May 28, 1956

PC

Owen C. Trainor

Progressive Conservative

Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether it is the intention of Canadian National Railways to reconstruct the Fort Rouge shops recently aestroyed by fire on the present site? In any event will he give the house the assurance that before any final action is taken in this regard the wishes of the employees concerned will be considered.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   FORT ROUGE, WINNIPEG INQUIRY AS TO REBUILDING OF CAR SHOP
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked a similar question about the Fort Rouge shop. I am informed by the management of Canadian National Railways that fire destroyed one building, the main freight car shop. The wood mill, power plant and other ancillary buildings were not destroyed. Plans are under study as to the handling of the work formerly produced by the shop and almost all of the employees involved have been absorbed in the Fort Rouge or Transcona areas and the remainder will be placed shortly. While the management has no plans to rebuild the facility at the present location it is the intention to continue general repairs to freight cars in

the Winnipeg area. I think that answers the questions asked just a moment ago.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   FORT ROUGE, WINNIPEG INQUIRY AS TO REBUILDING OF CAR SHOP
Permalink
PC

Owen C. Trainor

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Trainor:

A supplementary question. Is the minister aware that there is a very strong opinion among the employees that the facilities at Fort Rouge ought to be continued in that area and not transferred to Transcona?

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   FORT ROUGE, WINNIPEG INQUIRY AS TO REBUILDING OF CAR SHOP
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Marler:

I think when the hon. gentleman reads my reply in Hansard he will see that management has no plans to rebuild the facilities at the present location but that it is the intention to continue general repairs to freight cars in the Winnipeg area.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   FORT ROUGE, WINNIPEG INQUIRY AS TO REBUILDING OF CAR SHOP
Permalink
CCF

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

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

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he will ask the management of the Canadian National Railways to hear representations from the employees concerned in connection with this matter. May I not have an answer?

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   FORT ROUGE, WINNIPEG INQUIRY AS TO REBUILDING OF CAR SHOP
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Marler:

I do not think I could give any such assurance as the hon. gentleman requests, but I shall be glad to transmit to management the views which he has expressed.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   FORT ROUGE, WINNIPEG INQUIRY AS TO REBUILDING OF CAR SHOP
Permalink

CHIBOUGAMAU-ST. FELICIEN BRANCH LINE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LORD'S DAY ACT


On the orders of the day:


PC

Léon Balcer

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):

I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been directed to a press report that appeared in the Gazette of Friday, May 25, to the effect that the construction companies engaged in the construction of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railroad are violating the law respecting observance of the Lord's day and that workers who refuse to work on Sundays are gradually liquidated by these companies? If so, what is the minister's department going to do about it?

Topic:   CHIBOUGAMAU-ST. FELICIEN BRANCH LINE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LORD'S DAY ACT
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the hon. gentleman that I did read the report in the Gazette. It seems to me this is a matter for the contractors and also a matter for the provincial authorities to enforce the Lord's Day Act. So far as I am concerned, I have directed inquiries through Canadian National Railways to ascertain what are the facts.

Topic:   CHIBOUGAMAU-ST. FELICIEN BRANCH LINE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LORD'S DAY ACT
Permalink

PIPE LINES

TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES-INQUIRY AS TO DECISION BY FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION


On the orders of the day:


PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):

Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

a matter of urgent public importance, namely the subordination by the government of the office of chairman, and that raises the position of the government as the primary issue in this motion. It is drawn expressly for that purpose because our opinion is that it is the government that has offended in this case and that position is not met by the reference which Your Honour has made.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when we are called upon to carry forward debate, even under the very limited extension of the right of debate that has been implied by the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, we would be doing so without disposing by an orderly discussion of an issue which is of concern to every hon. member here. The role of Speaker and the role of chairman of the committee is of just as much concern to me and to every private member as it is to those who occupy that office. This is part of the whole procedure of parliament. What we are complaining about is the extent to which this government has shamelessly subordinated the office of chairman to its personal interests. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the motion by notice is one which is limited expressly to the condemnation of the chairman as its primary purpose, whereas our motion is clearly drawn to deal with a situation in which the government has exercised its authority to damage an office which is of immense importance not only to the members of this house but to all the people of Canada.

Topic:   PIPE LINES
Subtopic:   TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES-INQUIRY AS TO DECISION BY FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Notwithstanding what may be the purpose of the Leader of the Opposition's motion, he has not convinced me that the person himself, that is the chairman of committees, would not, in the course of the debate on this motion, have his conduct criticized and I still say that it is not possible to divorce the two. If certain hon. members want to blame the government for the conduct of the chairman, well, that is their privilege; but if, in the motion in which they want to do that, the chairman of committees is to be involved, he has the right to have his own conduct properly debated in a separate and distinct motion, and that is the procedure I outlined a moment ago. Now, I would hope that hon. members would rally themselves to that procedure rather than to follow the indirect course which is submitted in this motion. In any event-

Topic:   PIPE LINES
Subtopic:   TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES-INQUIRY AS TO DECISION BY FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

May I raise one point, Mr. Speaker?

Topic:   PIPE LINES
Subtopic:   TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES-INQUIRY AS TO DECISION BY FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Yes.

Topic:   PIPE LINES
Subtopic:   TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES-INQUIRY AS TO DECISION BY FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

I do so with deference, but I ask you to realize the implication of the ruling which I understand you are about to make; that is, when the conduct of a private

House of Commons

member is brought into question it is apparently to be disposed of without debate, as was done on Friday afternoon in accordance with the ruling which you made; yet you say, sir, or I understand you are about to say, that when the conduct of the Deputy Speaker is brought into question there must be notice and debate. I fail to see why there should be any distinction between the two and I suggest to you-

Topic:   PIPE LINES
Subtopic:   TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES-INQUIRY AS TO DECISION BY FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Rules of the house.

Topic:   PIPE LINES
Subtopic:   TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES-INQUIRY AS TO DECISION BY FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulion:

-that the reasons which you have given do not actually apply. In fact, we have been told by Speakers on numerous occasions that notwithstanding the provision that motions must be brought up after notice there is no way in which a private member can give notice, and it is for that reason that this matter is brought forward in this manner today, in the only way in which we can get it before the house. My main reason for rising was to point out the implication of the ruling which I understand you are about to make, that there is one course of procedure which should prevail with respect to the conduct of a private member and another one for the Deputy Speaker, which is a proposition we cannot accept.

Topic:   PIPE LINES
Subtopic:   TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES-INQUIRY AS TO DECISION BY FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
Permalink

May 28, 1956