: That the name of Mr. Maedonnell (Muskoka-Ontario) be substituted for that of Mr. Harris (Danforth) on the standing committee on public accounts. That the name of Mr. Knowles be substituted for that of Mr. Moore on the standing committee on industrial relations. That the name of Mr. Moore be substituted for that of Mr. Maclnnis on the standing committee on marine and fisheries. Motion agreed to.
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):
I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps it should more properly be directed to the Prime Minister, but I sent notice to the Secretary of State for External Affairs because I knew it was at least partly within his purview. Does President Truman's request to congress yesterday for enactment of legislation "authorizing a programme of military collaboration with all countries of the western hemisphere" mean that there has been any alteration in or extension of the policy of collaboration between Canada and the United States which was announced by the Prime Minister earlier this session?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):
The answer is no.
Mr. GRAYDON:
Then in view of the fact that the legislation requested evidently would open the w'ay for Canada to make purchases from the United States through a new avenue, would not that be an extension of what was originally announced to the house?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:
I have seen nothing in the statement which to my mind extends the meaning of what I said in the house some time ago. I do not know if my hon. friend has something in mind that I cannot fathom, but I gather he wdshes to know if the statement made by President Truman
Inquiries of the Ministry
alters in any particular the statement I made here some little time ago, and my answer is no, it does not.
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):
Last week I asked the Minister of Finance about the storage of gold by certain mining interests. Yesterday I believe an announcement was made regarding the reimposition of certain measures of foreign exchange control as they concern United States currency. Could the minister give the house a statement regarding the latter matter, and is he prepared to answer the first question, which I asked him last week?
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):
No, I am not yet prepared to make a statement on the question asked last week. It is continuing to receive very careful consideration. As my hon. friend will appreciate, it is not a simple question, nor is it free of certain complications, but I will make a statement to the house at a very early day.