August 30, 1950

CCF

Hazen Robert Argue

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assinihoia):

Mr. Speaker, as other members who have taken part previously in this debate have emphasized, this is indeed a most urgent situation affecting all sections of the people of this nation. It certainly is urgent to the farmers of western Canada as I know it is to agriculture from one end of the nation to the other. It is not only necessary that we have the transportation system operating in order to move our grain and livestock products but it is even more urgent in order that we may have supplies of gasoline and repair parts in order to take off the present harvest. I believe the farmers feel that the stoppage in railway operations should come to a halt immediately. Not only that, they feel that adequate steps should be taken so that such a situation will not come to pass at any time in the future.

I might say that some people in Canada felt that, after the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had announced the calling of parliament immediately, parliament would have been called within forty-eight hours. Apparently even the T.C.A. official who talked to me thought so. He assured me that parliament was opening last Wednesday and that other members were making reservations. Therefore I made a reservation for Tuesday night and arrived here last Wednesday. While the railway strike is very urgent so far as the average farmer is concerned, it was even more urgent in my case because I left what I hope will prove to be a reasonably good crop.

_ I am speaking at this time partly because it has been reported in various newspapers

from time to time within the last few days that there was a -clear division in the C.C.F. party, that there were members of the party representing farming constituencies who believed that the position of the railroad unions was unreasonable. I wish to deal with that contention in a few words.

It seems to me one of the basic causes of the strike is the fact that the government removed price controls in what I would call a disorderly rush. The cost of living of the workers is going up almost every day, and they feel that in order to protect the standard of living of themselves and their families something has to be done. But as far as the present inflationary situation is concerned, it affects farmers in exactly the same way. Their costs of production are going up almost daily, while the prices of a great many of our primary products are falling.

The farmers know that our railway system is very important and must be kept in operation at all times. But they also know that every time the railways go to the board of transport commissioners asking for an increase in freight rates, they are given an increase, and in a discriminatory manner. The railways obtain everything they ask from the board of transport commissioners. The workers see railway profits increasing rapidly, while their own standard of living is going down. As a result they believe action must be taken if they are to feed and clothe and house their families properly. For instance, in April of 1950 the net revenue of the C.P.R. showed an increase of 103 per cent as compared with the same month in 1949. The increase in May was 130 per cent, and in June 206 per cent. The Canadian National net to June, 1950, was $60,500,000, as compared to $950,000 for the same period last year. The truth is that the railways have never been in a better position to pay the workers reasonable wages. As has been pointed out already, the people now on strike are the lower paid groups employed by the railways, whose wages are a good deal lower than those paid in other comparable industries.

I believe that the position of the farmers and the position of the workers across this country are identical at this time. I do not think legislation which is fair to one is necessarily unfair to the other. The Saskatchewan farmers' union has circulated a letter signed by its president, J. L. Phelps, setting forth the position of that organization with respect to the present railway strike, from which I should like to read one paragraph:

We feel the present situation has developed because proper policies were not adopted to provide the necessary stability. We believe that bold and decisive action must be taken by our government immediately. The Saskatchewan farmers' union

therefore urge, in the strongest possible terms, your immediate consideration for submitting a plan to the members of the House of Commons now summoned for a special session in order to lay before them a proposal to establish immediately a price stabilization commission, upon which industry, labour and farmers will be adequately and proportionately represented. The duty of this price stabilization commission would be to proceed at once to fix the prices of manufactured goods, wages, hours, rents, profits and the price of primary products, including those of agriculture used for Canadian consumption, in fair relationship one to the other, and that this price stabilization commission be further charged with the responsibility of revising, from time to time, prices for the purpose of eliminating any inequalities as well gs making the necessary adjustments resulting from technological changes.

I agree with the sentiments expressed in that paragraph. If we are to have industrial peace, if the farmers of Canada are to continue all-out production, then each must receive a fair return. But of course there must be some control; otherwise strikes will continue, and there will be unrest in agriculture.

I find that I cannot support the bill the government has presented to parliament. As I .see it that bill contains two main points. First, the workers on the railways are ordered back; then compulsory arbitration is provided. I believe that at this time the workers must be ordered back, but I disagree with the provisions of the bill concerning compulsory arbitration. As an alternative to this bill we have moved an amendment to the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). By that amendment the workers would not be given everything for which they have asked; they would be merely guaranteed the concessions offered by the railroads pending free negotiation. I believe the workers would accept such a proposition and go back to work with good spirit, to operate the railways efficiently as they have in the past. The other matters would be left to negotiation.

I do hope, Mr. Speaker, this parliament will do nothing at this time to take away any of the hard-won freedom now enjoyed by the workers, the producers, or any other group in the nation. I believe the members of this house would be well advised to support the C.C.F. alternative.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
SC

Charles Edward Johnston

Social Credit

Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):

Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a word before the vote is taken. It is not my intention to hold up the house unnecessarily, but I think I should have something to say on this subject. In the first place, in my view the responsibility of necessity must lie with the government. It seems to me that if the government had fully realized the seriousness of the situation they would have acted a long time before they did. I believe it is the consensus of opinion

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act that the railways must be put back into operation immediately, so that the entire economy of Canada may not be dislocated. There is no doubt that practically every portion of that economy is feeling the effects of this strike, this tie-up of the railways. I hesitate to use the words "by this strike" because some might take it that I am against the strike. Let me make it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that I believe labour should have the right to strike; that is the only weapon labour has against industry. For that reason alone I maintain that the power to strike should never be taken away from the unions. But there is great economic difficulty facing all classes of the Canadian people. This has been referred to before but I believe it is worth repeating.

Agriculture, particularly in the west, will be seriously affected by this tie-up. The time is coming, in fact it is at hand, when the crops must be harvested. If there is a shortage of gasoline for power it might result in the destruction of many bushels of wheat. Then again there are not the storage facilities on the farms to take care of the forthcoming crop; that is one phase of the difficulties which face us. There are other phases which apply to almost every part of our economy one could mention. Many people are suffering from unemployment because of this strike. The railways are just as much to blame as are the unions.

At this particular time, Mr. Speaker, I should mention one of the transportation systems which is doing a worth-while job, and that is the trucking industry. On several other occasions I have spoken in this house about the trucking industry, pointing out the necessity of having a healthy trucking organization to take care of transportation problems. I think it would be well for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to note on this occasion the outstanding part the trucking industry is playing in conveying necessary goods, and particularly those goods necessary to our defence forces so that those boys who have offered their lives in the defence of this country can be properly trained. The trucking industry is also playing an outstanding part in delivering drugs to all parts of Canada where they are needed. I believe the trucking industry as a whole should be commended for the worth-while part they are playing in the economy of this country.

I said a moment ago that the unions and the men involved cannot be expected to carry the full responsibility for the consequences of this strike, and one has only to recall that the government itself is responsible in large measure for having permitted the cost of living to rise to such heights. When we

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act found freight rates going up there was no concerted effort on the part of the government to see that prices were maintained at a level which would not unduly affect the economy of the country. When one finds that the cost of living is rising on every hand, not because of anything done by the ordinary workingman, then one must expect there is going to be economic dislocation. The men who are suffering because of this increased cost of living will have to do something to counteract it, and the only thing that labour can do under those circumstances is to ask for an increase in pay. These members of the non-operating unions who are now asking for increased wages are the people who were suffering because they did not have sufficient income to meet rising costs. The railway unions are not the only ones affected by these rising costs. Every workingman in Canada is affected by them, yet the government sits idly by and does nothing to help these people provide a decent standard of living for their families. Since that is the direct responsibility of the government, then the government must take by far the greatest share of the blame. Let us not condemn these people who are taking part in the strike as the ones who are causing the increases in costs.

May I say just a word, Mr. Speaker, about the new president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon. In my view Mr. Gordon is a very capable executive. He served as chairman of the prices board during the war. In that position he was-I was going to say he was practically a dictator. In that capacity he did a fairly good job. As one of the members just indicated, he learned some bad habits in that position. I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker, that the government would not be well advised, in any further negotiations between the railways and the unions, to substitute someone else for Mr. Gordon. I believe it is quite clear that the unions are not prepared to conduct further negotiations with Mr. Gordon as head of the railway company. I am not speaking disparagingly at all of Mr. Gordon, but I believe it would help negotiations if the government could appoint someone else as negotiator.

I should like to refer to the bill for just a moment, and then to the amendment and subamendment. The leader of this party has stated that, in general, we would accept the bill. He certainly never indicated he would accept all the clauses. It will be necessary, as discussion of the bill progresses, to make certain amendments here and there to the various sections of the bill. I wish to say a word about the amendment. In my judgment

the amendment does not solve the problem at all. Let me read it to you:

That Bill No. 1 be not now read the second time but that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to a measure which would provide for the appointment of a national administrator to ensure immediate operation of the railways pending final solution of the dispute by the free process of collective bargaining.

This amendment provides for two things. First, it provides that there shall be a national administrator. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that there are some of the local unions across Canada that are not in favour of a national administrator. I do not say that applies to the heads of the unions, but there are some of the local unions throughout this country that are not in favour of a national administrator. The other objection I have to the amendment is that there is no finality to it. True, a national administrator would be appointed, but there is no provision that agreement shall be arrived at by a certain time. In effect it means that if a national administrator is appointed the unions will be forced to continue under their present agreement without any increase in pay, and that negotiations could be continued for the next ten years. It offers no solution.

When this bill was introduced it was the unanimous opinion of the house that the railways should be put into operation immediately and negotiations reopened, with some hope that there would be a finality to those negotiations. I want to make it clear once more that this party is entirely in accord with collective bargaining. If we can accept the Prime Minister's word, and I think we can, as being sincere when he said during the introduction of this bill that this would not be a precedent but was only to apply to this emergency, then I think we could not say in the strict sense of the term-and I use that word advisedly-that it is compulsory legislation; because without doubt I am against compulsory legislation.

If I may just refer to the subamendment for a moment, I would say this, Mr. Speaker. I think that the subamendment is put in in the wrong place. I do not see how it can very well fit in with the amendment, because the amendment calls for an administrator, not an arbitrator; and under the subamendment you are making the administrator in effect an arbitrator, something which was not intended, I take it, by the mover of the amendment in the Conservative party. I cannot say that I am in any disagreement with any of the points which are indicated in the subamendment other than the last one, and that may have been an oversight. Let me read the last one for you: "the check-off of

trade union dues." I think the intention of the mover of the subamendment was a voluntary check-off. If that is so, then I could agree with that. But if it is a compulsory check-off I could not agree with it.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

That is one of the points asked for by two of the unions.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
SC

Charles Edward Johnston

Social Credit

Mr. Johnston:

May I ask if it is a compulsory or a voluntary check-off?

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Voluntary.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
SC

Charles Edward Johnston

Social Credit

Mr. Johnston:

If it is voluntary, I think it should be so indicated in the subamendment. But if this subamendment had been applied to section 5 of the bill then personally I would have no objection to it; and I think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would be well advised to say to the house that the conditions outlined in the subamendment would be acceptable if they were applied to section 5 of the bill. I believe that probably the mover of the subamendment would agree to withdraw that subamendment now if the Prime Minister would assure him that those conditions would be taken care of in the bill.

Again let me say, Mr. Speaker, without delaying the house too long, that there are two things that I am definitely opposed to. One is the outlawing of the strike. I think that would be entirely wrong, as it is the only effective weapon that labour has. The second thing that I think would be entirely wrong is compulsory arbitration. I do not think that the bill itself endorses compulsory arbitration. It is true that it does provide for an arbitrator. But under the terms of section 5, they have fifteen days. If they cannot come to a decision in those fifteen days, then they can appeal to the governor in council and get an extension of time. I therefore think the bill provides for ample time for an arbitration to come about, and I think that would be the result. But the leader of this party, when he was speaking, indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, that even though Bill No. 1 will be passed, it will not be a solution to our problem. It will not be a solution to our economic problem, to the strike problem or to any of those problems which will arise between labour and management in any industry. It seems to me that we should be occupying ourselves on this occasion with legislation which would tend to do away with the necessity of strikes in the future. We must devise some means of raising the standard of living of the people of this country instead of having costs continually rise, because that will not settle the matter. I do not intend to delve into that

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act problem because the leader of this party has indicated to you that, when the appropriate time comes, he will once again point out the proper method for the solution of such problems. May I say once again, Mr. Speaker, that this party will always take that view Which they think is conducive to the welfare of the people of Canada.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
LIB

James Allen (Jim) Byrne

Liberal

Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here today is to find some vehicle or method by which to get the railways back into operation and certainly not for the purpose of writing a union agreement. I think that we should all bear that fact in mind and keep that as our aim so long as these discussions continue here in this house. However, that point has been overlooked to a considerable degree, and the discussion has gone at some length into the matter of the clauses which should appear in an agreement. I therefore found that I was in a position calling for a statement of my stand in this case. If the discussion had not gone so far afield I would not have risen. Certainly I had not intended to rise and had not prepared a speech for this occasion. I have, however, made some few notes, and I will refer to them, although they may not be in order and my speech may be somewhat rambling, as some of the previous ones have been.

I say that we did not come here to write an agreement or to make an agreement because I know that the railway men whom we represent-and there are railway men in a great many constituencies-do not want us or expect us to write an agreement. They wish us, as early as possible, to find some method by which the wheels may again begin to turn. I attended a meeting of striking employees and requested certain information regarding rates of pay, et cetera. I knew that their rates of pay were, in most cases, out of line with those in other industries, particularly the industries in the area in which I live. However, I asked for that certain information and they were reluctant to give it to me as one who was going to discuss their affairs. Their reason was not that they felt that their rates did compare favourably with the rates in other industries but rather that they did not wish to have the discussion brought to the floor of the house. They were afraid, as many others have been, that a discussion of the kind would be carried on in the house to such an extent that action would be delayed providing for their return to work.

I mentioned the comparative rates of pay, and I wish to refer to them further. It is not true that the railway workers are a highly paid class. That is a fallacy that has been

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act perpetuated, possibly, I believe, because the running trades receive large pay cheques quite regularly. But that is so not because of their high rates of pay but because of the long hours which they spend on the road. Their rates of pay do not compare, as a basic rate, with anything in industry; that is, they may compare but certainly not too favourably with the logging and mining industry. They are somewhat below. That is a fallacy that will have to be remembered by the members of this house; because I understand the negotiations are coming up in the near future for that particular group of employees. In my opinion the rates of pay of the striking employees are below the average of all industries in Canada. I feel that their case is perfectly justified; and certainly I am prepared to back their demands in every way possible. But, as I said before, it was not our responsibility in this house.

The responsibility for calling a strike is a very grave one. I recognize the strain that the heads of these large unions were under, and the responsibility which they shared at the time they had to call this strike. I am sure they did it because they felt they were acting in the best interests of those whom they represent, and because they had obtained a very large majority, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 97 per cent, in favour of such action, a circumstance which could not be ignored.

It has been said that the method of taking the ballot was undemocratic. I do not agree with that statement. Because the membership extended from coast to coast it would have been very difficult to supervise a strike ballot unless there was some identification of who was marking his "x" on the ballot. It was pointed out to me at the meeting of the strikers that no one in that particular area knew how anyone voted, and the ballot was not taken in that way for that purpose. It was not taken in that way for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the ballot. However, I might say that if the ballot had been absolutely secret, in view of the fact that 97 per cent of the workers voted in this way, there is no doubt that a sufficiently large majority would have been obtained to warrant calling the strike.

There is another matter, namely, the matter of negotiation on the part of the companies, to which I should like to refer. I have said also that improvements could be made in the way the negotiations were handled. However, the companies are responsible for choosing their negotiator. It is no business of the unions whom the companies choose. It is the companies' responsibility. If they do not choose one who they feel is a good negotiator, then it is the companies' loss.

Good negotiators are picked not for the purpose of giving something to the union. Good negotiators are picked for the purpose of maintaining the best interests of the companies. I have not heard of any statement by the union negotiators that the company negotiator should be changed or that they did not wish to negotiate further with him.

Let me return to the bill itself. Although certain officials of the union may not agree with me, I believe that the employees in my particular area are very anxious that this thing be settled, or at least that they get back to work and that negotiations be resumed. That was my impression while attending their meeting. Certainly they did not indicate that they wished to go back to work without any assurance of improvement, but they feel that they should get back to work at the earliest possible moment and that negotiations should be resumed as soon as possible. Therefore I am prepared to support the bill introduced by the government, with some reluctance, however, regarding section 5. The fact that the railway unions are allowed to go on strike, to use that very strong economic weapon, is some reassurance. To shut the railways down for a week is to use a very grave economic weapon, and it is still maintained. Once this dispute is settled this bill will be no longer effective. Should the unions desire to negotiate another year, and if we were to take the stand that the unions could not go on strike again, we would have to call parliament and possibly go through the same procedure-the Lord forbid, I may say. But there is the possibility; and certainly parliament could not be called any earlier than it has been on this occasion. Therefore the workers would still have their right to the economic weapon that they enjoy at the present time.

In the words of the Prime Minister, the amendment introduced by the leader of the opposition is not worthy of consideration. Because the subamendment is tied to it, it is also unworthy of consideration. The unions do not want the government to negotiate an agreement. I am sure that is a factual statement. To introduce new clauses in dispute now would be indeed unfair. The one particular clause that I have in mind, which has been introduced by the C.C.F. party, is the matter of check-off of union dues.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Not at all; it has been there for fourteen months.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
LIB

James Allen (Jim) Byrne

Liberal

Mr. Byrne:

I have said in this house and I am still prepared to say that should I be requested by any union to sponsor a bill calling for the check-off of union dues I should be pleased to do so. However, since this parliament voted with a very large majority in opposition to the voluntary

revocable check-off less than two and a half months ago, I feel it is unfair at this very crucial moment, when the railways are on strike and when we are in an emergency, to introduce a question which had been defeated by more than a two-thirds majority in this house.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Will the hon. member permit a question?

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
LIB

James Allen (Jim) Byrne

Liberal

Mr. Byrne:

Certainly. That is no solution

nor would it bring this matter to a successful conclusion. I heartily support the bill.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Before the hon. member

takes his seat may I ask a question?

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member has

resumed his seat. Apparently he does not wish to answer the question at this time.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

I thought he said yes, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Is the house ready for the

question?

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Question.

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition!: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal for a moment with the amendment to the amendment. I want to say this before referring to it. Earlier this afternoon we heard from the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) as clear and sound an exposition of the basic principles under consideration as I have heard for some time. This is not the first time that we have sat on opposite sides of legislative bodies. He has been consistent in his views. At the same time I think he will recall that this is not the first time I have had the responsibility of considering the question of free collective bargaining, and at all times I have attached considerable importance to recognition of that principle as being basic to good labour-management relations.

I appreciate the motive which has prompted the subamendment, but I would point out that the subamendment in itself seeks to deal with certain things that are now the subject of free collective bargaining. While on one occasion it might be desirable to seek legislative support for a position regarded as desirable, on another, as in the case of the bill itself, a principle might be established which would work in a way that would not be intended.

Over the years there has been free collective bargaining between the representatives of management and the workers in our great railway organizations. It is highly desirable that the principle of free collective bargaining be retained. One of the Objections I expressed with respect to section 5 of the bill is that

30, 1950 61

Maintenance of Railway Operation Act it does impose restrictions and grant powers which are in opposition to that basic principle.

May I deal briefly with one other matter? Whether or not it was intended to be taken seriously, more than one speaker has injected the suggestion that the appointment of an administrator would be a way of taking some steps toward amalgamation. I can answer that wholly specious argument only by pointing out that this government have followed that very practice without at any time anyone suggesting that they had such a purpose in mind with relation to the industries with which they were dealing.

For the reasons I have given, not because of the intentions or the merits, but because of the principle involved, I feel compelled to oppose the subamendment.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and to the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) may I say to the house that the subamendment does not attempt to write an agreement. The check-off, to which my hon. friend-

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Order.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Coldwell:

I had not spoken to the subamendment.

Topic:   MAINTENANCE OF RAILWAY OPERATION ACT
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR RESUMPTION OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT OF LABOUR DISPUTE
Permalink

August 30, 1950