Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, I want first to extend my good wishes and congratulations to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). None of us in this house envies him the task with which he was confronted at the very moment he took office. His position demands two qualities in particular, which he possesses in full measure. They are courage, and, in its broadest sense, liberalism; and I am sure they will sustain him through this very difficult period.

We are meeting here today in an air of crisis that has swept over this country as I have never known it before in peacetime. Usually tension and hostility create the worst possible atmosphere in which to settle a labour dispute; yet something must be done and done now in order to end this creeping economic paralysis. I support, as do other members of this house, the resumption of railway service at the earliest possible moment. Speaking in this house yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was careful to make it very clear that this bill is not to be considered a precedent; that it is not compulsion in the usual sense or as it is commonly understood; that no sanctions are involved. I was horrified at the suggestion made in the press some time ago that there might be loss of pensions and seniority, or even jail, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) suggested. That is not so. The Prime Minister made it clear that the right to strike is in no way being affected by what we do in connection with this bill.

To me those are very comforting words; yet in principle I consider this a dangerous bill, less because of what it attempts to do now than because of what in other hands it might be made to do hereafter. We have all heard it said that the free trade union movement is the foundation stone of democracy. We have perhaps heard it said so often that the words have lost their significance, but to me, and I know to many other members of this house, they remain the literal and absolute truth. Let us first admit that this is an ad hoc bill designed for one specific purpose, to settle one specific strike. Let us admit that at this late date, in the light of all the tragic happenings that have gone before, the government sees no other course in the national interest than to enact this measure. Yet this bill could be construed as saying

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act to the trade unions that in such and such circumstances you are no longer free to exercise your rights. If in the exercise of your legal rights and accepted privileges you jeopardize a large number of your fellow men, then we, the government of this country, will endeavour to strip those rights and privileges from you.

On those grounds, Mr. Speaker, I believe the bill is wrong. In its potentialities it is destructive of democracy. I do not believe we can introduce into this limited field, for a limited time and with a limited objective, this sort of bill without doing harm to the concept of collective bargaining.

At the outset I made it clear that I support that portion of the bill which starts the railways in operation again, but I hesitate to go beyond that. The bill has a fault in that it falls far short of accepting the minimum proposals made by the railways. I should have thought the bill would include the assurance that there will be a forty-hour week, at a date agreed to already. In any event there should have been a floor on the work week. I thought it should have included the assurance that there will be forty-eight hours' pay for forty hours' work. This much should be said for the government, that the bill goes beyond the proposals of the railways in that it includes the hotel and water transportation personnel. For that the government is entitled to a high degree of commendation.

I find it difficult to accept the section referred to by some members in this house as "compulsion" and by others as "determination". I have always thought that there was another way out. We all agree that the railways ought to commence operating immediately. We all agree that the parties ought to go back and negotiate, but while they are negotiating the railroads must continue to run. It seems to me that if they are unable to reach an agreement we shall be back here in January, and we can then deal with the problem as it appears before us. By that time the parties to the dispute will have cooled off; we shall have cooled off; and the Canadian people will have cooled off. At that time we can take the appropriate action. I feel certain that by that time no action will be necessary, because an agreement will have been reached, an agreement which will give the men retroactive pay for the time they were negotiating.

If we are guided by what we have read in the newspapers, and what we have heard in this house, we must come to the conclusion that mistakes have been made, and that the graver mistakes have been Mr. Gordon's rather than the unions'. I believe he handled the negotiations with something less than

[Hr. Croll.]

skill and dexterity. He demonstrated repeatedly that he was accustomed to dealing with a type of individual a little more docile than the trade union member. He carried the ball during the discussions, and unfortunately for us he fumbled it.

The newspaper account of the interview with Professor Mackintosh was, in my opinion, telltale. He said that both sides were childish; that was' a damning thing to say about grown men meeting to conduct responsible and far-reaching negotiations. His report, presented to the house last night by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), was a shocking one. It is reported at page 20 of Hansard. Human and labour relations on the railways have deteriorated to the point where they cast their dark shadows on the collective bargaining process. In his report Dr. Mackintosh says:

The work of the mediator was made extraordinarily difficult by (1) the almost complete lack of confidence between the parties to the dispute; (2) the number and variety of the unions which were attempting to bargain as one unit; (3) the very low level of effectiveness of collective bargaining in the industry; (4) the fact that the rapidly approaching menace of the strike created confusion between genuine bargaining and attempts to make statements of positions before the work stoppage took place.

We send people to the bargaining table and we find that they are fighting this out with public relations officers to see who can get out the best statement, who can get out the last statement, or who can lay the blame on the other person. "Childish" is hardly the word for it; it is much worse than that. It seems to me it is downright negligence. I share with the members of this house the view that one man is particularly responsible for it.

Let us finally consider the bill for a moment. Neither today's government nor today's opposition in this house can undertake to say what the effect of passing this bill will be, though we say it is confined to a particular strike in 1950. There it is for all of us to see in the future. We ask ourselves the question, will it not be extended in the future by administrations less friendly to labour than our own? Will not the principle of public interest be extended to cover other unions-perhaps first in the transportation field, in the trucking industry, or the seamen? Will not this same principle be used in other industries which may be declared essential to the public, such as the packing industry, baking, steel, or mining?

A segment of the press of this country has for some time been conditioning the minds of the people to compulsory arbitration. It

seems that the beachhead will be public utilities. I believe much comfort and much support will be derived by them from section 5 of this bill. If any of you have read the Montreal Gazette this morning you will find that the lead editorial already says:

The time is bound to come when that principle will have to be broadened from this particular, present dispute to all disputes that concern the nation's lifelines.

The editor is talking about compulsory arbitration. For some time other papers throughout the country have been saying the same thing, so we might as well meet this issue now and declare our stand. We should do what we can towards achieving the goal that we consider to be in the public interest. I believe it would be nothing short of a national calamity if we were to substitute something else for the collective bargaining process. I was heartened to hear the Prime Minister say that was not proposed in this bill. On the other hand, are we not being asked to take a long stride down the road whose end is neither trade unionism nor democracy as we know them? It is true that compulsion can force the parties to submit to a given procedure. It may even force them to accept unwillingly certain results. But I think this house knows very well that forced obedience generates resistance and hostility. Far from being a cure, it is a source of further conflict and it multiplies strife instead of preventing it. Compulsion never removes the cause of the strife. Forced obedience against the will of those concerned sows the seeds of bitterness and resentment and in the end aggravates the very condition it was sought to cure.

I believe that compulsory arbitration means the death of collective bargaining. It is all very well to say that we shall apply this principle only in this case, but we have done damage to a fundamental principle of freedom. The right of the wage earner to refuse to work is a legal right and a fundamental human right; and the exercise of that right is an essential ingredient in a free and vigorous economy. I believe that under certain conditions a strike may be far less harmful to the state and to industry than peace maintained by statutory tyranny.

I shall vote, Mr. Speaker, against what I consider to be compulsory aspects, as contained in section 5 of this bill.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, in common with other hon. members who have spoken, I regret that a strike in our transportation system became necessary, and I am most anxious to see it settled at the earliest possible moment. But I share the view that has just been expressed by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), 692G2-4

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act and which was also put forward by my leader (Mr. Coldwell) and by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), that it is in the public interest also, indeed that it is of primary importance, that there be no interference with the principle of free collective bargaining.

Dress it up in any way that you may, the bill presented by the government does interfere most seriously with that principle. Point out though you may that the bill deals just with this particular situation, it establishes a precedent for the handling of labour disputes by the means of compulsory arbitration; and I am firmly of the view that that price is too high a one to pay for the settlement of the present dispute. I am satisfied that there are other ways in which it could have been settled and that there are now other ways in which it can be settled. Out of loyalty to the best interests of this Canadian nation, I feel that I have no alternative but to oppose the principle of compulsory arbitration which is set out in the bill that is now before us.

I want to take a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, to say that I feel that in the dispute itself the requests, or the demands, if you wish to call them that, of the workers are most reasonable and more than justified. As has already been stated, it is some thirty-two years since there has been any change in the work week of most railroad workers. It has also been pointed out on behalf of the railroad workers that the average wages, let alone the wages of the lower-paid railway workers, are far below the highest wages being earned by industrial workers in this country. We must not confuse the situation by thinking of some of the higher rates of pay that are earned by certain operating personnel; for in this dispute we are dealing with the whole gamut of railroad workers, which includes a great many in the lower brackets. . I think it is to be said in defence of the railway workers that for a long time they have refrained from taking action of this kind. If I am correct, the last time there was an interruption in railway services that could be called a strike was in 1919, thirty-one years ago; and even on that occasion a good deal of the cessation of work was of a sympathetic nature or because of the particular circumstances of the time.

Many railway workers feel that it is because they have shown such a responsible attitude and such a readiness to refrain from striking that advantage has been taken of them and that their wages, hours and conditions have not had improvements to which they were entitled. I therefore feel, without going into that side of the case at too great length, that it must be pointed out that we

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act are dealing with a responsible group of workers who are making most reasonable and just requests. I think it should be pointed out also that in the various negotiations that have taken place, both in Montreal before the strike actually broke and here in Ottawa last week end, the leaders of the workers made substantial concessions. Whereas in the first place they asked for seven cents an hour increase, with some of the unions asking for ten cents, effective July 16, 1949, they came to the point where they were prepared to accept, in order to settle the dispute, seven cents an hour effective June 1, 1950, or, as an alternative, five cents an hour effective January 1, 1950, with a cost of living bonus as from September 1, 1950.

Let it also be pointed out that when the railway workers first served notice on the management, they asked for the five-day forty-hour week with forty-eight hours' pay to be effective September 1, 1949. Last Saturday they were prepared to settle the strike on the basis of the forty-hour week becoming effective June 1, 1951, with an additional three months' period during which they would not ask for overtime rates up to forty-eight hours a week. In other words they have moved two years in the effective date that they were insisting upon for the implementation of the forty-hour week. I submit that these people, to whom fine tributes have been paid on all sides of the house, have, as the facts show, taken a most reasonable and a most patient attitude. Indeed, if they have made any mistake across the years, I think they have been r little too patient, and that as a result of that patience they have obtained less than they deserve.

In the face of that attitude on the part of the workers, and in the face of what I believe to be their just and reasonable demands, we have presented to them by the government this Bill No. 1, which requires that they go back to work on certain terms. The only immediate guarantee that they get out of this bill is an increase of four cents an hour. I am thinking at the moment of employees in the Weston shops in Winnipeg, where I come from, who by the way are working forty hours a week. Hon. members may not realize that, but the fact of the matter is that last May the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, despite the agreement which called for a longer work week, reduced the work in its main shops-the Angus, Weston and Ogden shops and so on-to five days, forty hours, but at forty hours' pay. Incidentally there has been no complaint as to any loss of efficiency because of the forty-hour week. That means that those workers, according to the terms of the bill before us,

will be asked to go back to work for an increase of four cents for the forty hours they are working-in other words, $1.60 a week. The cost of living has gone up almost that much while they have been on strike; and to suggest that after all the years they have waited for a more decent settlement, that after all the years they have exercised this patience, they should be directed to take that as the basis of going back to work, is certainly beneath this parliament asking them to do.

I know that this bill also has in it the proposed that the other issues in dispute would be submitted to arbitration, and that the award of the arbitrator in the last analysis would be made binding. I suppose some would say the workers are being asked to go back to work not only for $1.60 a week in the case that I cited, but on faith and in the confidence that the arbitrator will give them perhaps something more with respect to the wage increase, and perhaps the forty-hour week at some reasonable time. But, as has already been pointed out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), by the leader of this party, by the hon. member for Spadina and perhaps by others, the terms of the bill make it very clear that once the arbitrator takes over he has the power to arbitrate on all matters then in dispute.

Section 5, subsection 1, makes it quite clear that any matter in dispute between the parties, any matter upon which at that time there has not been agreement, shall be arbitrated by the arbitrator and his decision shall be final. As a matter of fact, there is not even a guarantee-though I cannot imagine any arbitrator not recognizing the four cents-there is not even any legal guarantee that the arbitration would include the four cents which is granted on a temporary basis by this bill. There is no guarantee that the arbitrator would give to the workers the earliest day for the implementation of the forty-hour week which the companies were prepared, up until the time the negotiations broke off, to give. As I understand it, on Saturday last the companies were prepared to settle for the implementation of the forty-hour week on September 1, 1951. It does seem to me that the bill should have put a clear deadline, if you like, under that date, making it positive that the arbitration award would make it at least that if not earlier.

Just as there is no legal protection for the four-cent increase, so there is no protection on any other maximum offers that the companies made during the course of negotiation. Someone might say: "Surely the companies will not go back on those offers." But if I know railways, and from the way they have acted in the course of this dispute, it is pretty

clear that they would have the opportunity to leave even the four-cent proposal as a matter in dispute at the end of the fifteen-day period. All they have to do is to leave it as a matter in dispute, and then it is up to the arbitrator to decide.

I point out also there is nothing in the bill to provide that if the arbitrator decides on the forty-hour week it will be with forty-eight hours' pay. That has been the basis of the request for the forty-hour week by the workers, not only during the past twelve months, but during the past five years while they have been making it known to the companies and to the public that they wanted this change. There is nothing in the bill to guarantee that the forty-hour week would be with forty-eight hours' pay. That is of real concern to the workers I represent.

Similarly, there is nothing in the bill to guarantee to the workers that the length of the contract will be favourable or even partly favourable to them. That has been one of the matters in dispute. The men wanted an annual contract, as they have had down through the years. The companies asked in the first place for a three-year contract. The men felt that to give the companies a three-year contract was to give the companies the chance of enjoying rising revenues in a period of buoyancy which the men would not be able to share in. They would be stuck then with lower wage rates for that three-year period. Actually I believe there was some sort of compromise arrived at during the negotiations that broke off on Saturday; but the bill says that it will be up to the arbitrator to decide how long that contract is to be. Once the companies make that a matter of dispute it gives the arbitrator double reason-and double authority, if you like-for deciding on that point.

Similarly there is nothing in the bill to protect the men against the arbitrator deciding that the ten changes in rules which the companies put forward as a counter-proposal would have to be accepted. I say here again I understand there was some compromise reached on that point, but all the companies have to do is to make it a matter under dispute at the end of the fifteen-day period, and then leave it to the arbitrator to make a decision on those rules. Those rule changes are perhaps not clearly understood by a great many of the public. Certainly their significance and import are not fully realized. On behalf of the men I want to say that they feel very keenly the suggestion that those ten rule changes should be made. Some of them affect one class of workers and some another. They deal with such things as the length of time a person must be an apprentice.

69262-ii

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act They deal with Sunday work and overtime. They deal with what station agents get when they get up in the middle of the night to meet a train, and all kinds of such matters, and have been arrived at through the years by a process of negotiation more or less satisfactory to both sides. Now the companies come along and suggest that these changes, all in the companies' favour, should be made as a price of a settlement.

I repeat, despite any approach to each other that they may have made in the course of the negotiations that have taken place thus far, once they resume negotiations under this bill all the companies have to do is to leave the rule changes as a matter of dispute at the end of the fifteen-day period and it is thrown to the arbitrator to decide. As I have already indicated, to ask the men to go back to work, men who have been as patient as the railway workers have been, men who have made the contribution that they have to our national economy both in war and peace, to ask these men to go back to work at four cents an hour and the slim possibility that there would be of getting a reasonable settlement on these other points that are at issue, I suggest, is something this parliament should not be asked to do. Any suggestion that this would solve the problem, that parliament could go home and think it had done a job, is far from the mark.

I ask hon. members just to contemplate what would be happening during the next few months. The members of the unions would go back with four cents an hour. They would not be satisfied with what was going to happen, and the result of that dissatisfaction would show itself in the nature of their work on the job, and might show itself in the numbers who would go back to work. Then a few months from now the arbitrator, having gone into the matter of these various things that are in dispute, makes his award. The chances of the award meeting the just and reasonable requests of the men, I submit from experience, are not good, and yet it is an award that they will have to accept; and you would have, instead of this body of men for whom so much praise has been uttered - today being satisfied, a disgruntled group of workers who would feel that they had been let down by the parliament of Canada, at least by the government that brings in this legislation. I submit that members who are anxious to rush this thing through today would then rue the day that they supported this way of settling this dispute.

For these reasons I feel that any of us who are interested not only in the welfare of the workers in this country and in justice

Mr. Gillis:

No, he did not.

Mr. Pouliol:

The hon. member may have his views, but I have mine.

Mr. Gillis:

I know the horn, member wants to be accurate, and he generally is. The industrial relations committee wrote that provision into the code and then a backbencher in the house moved it out. It was taken out in the house, not in the committee.

Mr. Pouliol:

I will tell my hon. friend that it was taken out in the house when his amendment was defeated. The hon. member is free to have his views and I am free to have mine. I have the honour to represent several hundred railway employees whom I consider to be like my children. I have great respect and admiration for them because they are good citizens who are doing their work very well. I am interested in them because I recommended most of them for their positions. I am dealing with them every day and I think I am just as well informed on labour matters as any hon. member who has tMr. Pouliot.l

railway men in his constituency and who receives them and listens to them instead of trying to instruct them.

I do not intend to speak at great length. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is interested in the' welfare of railway men, but he is not the only hon. member who is. All members of parliament are interested in the welfare of railway men, and the first one who has shown his deep interest in the welfare of the railway men is the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He has taken this matter to heart and has discussed all the angles of the problem with the leaders of the brotherhoods and of the railways.

I cannot understand why an hon. member with the intelligence of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should present such a futile subamendment. I have great respect for the hon. member; I admire his gifts, but his subamendment is far from meaning what he has said it means.

I think this a proper occasion to say a word about the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I listened with great attention to the speech he made, and I think, with the exception of its ending, that it was one of the best speeches of his career. He reminded me of a gifted painter who paints a wonderful masterpiece and then in a gesture of eloquence passes his brush across the picture and destroys it.

At first I listened to the leader of the opposition with awe-meaning admiration; but finally I had a feeling of disappointment. Why? It was for this very good reason. Having complained about the coercion used against the railway men, he suggests the greatest piece of coercion that has been suggested since we met together. The government wants to appoint an arbitrator if no understanding is reached between management and labour. That is the only thing to do. But there is this other proposal, a proposal exhumed from the old days of R. B. Bennett and Sir Edward Beatty-amalgamation of the railways under one man.

Mr. Green:

Oh no; it was not.

Mr. Poulioi:

Let Quadra be quiet.

Mr. Green:

You stick to the facts.

Mr. Poulioi:

I was there at that time. My hon. friend was not here at that time. I remember the appointment of trustees of the Canadian National Railways for the purpose of amalgamating the two railways and the fight that was waged by the Liberal party when Bennett wanted to amalgamate the express, telegraph and telephone companies. Here we have the suggestion not of an arbitrator but of an administrator, a national

dictator, a man who would be the boss of both railways. So far as the railways are concerned, my policy is the old policy of the Liberals: competition ever, amalgamation

never.

I have often heard railway men say that the Tory party was the high finance party, the party that was so despotic with the railway men, the party that wanted unification of the railways. I thought that was a story of the past.

Mr. Green:

That is the Liberal party now.

Mr. Poulioi:

Let Quadra be quiet again.

Mr. Noseworthy:

The Liberal party is taking their place.

Mr. Pouliot:

How does the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) speak through his hat when he is uncovered?

Mr. Green:

You do all the time.

Mr. Pouliot:

I know the story of the Tory party better than my hon. friend knows the story of his political family. I have been sitting here long enough to know the story. I have been fighting long enough against R. B. Bennett, Beatty and all those fellows who wanted amalgamation of the railways. I can tell my hon. friend that it is because of the Liberal party that we still have two railways, one privately owned and one controlled by the state. Otherwise their shares would have been sky-high and the C.P.R. would have been controlled by the state in the same way as the C.N.R. We would have had no competition and a lot of men would have lost their positions. That is why railway men are against amalgamation of the railways. That is why railway men throughout the country and the Canadian people at large will deeply resent the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition.

Mr. Green:

We are against amalgamation, and you know it.

Mr. Pouliot:

It is a foster child. Leave

it to the ghosts of Bennett and Beatty and do not speak of it any more.

Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):

Mr. Speaker, I know that no one wants to delay the vote on this particular question.

Sit down.