Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a question addressed yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). In accordance with that request I tabled at noon five copies of the conciliation board's report covering the dispute between the locomotive engineers and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, as well as five copies of the minority report.

Then as to the other part of the hon. member's question, he asked if we could table all the correspondence with the parties concerned dealing with the matter. On looking this up I find that the correspondence is quite sketchy, consisting mainly of copies of telegrams. In order to give a better picture I have undertaken to prepare a factual report covering the background of the dispute leading up to yesterday. This will contain summaries of telephone conversations as well as copies of telegrams. I am in your hands as to whether this should be tabled with the Clerk or included in Hansard.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this subject I wonder if not only the statement which the minister has prepared but also the report of the conciliation board and the minority report could be included as an appendix to Hansard?

Mr. Gregg:

The report of the conciliation board and the minority report are very long documents and they have been tabled. If any hon. member would like to have a copy for study I would be happy to provide one. I think that would be better than including it in Hansard. This other document includes summaries of the reports and the correspondence we have had with the parties concerned, but it does not include a large number of wires, resolutions, summaries of telephone calls on this topic with parties who are not involved in the dispute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the need for the government to appoint a controller to take over the temporary management of the Canadian Pacific Railway so that its operation on the former basis might be resumed immediately pending an agreement between the company and its employees on all matters now in dispute. I think it is obvious to the house that this is a definite matter of urgent public importance and I am therefore moving this motion.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), it is a fact that this strike is referred to in the speech from the throne and the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne which is to proceed as soon as we reach orders of the day will permit hon. gentlemen to make any suggestions they wish to make in connection with this strike which they think are in the public interest. It is not only the urgency of a matter which determines whether you allow the regular procedure of the house to be interrupted; there is also the urgency of debate to be considered. There can be just as full a debate on the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne as there could be under the motion which has been submitted by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).

I think there have been several occasions when Your Honour has decided that that being the case there were no grounds for interrupting the course of the regular procedure of the house as it had been arranged, and in this case as it had been acquiesced in yesterday.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on the point raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as to whether there is urgency of debate in connection with this matter. According to the authorities-and on previous occasions Your Honour has made the same

22 HOUSE OF

Labour Conditions-C.P.R. Strike point-what you have to consider is not just the urgency of a matter but the urgency of debate. All of us recognize the urgency of the matter.

Mr. Fulfon:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I submit that it is out of order for either the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to discuss the question of urgency until you yourself have given your ruling on that point. The standing order reads:

He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house. If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places . . .

I submit no discussion can take place and no objection can be taken until after Your Honour has decided whether it is in order and of urgent public importance, and that a discussion between the mover of the motion and the Prime Minister or any member of the government is out of order until that ruling is made, at which time all members may have the right to speak on the matter if they so desire.

Mr. Speaker:

Technically the hon. member is quite correct, but if I were to go further I could say that we are still under the order "motions" and I have not yet called orders of the day. At that time, just before proceeding with the question period, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar could have risen and presented his motion. However, I did not want to be technical about the matter and I listened to the Prime Minister and I was prepared to listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because I find I need some help.

Mr. Knowles:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My purpose is to direct myself to the one point, namely, whether there is urgency of debate. The Prime Minister suggests that this matter can be discussed during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne because the matter is mentioned in the speech from the throne. I would point out to you, sir, that under the new rules the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne can continue, and probably will continue, until Tuesday, January 22. That is another 13 days.

If the government is going to wait another 13 days to collect the opinions of the members of the house as expressed hit and miss in the debate on the address, that is hardly coming to grips with the issue. Because of the urgency of the issue itself, I suggest that there is urgency of debate and that it is urgent for

the government to wait not 13 days to collect the opinions of the members of the house but it is urgent for the government to have today the opinions of members in all parties as to what should be done in connection with this matter.

My leader has laid before the house not only the matter itself but a specific, concrete proposal to which members can address themselves. I suggest that in view of what the present situation is doing to the economy of the country and in view of the rights of the men involved there is urgency of debate and urgency of having this matter discussed by parliament today rather than having it drag out for another 13 days.

Mr. Speaker:

In the first place the Minister of Labour, in tabling a certain document, has made a suggestion that one document containing correspondence be printed as an appendix to Hansard. Is there unanimous consent to that effect? Is that agreed?

Agreed.

(For text of document referred to, see appendix, pages 51-56.)

Mr. Speaker:

Is there any other business to be transacted under the heading of motions? If not, we are at the stage just before orders of the day are called.

Mr. Coldwell:

I regret that I did not realize that you, Mr. Speaker, were about to call orders of the day. I was waiting for the appropriate place.

Mr. Speaker:

We are now at the appropriate place. Mr. Coldwell has moved for leave to introduce a motion adjourning the house under standing order 26, and the purpose of it is to discuss a matter which is well defined and no doubt of urgent public importance. I listened to the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and also to those made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I also looked at standing order 38 which defines the order in which the debate on the address in reply is to be taken. If this motion were moved, let us say, tomorrow and if this evening the acting leader of the house announced, as is provided for in standing order 38, that we were not to proceed with the debate on the address in reply tomorrow but to skip a day or two, I would be inclined to allow the motion. The session opened yesterday. In the speech from the throne there is reference to this matter which is of extreme importance; and today, traditionally, after the mover and the seconder of the address have made their speeches, it is leaders' day. In view of the importance of the question I would greatly doubt that the leaders in their

speeches today would not deal with the matter, although perhaps not along the lines of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). But as he knows, as soon as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) has made his speech, he will be given the floor as is customary-

Mr. Coldwell:

After the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker:

Yes; after the Prime Minister. Then the leader of the C.C.F. party will be given the floor. I have always had certain difficulty with respect to this standing order 26 especially when the matter mentioned under it obviously is of urgent public importance. Not only in this case but in many others hon. members have moved a motion of importance similar to this one; and when I have had to decide whether there is urgency of debate it has been customary for me- and not only for me but for my predecessors ever since the standing order has existed- not to grant the motion when there is opportunity for a debate involving great latitude such as that on the address in reply, the budget debate or a motion to go into supply. The matter presents difficulty. As I told hon. members last year, I have been studying the matter and the Clerk and I have had discussions about it. I should not like to be called upon today to change the practice which has been so consistently followed in the past. I am still considering the matter. As I say, it presents difficulties. I should like the house to bear with me at this moment. I would ask the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to understand that I do not at the moment wish to change the practice which has been so consistently followed in the past. I shall give the matter some further thought. I do not say that he should not be permitted to make his motion again. I do not make any commitments but I would say that unless opportunity of discussion not only of the various matters mentioned in the speech from the throne but of this matter of urgency as well is given in the debate on the address in reply -if it is skipped for a day or two and not enough opportunities have been given for the house to express their views-I should be inclined to go along with the hon. member. I therefore do not accept the motion.

[Later:!

On the orders of the day:

Mr. Irvin Studer (Swift Current-Maple

Creek): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour to this effect. Have any arrangements or agreements been made to provide the necessities of

Inquiries of the Ministry

life, food, fuel, and so forth, to those areas suffering a shortage owing to the railway strike?