1941-06-06

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Office of the Mayor Ottawa, Canada
4th June, 1941.
Hon. J. A. Glen,
Speaker of the House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Victory Loan 1941 Dear Mr. Glen:
The torch and scroll being carried by air force bomber from Victoria to Halifax and thence to England to be presented to the Right Hon. Winston Churchill will arrive in Ottawa on the 11th June. The Ottawa torch day ceremony will take place on that day on parliament hill at 5 o'clock.
At the ceremony the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King will be the speaker and arrangements are being made for His Excellency the Governor General, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and myself to sign the scroll.
On behalf of the committee I have the honour to invite you to attend this ceremony. I beg to request also that you will extend an invitation to the members of the House of Commons to be present.
Sincerely yours,
J. E. S. Lewis,
Mayor.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 99, to amend the Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1930.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether consideration has been given by the government to the proposal of the Premier of Ontario as announced in the press, that the Prime Minister call the premiers and representatives of the provinces to a conference devoted exclusively to an open and impartial discussion of the problems to be solved in order to ensure the maximum war effort. If so, has any decision been reached? It will be recalled that I myself this week expressed approval of a conference being called with respect to the fifteen per cent tax on interest on provincial government issues. The present proposal, as I understand it, covers a much wider field.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I may say to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that I received the telegram to which he has referred only after six o'clock last night. It has not been possible to meet with my colleagues in cabinet council since its receipt, therefore the telegram has not thus far been considered.



LABOUR CONDITIONS-STRIKES IN DAVENPORT CONSTITUENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: The press yesterday and again to-day refers to certain strikes in several large plants in the riding I have the honour to represent. Each of those plants is engaged in the manufacture of munitions of war. I know many of the men who are probably now on strike. They are all British, and I know they would not willingly be on strike; they would prefer to be at their jobs. I also know many of those connected with the management. I am convinced that the Minister of Labour has the matter in hand and is just as anxious as each and all of us to have the strikes settled amicably. I should be pleased if he would give us a statement as to the progress of settlement.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):: I was advised this morning that a delegation has arrived here for the purpose of interviewing me in connection with the matter which the hon. member for Davenport mentions. I think it would be well to delay any statement until after I have heard the representations which the delegation have to make. I can assure him that I am as anxious as he is that strikes should not continue.

Natural Gas in Western Ontario



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South):	I should like to direct a question
to the Minister of Munitions and Supply with regard to a report that appeared in the Brantford Expositor and the Galt Reporter as to the natural gas situation in western Ontario. The report refers to a meeting of representatives from municipal councils in the area in western Ontario, which is supplied with natural gas, held in Toronto in the office of the commissioner of natural gas, with the acting commissioner, Mr. A. R. Crozier, presiding. Referring to a proposal of the Dominion Natural Gas company to construct a plant at Brantford to manufacture artificial gas from propane to supplement the supply of natural gas, the report says:
The power controller has issued an order that there shall be no profits on the sale of gas manufactured from propane. The company will absorb twenty per cent of the cost of this plant and be permitted to charge depreciation and replacement cost on the basis of eighty per cent depreciation over a period of seven years. Under this arrangement it is estimated that the additional cost on .all gas used by the consumer will be approximately five per cent or four to five cents per thousand cubic feet.
There is a general feeling throughout western Ontario that the threatened increase in the price is unwarranted. If the minister would read the report and give the house, a statement on it next week, it would assure the people that the power controller is going to protect the interests of the consumers in western Ontario. I realize that the minister cannot give an answer to-day.
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I shall be glad to look into
the matter.


Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: May I associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) and ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply to be good enough to make his statement sufficiently comprehensive to cover the whole Niagara peninsula. They are very much concerned about the same matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I point out that the
federal government is not the governing body charged with the distribution and price regulation of gas. It is entirely a provincial matter. The federal government has interested itself in supplementing the supply of gas. We have no power of regulating gas-
I Mr. McL*rty.]
certainly not in the Department of Munitions and Supply, or, I think, in any other department of government.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: So long as the situation is clarified, and the public know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to look into it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether we are to sit to-night and/or to-morrow? If we are to sit to-night, why not to-morrow, and if we are not to sit to-morrow, why sit to-night?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall try to answer my hon. friend as logically as I can. First of all we are sitting in the mornings in order to get through the business of this part of the session as soon as possible. For that reason we are sitting afternoons and evenings as well. Therefore I think it would be well for the house to continue sitting this afternoon and this evening.
In regard to to-morrow, the reason we do not propose to sit this Saturday is that it has -been thought by the government, and was so stated in the house some weeks ago, that it would be eminently fitting that the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Sir John A. Macdonald should be made the occasion of a national recognition of the memory of Sir John A. Macdonald. To-day is the fiftieth anniversary of Sir John's death. The special services in commemoration of the anniversary have been arranged to take place at Kingston to-morrow at which the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and myself, and I hope many of his colleagues and of mine and members of the house generally, will be present. For that reason the house will not be sitting to-morrow.
I do not know whether my hon. friend said anything about Monday, but I think it continues to be the wish of hon. members to conclude as early as possible this part of the session; therefore I would think we should continue sitting on Monday morning, afternoon and night.



REPRESENTATIONS OF SASKATCHEWAN FLOUR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I have a question I should like to address to the Minister of Trade and Commerce of which I gave him notice. It arises out of a telegram I have received from the Saskat-

Gristed Wheat
chewan Flour Millers' Association in reference to the wheat policy of the government. The telegram reads as follows:
The wheat policy tabled in the house on Friday by Trade Minister Hon. Mr. MacKinnon compels the farmers gristing their wheat for their own family use to take same out of their wheat quota which will be very small to start with and will not give most of them enough cash to buy the necessities required for their families. If they have to take the wheat from their quota that will cut in further to their small cash allowance if they are allowed to grist their year's supply of flour it will be wonderful help to them as they will get their flour and feed much cheaper than if they had to buy. Most of the small mills are depending mostly on the gristing trade for their business and if the farmers are discouraged in their gristing that means that most of the small mills will have to shut down their plants. We are sorry it has been said that some of the small millers did bootlegging on gristing and flour sales to avoid the processing tax. If the Hon. Mr. MacKinnon will instruct the wheat board to consult with our executive when making their rules and regulations for 41-42 crop we will make watertight suggestions.
D. G. McLean,
Executive Member, Saskatchewan Flour Millers' Association.
Is the minister prepared to consider the changes suggested by the millers' association, and what assurances will he give in that regard?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member for Lake Centre gave me ample notice of his intention to ask this question and gave me the opportunity to discuss the matter with my officials Who are in Ottawa at the present time.
The quantity of wheat which can be delivered by the producer in the whole of Canada this coming crop year has been limited to 230,000,000 bushels. This figure has been made up of approximately 50,000,000 bushels for human consumption in Canada and approximately 180,000,000 bushels for export. It will be necessary that on any wheat gristed the amount gristed will have to be taken out of the farmers' wheat quota, because to the extent that this was not done, the 50,000,000 bushels for domestic consumption would have to be reduced. In other words all of the Wheat gristed for human use is a part of the 50,000,000 bushels, and if it was not deducted from his quota, the producer who had his wheat gristed would have an advantage over those who were not able to have their wheat gristed and would be able to deliver a relatively higher proportion than his neighbouring farmer. There would be discrimination between farmers.
Any amount of wheat gristed in this way would be a deduction from the 50,000,000 bushels and would increase the carryover to the same extent, which is contrary to the intention of the order in council.
I may say that I have arranged this morning with the wheat board to meet with the Saskatchewan Flour Millers' association immediately on their return to the west, when these matters can be discussed. Further consideration is also being given.



EXPORT OF GAME


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 16, to control the export of game.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 98, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1941, to provide for the refunding of financial obligations and to authorize the guarantee by his majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
Mr. COLD WELL:: We have not the bill. We can hardly consider it without having it. So far as I know it has not yet been distributed.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, it will have to stand. I did not know that it had not been distributed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It can be taken up later.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to take it up later in the day.
Progress reported.
Labour Department Act

LABOUR DEPARTMENT ACT amendment to provide for the appointment



OF AN ASSOCIATE DEPUTY MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Labour Department Act to provide for the appointment of an associate deputy minister of Labour.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Yien in the chair.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we should have from the minister a complete statement, although not necessarily a long one, as to the necessity of the appointment of an additional deputy minister. I appreciate the fact that with the increased business and present unsettled state of things another deputy minister may be necessary. I would point out, however, having been around here for twenty years, that if you create a new position like this, carrying with it a substantial salary, the probabilities are that it will be a permanent one. There is never any going back when public offices of the kind are created; it is claimed thereafter as a matter of right. The minister should justify the appointment, and if it is of a temporary nature, it should be so stated. We have had a number of new deputy ministers in the defence portfolio. Of course we agree that they are necessary under the circumstances. But in this case there should be some undertaking on the part of the government that hereafter and for all time to come we are not to be burdened with two deputy ministers of labour.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The work of the Department of Labour has been very greatly increased in the last two years. In the first place the purpose of this bill-because the present associate deputy minister has been appointed- is to make his appointment permanent rather than temporary.
The work of the department has been greatly expanded in three directions: in the first place, in the wide extension of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act; in the second place, in the passing of the Unemployment Insurance Act; in the third place, through the war emergency training plan.
The Department of Labour has, I believe, always had a minimum of help for the wide work it has to do. We have appointed as associate deputy minister Mr. MacNamara, former deputy minister of labour and public works in the province of Manitoba. He has been acting since the regrettable death of Doctor Sirois as acting chief commissioner of

the Unemployment Insurance Act. The salary which the leader of the opposition refers to as being large is not really large when you consider the administrative ability which the present incumbent as Associate Deputy Minister of Labour has brought to bear in the organization of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is because of this wide extension of the definite functions of the Department of Labour that the appointment of an associate deputy minister is necessary and desirable. I need hardly say that Mr. MacNamara is carrying on his task in an excellent way and doing splendid work in promoting the early introduction of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the salary?


Norman Alexander McLarty: $9,000. I do not believe it is excessive. In my opinion it is justified by . the added responsibilities placed upon the Department of Labour; and may I suggest that there will be even greater responsibilities after the war is over. In view of all these considerations I believe it will be agreed that the appointment of an associate deputy minister is desirable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree
with what the minister has said respecting the administrative ability of Mr. MacNamara. He is a man who had wide experience in another field when he came here to head the dependents' allowance board. I am satisfied he did excellent work when he was promoted, if that is the proper expression, to the office of acting head of the unemployment insurance commission. I had hoped the minister and the government would see their way clear to appoint him permanently to that position in place of Mr. Sirois. Apparently, however, that is not now the proposal, and the position is to be filled otherwise.
Let us for a moment examine the bases of the minister's proposal. He has given as a first reason the wide extension of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. What I believe he meant was the wide extension of the operations of that act, because so far as I know there is to be no wide extension of the principles underlying the act. Certainly it is not indicated in the bill the minister is to bring before the house. I had hoped that the wide extension in the operation of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act would be purely temporary. It is hoped by everyone that these labour troubles which from day to day have been looming up on the horizon, and growing more extensive, will by the exercise of good-will and judgment, and by conference, be reduced to a minimum. That, I suggest, is a temporary

Labour Department Act
position only. Surely it is not sufficient reason for appointing a new permanent associate deputy minister, who would be here for all time in that capacity.
The second ground upon which the minister has based the decision to appoint this new officer is the establishment of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The organization operating under that measure will of course be a permanent institution. I should have hoped that in the operation of the act the commission would be the responsible body, and that they could report through ordinary channels, namely, to the deputy minister of labour, and through the deputy minister to the minister and the house. That in itself would not necessitate any great increase in the burden of work devolving upon the Department of Labour. Surely this commission is in large measure to be independent of the Department of Labour. The administrative sections of the act contemplate independence. It is to be a commission, not a bureau of the Department of Labour and, so far as possible, it is to act independently of that department, only reporting through it to the government. So that the second ground upon which the minister justifies the appointment falls down.
His third ground, namely, the setting up of a trade training plan, is in my view the least substantial of all. Surely that is a war measure -at least I so understand it. That is the basis upon which it was introduced and upon which it has been so far operated. It is not contemplated, I hope, that the federal government will permanently go into what is primarily a provincial field, namely that of education. As I understand it, this plan has been adopted on the theory that we have not enough mechanics for our war effort. That is a reasonable view to take, but 'it is an ephemeral thing; it is not to last forever. I suggest the minister will have to justify the creation of this new position on some higher ground.
What is to be done with the chairmanship of the unemployment insurance commission? Is somebody else to be appointed to do that work? So far as I know Mr. MacNamara is performing very satisfactorily the duties of that office, and unless there is some objection to his appointment as chairman of the commission, he should be confirmed in that position. In my view the minister has not justified the creation of a second deputy minister of labour, who would be a permanent official of the government. If we are to have two deputy ministers, which is to be the senior? Which is to have overriding jurisdiction? Are they to be on equal planes? What is to happen if they disagree? Or is it desired not to appoint Mr. MacNamara to the chairmanship of the unemployment insurance commission, but to obtain his very valuable services in some high executive capacity? Does this resolution contain that principle? At the moment I must conclude the minister has not justified his proposal.


Mr. MacINNIS:: There are a few observations which I should like to make on this resolution and also in respect of the other bill on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Labour. Most of what I wish to say I shall reserve until second reading.
Certainly this group will not oppose a resolution which has for its purpose the strengthening of the administration of the Department of Labour. About two months ago I drew the attention of the house to the serious conditions developing in industry throughout the country, and I insisted at that time that something should be done about it. On that occasion the Minister of Labour took exception to my remarks and indicated that everything was quiet on the industrial front. In view of certain actions he has taken in the last few days, and in view of questions which have been asked in the house and reports appearing in the press, I suggest he would have been well advised to accept my opinion and become more active at that time. However, better late than never.
I am always amazed when, on almost every question brought up in the house, the leader of the opposition asks, "Is this just for the duration?" His question seems to me to indicate a lack of understanding of what is happening in the world to-day. When I hear him speak in that way I am reminded of two legendary characters which I liked to read about in my youth. One was in the biblical story of the patriarch Lot. We remember that in the flight from Sodom, at the time of that city's destruction, Lot's wife insisted on looking back, with the result that she was turned into a pillar of salt. Again, I am reminded of Rip Van Winkle, in Washington Irving's classic "Sleepy Hollow," who slept for twenty years. I am convinced, however, that the leader of the opposition reminds me more of Lot's wife, because Rip Van Winkle did eventually wake up.
There are certain developments taking place to-day which we cannot ignore even if we would. We cannot ignore the fact that we have fewer and larger industries in this country under the control of fewer people and employing a greater number of wage-earners. This creates an industrial problem which the government will have to prepare to meet in the same way as it has organized to meet its foreign problem, its trade and commerce problem, and in fact its war prob-
Labour Department Act

lem or any other problems that may confront us. Unless we can find some way to turn the clock back to the primitive production which existed in this country in 1867, the Department of Labour will have to be strengthened. Its administrative functions will increase to meet increasing demands, and wisdom would indicate that we should organize to meet these increased demands.
I am pleased that the minister has taken this step at this time. While we may have some detailed criticism to make later, we are not opposing the measure; in fact we approve this resolution.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am quite opposed to the suggestion attributed to me by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. The Department of Labour should be strengthened, but it should not be made top-heavy. What is the position to-day? We have the minister with a salary of $10,000; up to this year we had a deputy minister with a salary of $8,000, and we had an assistant with a salary of $5,220. That was the set-up until Mr. Stewart was introduced as deputy minister. My understanding is that he is a high-class man who came into the department, perhaps against his will, and insisted upon a salary of $10,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: At some sacrifice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At some sacrifice, I believe. It is not known definitely whether he will make this his permanent vocation. That made a total of $23,220 for the three executive heads. But what have we to-day? We have the minister at $10,000, the deputy minister at $10,000, an associate deputy minister at $9,000, an assistant deputy minister at $5,220, and an executive assistant to the minister, whatever that may be, at $4,200. The total salary cost is $38,420, as opposed to the previous establishment which cost $23,220.
I want to elucidate these facts for the benefit of the taxpayers. Here is a non-war portfolio, which may be associated with the war effort along certain lines. It is agreed that there are temporary added responsibilities, but after this war is over, unless somebody gives consideration to this position, we will have for all time executives at the head of the Department of Labour costing $38,000. In addition a man is to be appointed to head the unemployment insurance commission at a salary of $12,000. I am calling attention to what has taken place in order that the people of Canada may know. We are being asked to tighten our belts, to give and lend to the government, and at the same time we are running away with executive expenditures.

That is all I have to say about this matter. I cannot stop it, because the appointment is an accomplished fact. This appointee is already in the department, and, as the minister has said, this is simply to legalize what has been done already by executive action. I think the appointment is a good one; this gentleman will do excellent work, but let us understand the proposal and what it means. Hereafter the Department of Labour is to have five executive heads instead of three.


Mr. McIVOR:: It is difficult to come to one's feet after the leader of the opposition has spoken, but I cannot but think of the Department of Labour to-day and the Department of Labour when the present Prime Minister was its deputy minister. I cannot but think of the Department of Labour under the late Hon. Norman Rogers. I have been surprised that another deputy minister has not been appointed before this. I ask the leader of the opposition how much the Department of National Defence is costing to-day as compared with what it cost before the war. I am one of those who take the stand that this government must wake up. It must keep alive the work that was started by the late Hon. Norman Rogers, something which I think the Minister of Labour is doing. The appointment of an associate deputy minister is long overdue, but I suggest that this deputy minister be a man who understands labour, who has come up from the ranks of labour and knows what a hard day's work at no great pay feels like. I think of the time I spent helping the late Hon. Norman Rogers with the youth training work. I could see then the magnitude of the task. This is one side of labour to which a man could devote his whole time. This type of work may not be needed to-day as much as it was during the years of the depression, and as it will be after the war, but it is still important. I hope to see the dominion government take over the whole problem of relief. If that is done, the work of this department will be increased and additional experts will be needed.
I repeat that this deputy minister should know labour. While the heads of our government departments may know something about these matters, I am afraid the public at large do not appreciate the problems of labour. If labour is happy, the country will be happy. I do not agree with the leader of the opposition when he says that there will be a great depression after this war. I believe that if this country can raise $5,000,000 a day for war, we can raise enough to cure unemployment and develop our resources. If the Department of Labour can lead in this endeavour, then we say, "Go to it and we will give you our support."

Labour Department Act


Mr. POULIOT:: Mention has been made of a salary of $12,000 per annum, but I would direct attention to resolution No. 12 which stands on the order paper in my name, and which suggests that for the duration of the war any government salary which exceeds $10,000 should be reduced to one dollar per annum plus $10 per day for living expenses. The suggestion is made to appoint an associate deputy minister of labour. In the Department of Labour as at present constituted there are three competent persons, the minister, his private sjcretary and the young lady who works in his office-the rest is nil. It is pitiful, and I mentioned this to the late Hon. Norman Rogers when he was alive. I am not discussing the excellent work done by my chief when he was deputy minister of labour and minister of labour. But he ceased to be Minister of Labour in 1911, and since then there have been many other ministers of labour whom I do not discuss. Some have been good, some bad, and some have been nonentities. The present minister is a good one. But I am strongly opposed to any salary in excess of $10,000 being paid. I think that that amount is enough, and when one man in the department receives $10,000 I do not see why another one should be paid as much as that. I think it is a scandal to appoint a man at over $10,000. There is not a man who is worth more than that in these hard times-unless he strikes a gold mine.
The suggestion has been made to take someone from the ranks of labour for this position. The suggestion has come from our reverend and very dear colleague from Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), who is perhaps one of the most popular members of the House of Commons. My experience with labour is that there are two kinds of labour men, those who work and those who do not.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Like members of parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly, but that is true of very walk of life. Those who call themselves labour are those who do nothing and receive big salaries, and who are not working for labour men-they are company men. I have demonstrated that very often in this house, and I warn the minister against the appointment of any impostor of the kind, any lobbyist who calls himself labour to get a fat job and a salary ten times what he could earn with his own hands. Some people are under the impression that if we have no strikes in this country it is due to one man alone, a man you must see eating if you want to see him at work because that is the only work he does, with a knife and fork and spoon. There
was a rumour at one time that he was to be put on the purchasing board. I asked the minister for air and the minister for health, is this man going to be on the board? They looked embarrassed, and I knew then that it was only a rumour and that this man had not been asked. He has been mentioned as a possibility as minister, and here again when I occupied the seat in this chamber in which the Minister of Labour now sits I warned the government against his appointment, at the same time acknowledging that the Prime Minister had the right to choose anyone he liked, but stating that I could not support as one of my chiefs a man like that. He was not appointed. My friend who was the Postmaster General was appointed in his stead.
I am after this man because I think he is a fake, that he has betrayed labour, that he is an impostor, that he is a "Purvis" man in labour. Everybody knows him. I strongly object to his appointment. He has betrayed labour. He is only a lobbyist, an intriguer of the worst type.


Mr. HOMUTH:: May we know to whom the hon. member is referring?


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend does not know he is not well informed.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not know.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend listened to my speeches he would know. If instead of making a noise when I speak he would listen to what I say he would be better informed.
Here we are, $12,000 for that man. It is a scandal. I denounce it because the man is an impostor, because the man calls himself labour when he has no right to call himself labour, when he has cost the country thousands and thousands, scores of thousands of dollars, to travel to places like Geneva where he has done nothing. He did not say anything, no more than a fish could say in water. He had nothing to say, and here is the man who represents labour. If I were a labour man I would be ashamed to be represented by an impostor of that kind-and when a man is successful enough to reach his post through intrigue he must be exposed as is and must be hanged on the next post. What I say I know. I warn the house about him all the time, but it is of no use. I remember that one of the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party who holds a big job in that department got it through him because every time I denounced that impostor he was defended by that Cooperative Commonwealth Federation member in the house, and that man
Labour Department Act

rewarded the member by getting him a fat job. Everybody knows he is an impostor as I have described.
I do not want to say any more because then he would pose as a martyr. He will say I am crucifying a labour man, that I have no respect for labour. I know the labour men perhaps as well as any man in this house, if not better, and labour men are not afraid to speak to me or to come to me and ask me to defend their rights. When I have a big fat obstacle of the kind in my way I want to get rid of it, and I do the same as a man would who is driving along the road and sees a dead log blocking his path. He takes it away and throws it in the ditch so that he can proceed.
These are my humble views, and I warn the Minister of Labour, who is my friend, and tell him that if this appointment is made- he knows my reasons-it will be a bad appointment, and he will have to establish a cafeteria next to the man's office-


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, but I must say that I do not think he is referring to the associate deputy minister of labour. I am not sure whom he is referring to and I wonder if he would make that clear.


Jean-François Pouliot: The best way to conclude is to tell the minister immediately whom I have in view and then he will know if my remarks apply to that man. I do not want the labour men of this country to be betrayed. I want them to be defended by someone who is true to them and who has not changed his mind to get a big salary.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I always listen with a great deal of interest to what the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) says, but this morning we have listened to a speech made in a very general way about an unnamed person. In my opinion if an attack is going to be made on an individual connected with any labour organization, it should be made on a particular individual and reasons should be advanced for the attack. I think I know perfectly well the gentleman to whom the hon. member intended to refer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is he?


Thomas Miller Bell: I want simply to say this, that the man who has been attacked without being named is one who has held for a number of years the highest office in the larger of our two national labour organizations. I refer to Mr. Tom Moore. I would say this, that a man who has held the trust
[Mr. Pouliot.!
of such a large section of organized labour cannot by any stretch of the imagination be an impostor of the type the hon. member for Temiscouata would have us believe he is.


The CHAIRMAN:: I should like to point out that I thought the hon. member for Temiscouata would come to naming the man to whom he was referring. The Minister of Labour, when discussing this position, stated that the man intended for it was Mr. MacNamara, at present acting chairman of the unemployment insurance commission. Therefore I think it would be quite improper and out of order to continue the discussion on the merits or demerits of a man who had not been named for the position. I would have stopped the hon. member for Temiscouata had I not thought that he would name the man, because the committee must realize that there can be no discussion about some one who is not named.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I do not think it is the right or the privilege of any member to make an assumption and arrive at a conclusion as to what the minister intends to do, nor do I believe it is the prerogative of any member to throw down the gage of battle with a minister of the crown and to tell him that if he does certain things, then something unpleasant may happen either here or elsewhere. It was with that thought in mind that I rose. I am quite sure that in these difficult times when the Minister of Labour makes an appointment, no matter who the appointee may be, he will choose some one who will have the confidence of organized labour, in spite of anything that any member of this house may think privately of the person so appointed. I have no doubt that when he appoints an assistant deputy minister of labour he will look round the country and choose someone who is known to have the confidence of organized labour. Every member of this house, I believe, was aware of the identity of the gentleman at whom the remarks were directed, because he has been named by the member for Temiscouata before. 1 felt I could not allow this occasion to pass without expressing the opinion that the attack was most unfair and unjustified.


Jean-François Pouliot: One word on a question of principle. I find the doctrine expressed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar absurd. A member of parliament has the right not only to criticize what the government has done, but to give warning, and my hon. friend knows that. If he who is an advocate of free speech says that I cannot give a warning to the minister just to help him, perhaps he would

Labour Department Act
like the minister to make a bad appointment so as to have other opportunities to criticize him afterwards. I give the minister an opportunity to think before something is done, and I express my views and tell the government what I think. I have a right to do so and the member for Rosetown-Biggar will not deny it.


Major James William Coldwell: I don't.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all I want. If the minister mentioned Mr. MacNamara, I did not have him in view in what I said.


Mr. GILLIS:: The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), in the few remarks he made, stated the position of this group. I am not going to say anything with regard to the remarks of the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I know not to whom he refers, but I do think it is absolutely unfair to make insinuations and to accuse someone in a general way, which might very well be construed as meaning someone connected with the labour movement. I feel as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar does. If a man is to be attacked he should be named, the charge made, and the cards laid on the table face up, so that he may be in a position to defend himself. That is all I have to say in that regard.
I am concerned about the attitude of the leader of the opposition. He classifies the Department of Labour as a non-war department. I have exactly the opposite view. I believe that many of the troubles we are confronted with to-day in regard to strikes, and all the general confusion resulting, are due to the fact that the Department of Labour, constituted as it is, is totally inadequate to handle a situation which it was not organized to deal with on a peace-time basis. It is the most essential war department in the government. I am altogether in accord with the steps taken by the minister to strengthen the department. The discussion with regard to salaries and such matters might very well be dispensed with at this time. Certainly it is not good war propaganda to have members stand up and talk about salaries of $10,000 and $20,000, whpn we realize that perhaps 95 per cent of the men we are calling to take up a gun and defend the country might compare income tax brackets. This sort of thing is all bad propaganda and should be discontinued. I am saying nothing about salaries. I have always been of the opinion that they are absolutely out of proportion to the earnings or wages of the people who, when all is said, produce the wealth of the country.
I think our whole set-up of war departments has been handled in the wrong way. In the
first place, the hon. member objects to an additional deputy minister in the Department of Labour where the work has increased a hundredfold since the outbreak of war. He-fails to realize that the country has been transformed and is now on a war-time basis. The department must therefore be prepared to meet the crisis. We have established additional branches in the Department of National Defence. For instance, we have the ministry for naval services. That is not necessary in peace time but it is indispensable to-day. We have a ministry for air, with a personnel scattered across the country. All this involves expenditures, but these branches are absolutely necessary.
The Department of Labour is the most important war department of the government, because it deals exclusively with the men and women necessary to produce the sinews of war. The army and the navy are worth nothing unless our industries are so organized and planned that they will turn out the necessary machinery for these forces to enable them to fight the battle we are engaged in. In the organization of some 35 or 40 boards the personnel in each case has been drawn from one class. These people have but one outlook, and the point of view of labour is given no consideration in any of the organizations that function behind the government in organizing the war effort. The result is that the whole establishment is influenced by a single point of view. This has its repercussions throughout the country in the turmoil and unrest we are having. The Minister of Labour would do well to bring into the department men who have knowledge of both sides of the picture, men who are qualified to sit in, and whose advice would tend to alleviate some of the disturbance we have to-day simply because of the fact that only one point of view prevails.
I am absolutely in agreement with what the minister is doing. I have no jurisdiction over salaries and I am not going to talk about them. That is a departmental matter, and if the government think it good business I recognize my limitations. I think we on this side of the house should withhold any statements in the house which might have a reaction outside that would not be in the best interests of the country.
As the hon. member for Vancouver East stated, later we may have something more to say with respect to matters concerning the Department of Labour. But that is my feeling at the present time. We have to have both points of view represented on the inside in all these matters, because I regard the Department of Labour as the most important war organization we have. I sympathize with the
Labour Department Act

minister in respect of the many problems with which he has to deal; they have increased from day to day. It should be our duty to assist him to strengthen the department in every way possible, and I am prepared to do that.
Mr. O'NEILL: This debate has taken a rather wide range; we have been discussing salaries and more or less personalities. As a labour man I have never been one to question salaries, but it seems to me that there could be a redistribution of the amount of money that is paid in any one department. If it is not possible to raise the salaries of those who are getting less than a living wage without taking something off the $10,000 man, then probably something of the kind should be done. That, however, is not what I wish to discuss at present.
It seems to me that this measure for the appointment of an additional deputy minister in the Department of Labour is looked upon by some hon. members from the point of view that it should be a war time measure only. The Department of Agriculture is probably the most important department in the government and I think next in importance is the Department of Labour. I am entirely in agreement with this resolution. It is my view that an associate deputy minister of labour should be appointed and that he should be retained after the war, because then we shall have problems arising in the labour world that will require a great deal of attention, and these men should be in the department now making provision to meet the troubles that will come upon us when the war is over.
Another thing that perhaps has not been given the consideration by the government that it should have is with respect to the appointment of the men to fill these positions. If the government wish to use the democratic method in appointing men to positions in the Department of Labour-and take note that I do not wish to be misconstrued as having anything against Mr. MacNamara; I have nothing whatsoever against him-it should have' in mind the fact that a deputy minister or associate deputy minister of labour should have the respect and confidence of labour. We have labour organizations in this country. We have the standard labour organizations on the railways, about eighteen of them holding contracts with the railways. We have the trades and labour congress, the Canadian congress of labour, the Canadian federation of labour, the Catholic workers of Quebec, and so on. All these labour organizations have their heads. If it is desired to have a
[Mr. GillisJ
man who has the respect and confidence of labour, beyond any question or doubt it should be left to the heads of these labour organizations to suggest to the government who in their opinion would be the right man to fill the position. If a system such as this were adopted I believe you would not have the trouble you are having with labour to-day. It is impossible for a man who has not had actual connection with labour to understand the problems of labour. If you have such men in the Department of Labour to advise the department you will have much less trouble than you are having at present.
I am, as I say, in complete agreement with this resolution, and I wish it distinctly understood that I am not saying anything whatsoever against Mr. MacNamara. He is probably as good a man as could be chosen by the department for the position, unless the system were adopted of having the labour men themselves suggest to the government the man to fill the position.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not intend to deal fully with all the remarks that have been made, 'because there has been unanimity as to the qualifications of the appointee as associate deputy minister of labour. I understand that the remarks of the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) did not apply to the proposed appointee. I refuse to speculate as to the person against whom he was directing his remarks-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It was perfectly obvious.


Norman Alexander McLarty: -but I would say that since I have been Minister of Labour I have received excellent cooperation from every head of every major labour organization in Canada.
I do not propose to go farther than that.
I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) as to the necessity of strengthening the Department of Labour. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) was kind enough to suggest that he had nothing against the individual appointee, but he thought we were unnecessarily increasing the expenditure in this appointment. I suppose everything is relative, and from my observation I believe it to be true that the Department of Labour has for some considerable time been understaffed and undermanned. Irrespective of the additional work involved in connection with unemployment insurance-the leader of the opposition suggests that that is the duty of a commission, but still the department will have some functions-irrespective of war emergency training; irrespective of the fact that during the war we are carrying the

Industrial Disputes
additional burden of these boards that we are appointing under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, I believe the appointment can be justified outside of the particular war measures. But we are at war.
In connection with the permanency of the appointment something was said about salary. I believe we were peculiarly fortunate in obtaining the services of Doctor Stewart as deputy minister of labour. He has had wide experience. Let me tell the committee something. The salary he is accepting now-and there is no permanency about it; he took it because Canada is at war-the salary he is receiving, with the tax he is paying on it, is only half of the salary he ordinarily receives. In other words it is not a great and generous emolument, but he is doing this work because he is a Canadian and wants to help this country in time of war. I pay that tribute to him.
What will happen after the war is another matter. But certainly I think no member of this committee would suggest that we are not going to have any labour problems after the war. I believe that in the appointment of Mr. MacNamara as associate deputy minister we are making an appointment that will be for the general benefit of this country. I might go farther; but I believe that the appointment is sound. It is made for the reason that I suggested, so that the appointment may be permanent; and I wish to express appreciation in this committee for the almost unanimous support which it has received.


Mr. HANSELL:: I do not think that there will be any opposition to this resolution on the part of the group with which I am associated. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has said, it involves some additional burden upon the taxpayer to foot the bill for highly paid executives. On the other hand, living in such times as these, with the problems faced by a nation fighting in this tremendous war, the function of labour is exceedingly important. While I do not know the specific duties assigned to this new appointment, I will say that if the department can keep labour and management functioning smoothly, the money will be well spent. If there is anything we do not want to happen, it is any retardation of our industrial war effort, the responsibility for which comes upon labour and management alike.
During the course of the debate the postwar effect has been brought into the discussion. Personally I deplore the mention of such things as relief after the war is over. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) referred to the tremendous burden
upon the Department of Labour under the predecessor of the present minister, in connection with the administration of relief, and its activities in the matter of youth training. Let us so manage the affairs of this country now that when the war is over, management and labour will work together to bring about a better country, a more populous country, a country industrialized not only in one part but throughout. Let us not wait until after the war before we do this, because if we have to go through ten years of po^t-war depression we Shall be headed for another war worse than the present one. Let us look forward to a great and glorious Canada after this war has been won.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. McLarty thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 100, to amend the Labour Department Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES



AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF CONCILIATION BOARDS SHALL NOT HAVE PECUNIARY OR OTHER INTEREST

[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 96, to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Members not to have pecuniary or other interest.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The bill at present before the committee is confined to one principle. The present law reads that-
No person shall act as a member of a board who has any pecuniary interest in the issue of a dispute referred to such board.
I do not know how the department interpreted the section as it now stands, but it would, I assume-and it should, I think- debar any party in interest from becoming a member of a board. The suggestion in that regard is to change the law from what I have read to this, that:
No person shall act as a member of a board who has any pecuniary interest, direct or otherwise,-
Which would make it more exclusive.
-in the issue of a dispute referred to such board.
The scope of the prohibition is intended, I think, to be practically all-exclusive. But it goes further and definitely bars anyone who- -has so acted within a period of six months preceding the date of the application for a
Industrial Disputes

board in the capacity of solicitor, legal adviser, counsel or paid agent of either of the parties to the dispute.
If I apprehend aright the minister's proposal in this regard, it is this. The theory of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is based on the principle of conciliation, which, of course, is very proper. If, as has frequently happened in cases of boards of arbitration, with which I am quite familiar, the interested parties name representatives who in turn agree on an umpire or referee, those interested parties are by the very nature of their employment advocates of the particular ' interest which has appointed them. The judicial aspect is very largely lost sight of.
1 have not had very much experience with conciliation boards, but on one occasion a good many years ago I did act on a board as a representative of one of the interested parties. I was counsel to the party, at the same time. I soon found my position to be almost impossible, because I had to choose between taking dictation from my client, on the one hand, and endeavouring to act independently, and thereby losing my client, on the other. I had to have the thing out, there and then, and assert the principle that a member of a conciliation board was acting in a judicial capacity, and not as an advocate. Therefore I am in accord with the principle that members of the boards of conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act should be in the position of judicial officers, acting independently, with a primary objective of conciliation, and not of acting as advocates.
I should like to hear anyone who holds a contrary view discuss the other side of the argument, if there be another side. I do not believe this measure is aimed at any particular individual. I have no knowledge of anything of the sort, but I do suggest that the extension of the original principle, namely, that a member of a conciliation board should not be a party either directly or indirectly interested in the result, is a sound one. Whether or not the language of the proposed section is sufficient, I cannot at the moment say. I have not had time to study the drafting of it, but with the underlying principle I can agree. I would commend the minister upon the proposal. It may be that we can improve upon the suggestion made.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall not make comment on the legal side of the question, or that part of the measure which refers to legal advisers, counsel or paid agents. But I am wondering who is going to represent the strikers in the event of a dispute. For instance, we will suppose that the steamfitters' union in a city are called out on strike. They do not go
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.l
out unless they are advised by their representatives that they have ample reasons for striking. It may be that they have not come to an agreement with their employers. In my time I have seen quite a number of steamfitters' strikes, because steamfitters' associations were associated with the line of business in which I was engaged. The same would apply to plumbers; I have seen a number of plumbers' strikes, and strikes of machinists. With them, too, I was directly associated. The same observation would apply to moulders; with them, too, I was associated. In fact, in my early days I was engaged in these lines of trade, therefore I have before me the point of view of the worker. On the other hand, I am not opposed to the industrialist, because in due course I became an executive of a large industrial corporation.
I do not believe that the worker goes on strike unless he feels he has some reason for so doing. Conciliation is by far the best course to follow. There should be give and and take on both sides. In the event of a dispute between a machinists' union, or unions of plumbers, moulders or steamfitters, and their employers, and in the further event of the setting up of a board to settle the dispute, I am wondering if paid representatives of the workers would be barred from presenting their case. Who will present the case for them? Certainly the men themselves would be best qualified through their agents to state what their troubles are. Do I understand that under the bill the agent of a steamfitters' union, a machinists' union or a moulders' union, because he is a paid agent of such union, is barred from appearing before the board?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If so, who will present the case for the workers?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member for Davenport has mentioned cases where men may be out on strike. If they are doing war work, and go out on strike before a board is appointed, they are striking illegally. But the provisions of this amendment do not apply to those who will present the case. As the leader of the opposition has pointed out, this is designed against anyone sitting on the board who may be partially inclined. In other words, the agent of the steamfitters' union or any other union may present his case to the board. The only limitation prescribed in the amendment is that, if they are paid agents, they shall not sit on the board.


Clarence Gillis: The bill presented by the minister, as I read it, seeks to bring about

Industrial Disputes
impartiality in the men comprising the personnel of a board. Reading the bill, however, as it is now worded, I take the view which has been indicated by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). I do not know where the minister would find men of that mind. In fact, I view this bill in very much the same light as I viewed a story I heard which concerned two Irishmen who were discussing the question of neutrality. The first Irishman wanted to know where his friend, from the south, stood in reference to the war. "Well," was the reply, "I am neutral." "Yes," said the first Irishman, "I can well understand that you are neutral, but who are you neutral for?" That is just about the situation we would have if this bill were passed in its present form.
In my view this is not the proper approach to the problem. Many other things are necessary to clarify the present situation so far as labour is concerned. This' measure would apply to men who are handling cases for labour before conciliation boards. Officials of unions are not allowed to sit on boards, nor are the paid agents of the operators. There are a few lawyers in Canada who have specialized in labour legislation and who, in connection with labour disputes, have made themselves the servants of labour. If this bill were to pass in its present form it would mean that labour's side of the case would not be represented on boards. Only a few of the men to whom I have referred have specialized in labour law. If this bill goes through practically everyone who is connected with labour or who has made a specialty of labour problems will be excluded. You will have full representation of the management and you will have a board with that point of view. You will not have an impartial board, or one that will take an unbiased view of the problems with which the department may be faced. The Department of Labour must recognize the problems that it has to contend with, and an attempt must be made to cure them. There is no use trying to treat the effect; you must treat the cause if you are to have any satisfactory adjustment of the labour situation in Canada at the present time.
I have been connected with organized labour for the past thirty years. I have seen these disputes developing and I have seen partial cures effected. I feel quite sure that the solution to this problem lies in organization. Giving the workers the right to organize is the key to the whole situation. Where the workers are organized in an industry, committees are appointed which meet with the management; collective agreements are signed which set out wages and working conditions;
the operators meet with the men and understand their problems, while the men gain a fairly good idea of the problems faced by the management. It is often found that disputes arise where the workers are unorganized. The government should live up to its own regulations and attempt to allay the unrest which is developing. I do not care what the personnel of this board is to be, it will not be able to cure this situation.
We are supposed to be fighting a war for democracy, a war to overcome Hitler. Spokesmen for the government have emphasized the fact that Hitler destroyed the trade unions of that country and therefore the workers of this country should be ready to give their all for victory. With that we agree wholeheartedly. I think Sir Walter Citrine expressed this very well. His remarks are. quoted in' the Canadian Congress Journal of December 1940. Here is what he said:
Trade unionism is both a cause and a product of democracy. It can only function in an atmosphere of free expression. It cannot function in cellars or behind closed doors. It must impress the public mind, and it must be given facilities to do that. Trade unionism basically is the assertion of the rights of the common man, of the principle that it is not ordained by God that any community should be ruled by aristocracies, whether those aristocracies are of birth or wealth. In pursuit of that principle of voluntary organization, you will find that organizations and groups of people have developed in every corner of the land, meeting to promote some laudable purpose.
That statement is followed up in the January 1941 issue.


Thomas Vien: I cannot see any connection between the bill before the committee and what the hon. gentleman is now reading.


Clarence Gillis: The Department of Labour is seeking to establish a board consisting of certain men who will attempt to settle these disputes, and I am endeavouring to show that the approach to this problem is not the proper one, that the matter should be handled in another way. I believe the minister has only good intentions, but I feel sure that this bill will make a condition that is already bad, much worse. The minister would be well advised to withdraw the bill and give the whole matter further consideration. The proper approach to the problem is by way of consultation with the men.


Thomas Vien: The rules state that
in committee hon. members must confine themselves strictly to the matter before the committee. The object of the section now before us is to assure the independence of the men to be appointed on the board, and it is to that point only that hon. members should address their remarks.
Industrial Disputes


Clarence Gillis: You are quite right, Mr. Chairman, but I am endeavouring to show-


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member
does not think the bill goes far enough, his remedy is by way of amendment that would cover what he has in mind, and of any such amendment he would have to give notice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: His remarks would be quite in order on the second reading.


Thomas Vien: As the leader of the
opposition points out, it would be quite in order on the second reading.


Major James William Coldwell: Or on the third
reading.


Clarence Gillis: I could have concluded in
ten or fifteen minutes and saved considerable time. If I am to be restricted at the present time I shall reserve my remarks until another stage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sure that if the hon. member had understood his rights he would have made his speech on the second reading. That stage has passed, and as he has partly completed his remarks, I think we could agree to allow him to proceed and say now what he would have said on second reading. I am interested because I want to hear his development of the point of view he is now expressing.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think we should agree
to allow the hon. member to proceed. His remarks are quite constructive, and I have no objection to his proceeding.


Major James William Coldwell: The manner of making this presentation was decided upon by the hon. member in order to facilitate matters. It was thought it would be better for him to say this in committee rather than on second or third reading.


Thomas Vien: The committee has the power to suspend the rule. I am in the hands of the committee. But before that is done I would point out that we should not be doing it in one case and not in another, a precedent will be established. As I say, I am in the hands of the committee and it will be quite in order for the committee to suspend the rule by unanimous consent.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think unanimous consent should be given. There is nothing in this discussion that is at all acrimonious. The hon. member is trying to be helpful. While I appreciate the fact that a precedent may be established, if this course is taken by unanimous consent I do not think the precedent will be unduly embarrassing. I would so move.
[The Chairman.]


Mr. BLACICMORE:: I think the hon.
member ought to be allowed to proceed. He is giving a very constructive talk.


Thomas Vien: Mr. McLarty moves
that the rule be suspended and that the hon. gentlemen have leave to speak to the point.


Angus MacInnis: While in a sense I have no objection to the suspension of the rule, its suspension might be unduly restricted. It might be suspended to allow the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) to speak, and that might be the end of it, with objection raised by the chair to other hon. members being allowed to speak. Under the circumstances, since we have allowed the second reading to pass without saying what we wanted to say, I think we shall have to leave it now until the third reading.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask if the bill prohibits any counsel or agent being appointed to a board who in the previous six months represented any association or industry which was one of the parties in a dispute? All the unions have paid agents who are most familiar with their particular problems, but as I understand this amendment the paid agents of the unions, men who have been chosen by the unions for their ability to present their case, will be barred from appointment to the board if they have so acted within a period of six months preceding. The same applies to counsel. I know different counsel who are thoroughly familiar with disputes of this kind, and under this amendment they will be barred if within the six months preceding they have appeared in the capacity of counsel for either of the parties to the dispute. I know a prominent counsel for labour, Mr. Bernard Rose, K.C., of Montreal, perhaps one of the best posted on labour disputes of any counsel I know, and if he has acted for any labour organization during the preceding six months he could not be named to the board. I mention his name only as one I know of; there may be many others. What I say would apply to all counsel who in the preceding six months had presented to a board the case of some union or industry for which he acted. Under this provision I am afraid that quite a large number of counsel and a number of paid union agents will be barred from appointment to a board. Yet the minister, I know, wants to have on these boards the most capable men he can find.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think perhaps the hon. member for Davenport is not making the distinction that applies, at least in my own mind, in this case. He mentions the name of Mr. Bernard Rose of Montreal, a very estimable man, by way of example. There is no reason

Industrial Disputes
why he cannot present a case before a board, and probably, because of his particular qualifications, why he should not sit on a board. Anyone can present a case subject to section 42 of the act. The original intent of the act was to devoid it, so far as possible, of all legal technicalities. Counsel would appear only in the event of unanimous consent on *the part of the board. The legal restriction which this amendment imposes is not on the presentation of a particular case by labour on the one hand or by industry on the other. It is merely a question of who shall constitute the board, and, as the leader of the opposition has suggested, the whole purpose is to secure a board in which there will not be advocates of one side and advocates of another. The reason for that I think is obvious.
Incidentally this proposed legislation has secured the approval of the national labour supply council, on which both labour and industry are represented. The purpose of the amendment is to secure so far as possible more unanimous reports from a board. It was pointed out to me that in one case one of the members of the board prepared the brief for one of the parties appearing before it, and if you get that definite advocacy it is pretty nearly impossible to get a unanimous report. It is with a view to endeavouring to secure more unanimity in the board's reports that this legislation is introduced.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not think the minister quite caught my point. This amendment imposes a restriction and would bar a very large number of capable counsel and agents of labour organizations from being appointed to a board. I have no doubt that a counsel or labour agent, once he is appointed to a board, would very quickly assume the impartiality of an arbitrator or judge and try to be fair. But this six months' limitation would bar from appointment to the board a considerable number of men who would be well qualified to exercise good judgment in these disputes.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps the hon. member is giving it too wide an application. It means that those who have acted within six months preceding for a particular company-not other companies in general-or for a particular union-not unions in general-would be debarred from membership on a board that was hearing a dispute in which that company or union appeared. He would be qualified to act with respect to other companies or unions.


Angus MacInnis: The minister said that the national labour supply council had given its approval to this bill. Has this council its
full personnel at the present time? If it has given its approval, is that really not approval by only a partial membership of the board?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think the board is full. The hon. gentleman will have to be more specific. I have a letter signed either by the chairman or the secretary of the national labour supply council stating that this measure has its approval.


Angus MacInnis: I have it from one of the members who was on the board at the beginning and the minister says he is still on the board, that so far from approving this bill he is opposed to it.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Would the hon. member for Vancouver East allow me the privilege of dealing very briefly with a remark he made before the committee took recess? It was in connection with the recommendation of the national labour supply council. In the intervening time I have had an opportunity of taking it up with the secretary of the council, and he advises me that there was no recorded opposition to the resolution approving this proposed- legislation.


Angus MacInnis: In saying a few words on this section I wish to assure the minister that it is my desire to be helpful. Since he has had the honour of holding his present office I have tried on every possible occasion to assist him in this house, so much so that on one occasion I was accused by some of his followers of looking for some preferment. However, I forgave them. I have even tried to help the minister outside the house, so far as I could do so with propriety. I wish to offer him some advice now, and I think he would be wise to accept it.
It is strange that this act, which stands so much in need of overhauling, should be amended at this time only to the extent of this one section. I do not think there is a more dangerous section for him to amend, particularly in the way he is now asking parliament to amend it. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act was passed in 1907, and for thirty-four years this section has stood the test. So far as I know, there has never been any objection to it until now. Why is there objection now? If I were to take the time of the committee at this stage to tell why, I rather think the chairman would stop me, and perhaps rightly. On some other occasion I will discuss the matter from that point of view. Let me read the old section 12:
Industrial Disputes

No person shall act as a member of a board who has any direct pecuniary interest in the issue of .a dispute referred to such board.
This is direct and simple. We know what it means. It means that no one connected with the management on one side or, on the other side, with the employees who would stand to gain or lose by a decision in the dispute, can be a member of a board. The amendment departs from that simple, direct stipulation. Let me read the section as amended:
No person shall act as a member of a board who has any pecuniary interest, direct or otherwise, in the issue of a dispute referred to such board or who is then acting or has so acted within a period of six months preceding the date of the application for a board in the capacity of solicitor, legal adviser, counsel or paid agent of either of the parties to the dispute.
Let us take the first word that is new- direct or "otherwise". What does "otherwise" mean? Who could not be excluded by the word "otherwise"? Every member of society to-day has a pecuniary interest in almost any labour dispute. Suppose there is a labour dispute in a public utility providing light, heat and power or perhaps transportation. If an increase in wages would affect the rates, or if an increase in wages were denied, rates not being affected, then every member in that community would be affected by the dispute because he would have an interest either direct or "otherwise". So that when you use this word you do not know what it means, or whom it excludes.
Take the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman), who so valiantly protects capital here. If he has shares in a company no one knows whether he has those shares or not. How do you find out? Having a pecuniary interest, he may be affected indirectly in the dispute.
In this amendment the minister is going into a field the limits of which neither he nor anyone else can define. However, I am not sure that that is what the amendment really contemplates. In my opinion it is directed at the representatives of labour who appear on these boards.


Norman Alexander McLarty: And industry.


Angus MacInnis: No, because industry has the same representatives on these boards as it has always had. Quite recently, however, certain solicitors have specialized in this kind of work, and I am satisfied that it is at these the amendment is directed, and it is at these that it will be directed. That is why it is so dangerous, particularly at this time. Take a paid agent. To whom does that apply? Where does it get us? I am a member of the amalgamated association of
(Mr. Maclnnis.]
street railway employees in Vancouver. A paid agent of a local of some organization, say in Toronto or Regina or Calgary, would be prevented by this proposal from sitting on a board for the employees of the street railway men in Vancouver, though he would not be directly affected by any decision that might be made in the dispute.
I suggest to the minister in all earnestness that he should consider the matter carefully before pressing this amendment as it stands. It was never intended that a board under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act should be impartial. It has always been impossible to have an impartial board, and it will still be impossible after this amendment is passed. Every member sitting on the board has an opinion one way or another. He is prejudiced, no matter how much or how little, in favour of one side or the other. We try to get over that by getting a judge as chairman-not always, but quite often. While a judge is not necessarily more impartial than some one else, yet because of his position and his training in weighing evidence, he may as chairman of such a board take perhaps a more impartial attitude than the ordinary business or professional man.
Let me read from thp act how the board is set Up:
9. For the purposes of appointment of the members of the board, the following provisions shall apply:

(a) each party to the dispute may, at the time of making application or within five days after being requested so to do by the minister, recommend the name of one person who is willing and -ready to act as a member of the board, and the minister shall appoint such person a member of the board.
Now, what happens? The employees will select a man who, they consider, has the viewpoint and the interest of the employees or workers. The employers, on the other hand, will select a man who has the interest of the employers and the point of view of employers. No matter how you deal with it you are not going to get a more impartial board than you had before.
Then we come to the appointment of the chairman. The minister, after the appointment of the other two members, instructs them to get together and select a chairman. If they fail to do so, the minister appoints the chairman. Usually, and I think for very good reasons, the minister appoints a supreme court judge or some other high court judge. Generally speaking I believe the minister's appointments give satisfaction. They give satisfaction that would not be given if someone other than a judge were appointed.
Yesterday in introducing the bill the minister said that the purpose was to get a more

Industrial Disputes
impartial board. You cannot get a more impartial board, because in spite of what you do the employees will select a person who favours their position, and the employers will select a person who favours their's. You are then as you were'-but with this difference, with this amendment the workers will be limited to a very small number of trained people from whom they can select, while the employers will not be limited at all. There are dozens of corporation lawyers in Canada who are well able to present the case for the employers, but the lawyers who are able to present the case for labour are very few, because labour is not able to afford high-priced lawyers. If this amendment is passed it will prevent labour from taking advantage of any wide choice, and instead of bettering the situation the minister is going to have trouble which I am sure he does not contemplate at the present time.
I said I was going to offer advice to the minister, and I do so with the greatest sincerity. My advice to him is to withdraw the bill.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am sure the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) are sincerely intended and well meant, and deserve a reply. In the first place I should like to clear up a statement which he apparently believes to be correct but which is not correct, that this amendment is directed at certain particular counsel who are acting for labour. I could give him a number of illustrations that I think would reveal to him that the whole purpose and function of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act was being thwarted by corporation counsel, counsel acting for corporations, who sat on boards. He points out quite truly that although the act was introduced in 1907 it is being used in a very much wider field and given a wider application by reason of its extension on November 7, 1939, to all war industries.
The hon. member said it will be impossible to get a man who is perfectly impartial. Probably I must agree with that. But if representations are to be made to a board I suggest they can be made by representatives before a board, and let us try to make that board as impartial as we possibly can. That is the whole purpose of this amendment. There is no change in the right of representation of either labour or industry before a board. But let me ask this committee this question:	How are you going to get a
unanimous report from any board where the representative on the one hand is counsel for a corporation and the representative on the other hand is counsel for a labour body?
I am not oblivious to the fact that it will be difficult to get complete impartiality. The amendment cannot guarantee that. But what it can do is it can take a step toward securing that impartiality. There will have to be, of course, some definite application to determine the mode of procedure which will be adopted to ensure impartiality. But I believe this is a step in the right direction. While it does not guarantee that every board will be impartial, at least it is a move in that direction, and for that reason I think should commend itself to the committee.
As the hon. member has stated, in cases where the power of appointment has fallen to me I have generally appointed a judge. There are two reasons for so doing. First, it is some assurance of impartiality; at least you are not open to any suggestion that you are trying to be partial to either side. And second, a judge should be most competent to weigh, consider and adjudicate upon the evidence given.


Mr. McKINNON (Kenora-Rainy River):: I agree with the principle of this bill, but I believe a great deal of difficulty will be involved in the way it will work out. In the first place it will be found that both sides will be devoting considerable time to investigating the representative of the other side to be sure that he is not either directly or indirectly interested in the dispute. As the minister has pointed out, both sides will have the opportunity of being represented at the hearing by their solicitor or representative, whichever they prefer. It has been the practice of labour organizations down through the years to have, if possible, their paid agents, men who have been following the case, arguing the case and debating it with these various boards. They know that these men have at heart the interests of the people they represent and have a definite knowledge of the problems to be debated, and in that respect will be in the best position to put forward the claims of the people who are before the board.
In the three or four years that this act has been in effect there have been at different times many complaints; in fact, if my memory serves me aright, not long ago there was quite a discussion over the fact that the chairman of a board was found to have a direct interest in a dispute which was under investigation. But I understand that the various ministers of labour have had a list of men across Canada who it is considered would be suitable chairmen of the various boards. While there have been mistakes in the past in the selection of chairmen, on the whole the system has worked out very satisfactorily. In the vast

Industrial Disputes

majority of cases impartial decisions have been rendered by the chairmen on the evidence as it was placed before them. I am sure that every hon. member wishes to see these cases decided as impartially as it is possible to decide them. As one of the previous speakers stated, it is impossible to find any person who is entirely impartial, but so long as we can find people who are willing to be fair to both points of view, that is about all we can expect from the normal human being.
Again I must say that I agree with and approve heartily the principle of the bill; nevertheless I have grave doubts as to its success in actual practice.


Mr. CHURCH:: The principle of appointing arbitrators and the constitution of the board as embodied in the bill are copied from the arbitration acts of the various provinces. In some cases, it is true, members of boards do not know very much about the work. When labour saw fit to nominate a member of the board, the principle was adopted of having each party to a dispute nominate a member, and the chairman of the board was chosen by agreement, failing which the Minister of Labour made the appointment. On some occasions it has been difficult to obtain a labour man to act without remuneration. When I speak of labour men I have not in mind the agitator type. I have had a great deal to do with the appointment of some of these boards, and it has not always been easy to get a labour man to act unless he could be assured of some compensation. I am not speaking of the sort of labour man who goes around stirring up strife. That sort of thing is bad enough in our industrial life in time of peace; it is far worse in war time.
I should not like to see the minister, unless he finds it necessary as a war measure, keep off the boards some of our reasonable, bona fide labour men who have given a great deal of help to the trade union movement in this country. Not a few disputes have arisen with respect to public utilities connected with the municipalities, operating at cost. In such cases they generally secured pretty good boards, nominated by each side. In some cases the minister chose the chairman, in others the senior judge of the county was appointed. However, with due respect to the bench, a number of the judges who have functioned on these commissions knew very little about the practical matters connected with mechanization which arise in the very involved industrial disputes of the present day. But let me repeat, from my observation, the minister has chosen very good men to act on these boards.

I do not agree with the practice of some members of the legal profession going all over the country to participate in every petty dispute which arises here, there and everywhere. Although I am a member of the legal profession, I have not a great deal of sympathy with that type of professional man. There are some good men among them, but I know others who are not in favour of the thorough prosecution of this war, and after all, industrial disputes-as is evident from the experience of the United States-will be a menace to the war effort unless the government lays down some policy with respect to such issues when they arise. We are now away behind with our war effort, and there is not a day to be lost.
Some time ago in the case of Snyder vs the Toronto Electric commission, I was associated with an appeal to the privy council to determine whether sections of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act were intra vires of the parliament of Canada in regard to public utilities as certain sections of that act of that day were involved in a labour dispute with the system's, employees; and after all Canadian courts it came before decided it was, the privy council gave a very important judgment on the matter of property and civil rights in the province, the law of contracts and that of employers and employees. The late Lord Haldane delivered the judgment of the court, which was a very good one, and dealt with the constitution of the board and the duties of its members.
I have been all my life a supporter of labour, especially the trade union movement. When properly administered, without the intrusion of agitators, it has been in many ways a blessing to this country. In my opinion some good labour men can be engaged as members of boards, but they cannot afford to lay off w'ork without remuneration for one, two or three months. I know of one involved arbitration which lasted fifteen months. It arose out of the taking over of the street railway by the city of Toronto, and cost nearly a million and a half dollars.
I am sorry that I was not in the chamber this morning. Has the minister any information from the old country as to a change, under war-time conditions, in the constitution of the British boards? Is it now the law of England that they are not to be paid?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Not as far as I know.


Thomas Langton Church: County court judges receive. I believe, $25 a day. They are allowed by the tariff $15 a day, but when they relinquish their other judicial duties it is our practice to give them $25 a day and expenses.

Industrial Disputes
As 1 have said, there are some very good labour men. I might mention Mr. Joseph Gibbons, who has served on one or two commissions. I am sorry that his services are not more frequently utilized.
I will support this measure if the government thinks it is necessary in connection with the war effort, although it seems to me rather dangerous to upset in times of war an arrangement which has worked well in times of peace.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There is one matter mentioned by the hon. member for Broadview as to which I might make a correction. Nothing in this bill prevents any labour man or any representative of industry from receiving the fees prescribed by the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. In other words, the mere fact that he is a member of the board will not constitute him a counsel or paid agent of either employer or employee. The fees may not be very large, but we have had no difficulty in finding people to serve for them. Consequently labour will not be in a prejudicial position in that regard.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rose to ask the minister a question a few moments ago. I understood him to say that certain regulations would be made as a result of this amendment. Those regulations, I suppose, will specify just what classification a man will come under who has some pecuniary interest in a dispute. Not only will the Department of Labour get into more and more difficulty as a result of this amendment but, as was suggested by the hon. members for Vancouver East and Davenport, I believe the government is taking away the type of arbitration board formerly intended. It is taking away from labour some of the rights they formerly enjoyed.
It is not always that a question of wages is involved. Sometimes questions of working conditions have to be considered. A dozen and one different questions may be involved in a labour dispute, questions which have nothing whatever to do with wages. Therefore in order to have its case properly placed before other members of the board, it is necessary that labour have someone there who has a practical knowledge of the situation.
The minister has pointed out that labour may submit evidence to the board. But, in choosing the member of a board, labour is not going out to choose one who is not conversant with labour conditions. The attitude of labour on various questions has been one of desire and hope of bettering their conditions. How far-reaching, then, is this amendment going to be? If a person is a member of a trade union, a member of a trade congress or of the Canadian congress of labour, and 14873-228}
a matter of vital importance to the whole set-up of unions in Canada is involved, that person would have a pecuniary interest and would be debarred. In any matter which is going to benefit his union, even though it may be a dispute with another union, he is bound to have a pecuniary interest.
The minister is the one who will have to say whether or not a man has that interest. Should the minister refuse to accept a nominee of labour on the ground that he may have some interest, the minister would be in very serious difficulty, and would immediately have all the labour organizations in the country on his neck.
I feel very much as did the hon. members for Vancouver East and Davenport. I do not see how we can gain anything from this amendment, and I feel that we are going to have more difficulties in the Department of Labour in designating who is or who is not interested. If the minister is anxious to have a non-partisan board to deal with labour disputes, a board before which labour and industry, and whoever else may be involved, may state their positions, then rather than curb the type of representation one can have on the board, I suggest that labour and all other parties concerned would be much better off if the minister would say, "We will appoint a board of judges in every province who will sit on these disputes, and to which evidence may be submitted under oath." This bill is unfair to labour; under its provisions labour is the group whose representations will be curbed.


Alan Webster Neill: At first glance I did not see anything objectionable in the bill, but after hearing the hon. member for Vancouver East I have somewhat altered my opinion. I did not hear everything he said, but I gathered from what I did hear that he was voicing the opinions of labour unionism, and stating their opposition to this bill. He may not have had direct authority-and I do not see how he could have had, because the bill was introduced only a few hours ago-to speak for labour. But if any hon. members can lay claim to representing labour, then I should think the hon. member for Vancouver East must be one of them. So far as I can gather he appears to make strong objection to this bill.
The very essence of the bill, as in respect to similar legislation, appears to me to be framed on cooperation, on the getting together of labour and capital, in order to come to some reasonable arrangement. Any suggestion of doing so by way of legislation which has the appearance of having been forced on one or other of these bodies would be bound to react unfavourably against any prospects of cooperation in any dispute.
Industrial Disputes

As it has been opposed-and it has been strongly opposed-by people representing labour, I suggest that we might accept the suggestion offered by the hon. member for Vancouver East, namely, that of withdrawing the bill; or it might be stood over until the next session. It is rumoured that we will meet in a couple of months-not likely more than three months. By that time publicity will be given to the purpose of the amendment, and it would be possible to have a better idea as to the way in which it would be accepted by labour.
There is one other point I would mention to the minister. In the bill we find the expression "No person . . . who has any pecuniary interest, direct or otherwise". It might be possible in high places-and I do not at all suggest that it could happen under the present minister-that under some circumstances there might come a time when it would be desirable to favour one party's interests rather than those of another. It would be possible for whoever had the deciding of the issue to regard the recommendation of the labour group as undesirable. That group might select, we will say, Tom>
Jones, a prominent labour sympathizer, but a person not essentially connected with the dispute. It might be possible to say, "No, we will not accept that man, because he has an 'otherwise' interest." In other words he may have an indirect interest in the dispute.
We will suppose that it would be a dispute between the employees and the management of a street railway company. It would be possible to refuse the appointment of a man not directly connected with labour, but one who is perhaps known to be a sympathizer. The argument might be used that as he was a potential passenger on the street car it would be possible, if the demands of the labour element were accepted, that the price of street car tickets would be increased. Therefore it would always be possible to turn down nominee after nominee until a man was secured who was more or less favourable to the other side of the argument. It is going too far to prevent a man from acting as a representative in a dispute because he might have an "otherwise", in other words an indirect, interest in such dispute.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: In connection with this matter I believe I fall in line with the observations of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). At first I did not see very much that was wrong in the bill, and I thought the word "otherwise" might tend to make the conciliation board more impartial. I believe now, however, that it will deprive labour of its chance of being represented by people who in other ways might not be objectionable.

I suggest that what the government ought to do is to stop strikes before they start. Do not let them get started. Do not let us have any of these stoppages in war work. The government should do everything possible to see that such stoppages are prevented. There must be no suspicion of injustice in the minds of the people of Canada, and particularly in the minds of labour. I believe if the word "otherwise" is left in the bill it will be just one more small thing which might cause a good deal of trouble. It would develop suspicion, and thereby render it more difficult to prevent stoppages of work.
We must remember that a great many people in Canada, and practically all people in Great Britain, have given up many privileges. We are going to have those privileges back after the war; in the meantime I think we are all satisfied to be deprived of them. In my opinion the government should make it very clear that in the matter of dealing with labour disputes there will be no injustice, and that they are not going to take a dictatorial attitude on behalf either of labour or of capital in connection with war work in Canada. In other words the government must take a firm stand. The very fact of having the word "otherwise" in the bill will mean that there will be suspicion, and just another small cause for discontent with the board. I believe the minister would be wise in removing that word and thereby removing suspicion.
Mr. O'NEILL:	I have listened with a
great deal of interest to the argument that has been put forward on this bill. I am not always in agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), nor am I always in agreement with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I have been directly connected with labour for thirty-five years, but I have not been delegated to speak for labour at this time. I believe the minister is sincerely trying to make these boards of conciliation more impartial, but I am in agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver East when he says that that is almost impossible. As the hon. member said, labour will appoint a man who has the labour viewpoint, and the employer will appoint a man with the employer viewpoint. This bill will restrict the field from which labour can draw. Right now we have a board of conciliation and it may be necessary in three months' time to have another board. Will this legislation not prevent either capital or labour from continuing to have as their representatives the men who are now sitting on the board?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is not the intention.

Industrial Disputes
Mr. O'NEILL: It says "counsel or paid agent."


Norman Alexander McLarty: They would receive their pay under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act and would not come within the purview of this amendment.
Mr. O'NEILL:	I am glad to have that
explanation, but the language of this bill may be construed differently to-morrow by a lawyer. It is not what the minister's opinion may be, it is the interpretation that will be placed upon the law. With all due respect to the minister, I must say I am afraid that this bill will prove detrimental to labour, and I suggest that he withdraw it at this time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I could say a few
words as one who has been watching the situation for a considerable length of time. We have had boards which were quite successful in settling disputes to the satisfaction of all concerned, and Which brought down findings which had a fairly binding effect. We have had other boards which reached divided decisions and where it was found that the settlements arrived at were temporary indeed. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act provides for the setting up of what is in effect a judicial board, but recently a practice has crept in under which you have practically a board of arbitration. One side appoints an agent to represent it, the other side appoints another agent to represent it, and the Department of Labour appoints a judge or someone else as the third and only neutral member of the board. The findings rendered by many of these boards have not been beneficial to the settlement of disputes.
Perhaps we could take a specific case which has been referred to quite often in this house, the Peck rolling mills dispute. In that case an agent of the union was appointed as a member of the board along with the paid solicitor of the Peck rolling mills. A member of the judiciary was the third member. I suggest that that was not a conciliation board. In my opinion such a board could never agree. If the paid representative of the union and the representative of the employer could agree, the board would not have been necessary. The Minister of Labour is attempting to set up a tribunal which will assess the facts submitted to it and attempt to arrive at a mutual agreement based upon the facts presented by the two sides.
The government has no intention of barring the representatives of either side from appearing before the board. The representative of the union is entitled to appear and state his case as ably as he possibly can. Similarly,
the company may send its paid solicitor before the board to represent the case for the company. But after that has been done, a decision is rendered by three men who have open minds on the subject. One man would have the view of labour, because we would assume that labour would choose a man who held such views. Another man would have the view of the owner, because we would assume that the company would choose a man of that type. Then we know that the Minister of Labour would choose a man with a judicial mind, one without any particular views on either side. We believe that that would be a board which would reconcile the facts brought before it and bring down a finding which both sides could accept as a reasonable settlement of the dispute.
Hon. gentlemen know that the success of the Department of Munitions and Supply depends almost entirely on the continuance of good relations between capital and labour. The highest objective I have in conducting the department is that those relations shall obtain. I discussed this matter with several labour leaders representing different occupational groups and I did not hear one dissenting voice to my suggestion that a completely impartial board of three would be more effective in solving labour disputes than the practice that has lately cropped up of appointing special advocates and special pleaders for each party with only one neutral arbitrator.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I quite agree with what
the Minister of Munitions and Supply has said, but to my mind it does not clear the situation. He has said that labour will name someone who is partial to labour and that industry will name someone partial to industry, while the Department of Labour will name the third member. Such a man may not be a pi-ofessional or legal advocate of labour, but he will be a man possessing labour's viewpoint. When sitting on the board he is going to fight for the people who have named him to the board. If we could get what the Minister of Munitions and Supply has suggested we might get it would be a perfect set-up, but I do not think this bill is going to do it. In fact I think this bill is going to make things more difficult for the Department of Labour. I would far rather have the Department of Labour say that impartial boards are to be set up in Ontario and the other provinces to deal with these matters. The time has come when the Department of Labour must show courage in handling a situation of this kind, not only courage in handling labour, but courage in handling the industrial end. We dare not allow either industry or labour to interfere with our war effort. So far there has been too much of it.
Industrial Disputes

The Department of Labour in bringing in this amendment is just bringing upon itself more difficulties. It is giving itself the responsibility of saying to one side or the other in a dispute: We cannot accept your nominee because he has some pecuniary interest in this dispute. If you deny the right to labour to choose its own representative, labour is going to say that you are unfair, and if you deny that right to industry, industry is going to say the same. Yet labour will be the greatest loser.
The minister would be well advised to withdraw this bill and to make up his mind that the Department of Labour will handle these disputes with only one end in view. Being fair, yes, but seeing that nothing shall interfere with the production of the essential raw materials required by this country. There could very well be set up in every province an impartial board, even to the extent of appointing to these boards judges who will sit and hear all disputes between labour and industry. It is a big job, and I sympathize with the minister because I know some of the responsibility that is his. It is a job that has to be handled with courage and yet with great diplomacy. I do think that the minister could work out some better way of dealing with these disputes than the method this bill provides.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to say a word in reply to the remarks of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. He would be right and I could agree with him if all these disputes were disputes involving wages and conditions. His conclusion was based on the assumption that labour has bargaining powers with the employer, because he said that if an agreement could be arrived at by a board as constituted at the present time, the same understanding could have been arrived at between the employer and the employee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, w'hat I said was that if the appointees, the paid representative of the labour union and the paid representative of the employer, could ever hope to agree, a board would not have been necessary in the first place. When you add a third party, you get a decision of the board which is a majority decision. But the chance of getting a unanimous decision of the board, where you have a paid representative of one party and a paid representative of the other, is very unlikely unless the employer and the union could have arrived at such an agreement without the intervention of the board.


Clarence Gillis: In any case, and under any arrangements, you will have a paid repre-

sentative of the employer and a paid representative of the employees, because I presume none of these people is going to work for nothing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But paid by the crown.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Paid under the act.


Clarence Gillis: In those circumstances the employer would be represented 100 per cent. That is my honest conviction.
I may have an opportunity later to express what I had in mind earlier when I was ruled out of order, with respect to a proper solution of the problem. I am convinced that the employer and the employee can iron out their difficulties without boards of conciliation, provided that some of the legal barriers set up by order in council are removed so as to give labour and industry an opportunity of coming together and having their own tribunals through the medium of organization. I think the Minister of Labour will agree that at least 85 per cent of the disputes that have arisen since the outbreak of the war have not been over wages and working conditions but rather over the demand by the employees of recognition of their right to set up a collective bargaining agency. In addition to that phase of the question, which must be thoroughly examined if we are desirous of arriving at a solution, we must remember that the final decision of the board, after it has been set up and has taken evidence from employer and employee, is made as a result of examination of that evidence. If the representative of labour on the board is not qualified, has not the technical training which will enable him to make an examination of the evidence so that a proper report can be brought in with due regard to the people he represents, you are not going to have any solution of the problem.
I will not say any more just now, except that I think the Minister of Munitions and Supply was labouring under a misapprehension, or else I misunderstood him. I feel that he would be right in his contention if labour was organized. I believe that 75 per cent of the boards which have been set up and 75 per cent of the money that is being wasted on them could be eliminated, and then we could get down to business.
Mr. O'NEILL: In my experience I can recall only one conciliation board in a period of thirty-five years which brought in a unanimous report. If that is so, it seems to me that the men who comprise these conciliation boards must be pretty well biased, if I may put it in that way, when they go in there to sit on a board. The representative

Industrial Disputes
of labour will have the labour class viewpoint, and that viewpoint only. He is there for that very reason. Similarly with the man who goes in there to represent the employer; he is there because he has the employer's viewpoint on the subject. I can recall only one case, I say, in thirty-five years where a board brought in a unanimous decision.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was that a railwaymen's case?
Mr. O'NEILL: The case I refer to was not
in connection with operating railway men.


Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax):: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. McKinnon) stated a few minutes ago that if this bill carries it will be possible for either party to be represented at the hearing by its counsel or solicitor even * if he had been occupied as counsel for the party within the preceding six months. From my recollection of the act that statement is not correct. Counsel or solicitors may appear for either party at a hearing under this act only by consent of the parties, and even in cases where such consent is given it is still within the power of the board to refuse to allow counsel or solicitors to appear at a hearing. I think that is the provision, and in order to meet the case my hon. friend has in mind, it might be necessary to amend one or two other sections of the act to make it perfectly clear that if the bill carries in its present form counsel would have the right to appear at the call of the party whom they represent.
There is no doubt that the principle as stated by the leader of the opposition this morning is the one which should be applicable to judicial bodies, and if possible to boards of this kind. However, the board set up under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is not a judicial body. It is a conciliation and investigation board. During the many years in which the act has been administered it has, I know, been the practice for parties to the dispute to cover a very wide range in the selection of the men who are to represent them on the board. There is high authority for the statement that no man can serve two masters. At first blush, it might be said that a solicitor who within a short period prior to a hearing had been representing one of the parties could be regarded as holding a brief for that party, but I suggest that it has not always worked out in that way. Obviously, too, in the setting up of a board of this kind, the parties to the dispute will select their own representatives, and those representatives will reflect the general views of the respective parties. It is not possible in the circumstances to set up a board that could be wholly free from the charge of partiality, or so long
as both parties have the right to choose their own representatives. The amendment reads:
No person shall act as a member of a board who has any pecuniary interest, direct or otherwise, in the issue of a dispute referred to such board or who is then acting or has so acted within a period of six months preceding the date of the application for a board in the capacity of solicitor, legal adviser, counsel or paid agent of either of the parties to the dispute.
If this goes through it will be quite permissible in the case mentioned by the minister or in any similar case to have one of the representatives proposed by the employees turned down on the ground that he had some interest, direct or otherwise, in the subject matter of the dispute, while another person appointed for the employers might be counsel not for one of the parties but for a corporation controlling shares belonging to such party if it happened to be an incorporated company. If one wanted to exhaust all possible anomalies that might arise in dealing with the question of indirect interest one would have to frame a much wider section than this. I am not sure whether it is intended that this legislation should be retroactive or at least whether it is to come into effect at once and be applicable to boards now in existence, but if it is I see no reason why the effect of it might not be to disqualify in some particular case a member of an existing board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the
minister read the section of the act with regard to the presence of counsel before the boards, and also clarify the words "direct or otherwise"? I have been thinking this over since we were here this morning. Its implications are numerous.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The section to which the
leader of the opposition refers is section 42 of the act:
No counsel or solicitor shall be entitled to appear or be heard before the board, except with the consent of the parties to the dispute, and notwithstanding such consent the board may decline to allow counsel or solicitors to appear.
With regard to some of the observations that have been made, I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) say that in thirty-five years he had never known of a unanimous board award.
Mr. O'NEILL:	I know of only one.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I can assure him that
during the time I have been Minister of Labour, until recently when this technique has developed, there have been a great many unanimous reports, which were extremely helpful. In fact, I would say that the majority of them were unanimous in the first year, but
Industrial Disputes

this technique has come about and it almost makes it impossible to have unanimous approval because of the interests of either of the parties. I admit frankly that I do not think we shall ever come to the point where we shall have complete impartiality. The fact that a man is appointed either by labour or by industry almost naturally indicates his inclination, and that is all right; but we are not helping to get paid counsel sitting on the boards. This bill was considered by the national labour supply council, on which are the heads of four leading national labour organizations in Canada. They have all approved it.


Mr. MARTIN:: Is Mr. Tom Moore on that?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not think there is anything in the bill that would be prejudicial to labour. The suggestion has been made that we are restricting labour. We are not for a moment taking away from labour or industry the right to appoint its member of the board. We are simply saying to labour, as to industry, that there is a very small class that should not be appointed because it would prejudicially affect the impartiality of the board. That is the whole effect of this. Personally I have no objection to deleting the words "direct or otherwise".
Mr. O'NEILL: Let me submit a hypothetical case. Suppose there is an accident just outside the city. A train and an automobile are both racing for the crossing. The automobile is hit, the driver is killed and the engineer is up for manslaughter. Naturally the labour organization will employ the best legal talent they can to protect that man. The case is disposed of, and two months afterwards the engineers become involved with the railway company in a dispute. A conciliation board is appointed. Could the engineers in that case appoint as their representative on the board the lawyer who had defended them in the court action?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think the answer would be in the negative if he had acted as counsel on behalf of a union within a period of six months.
Mr. O'NEILL: That is the point I am making. You are narrowing the field of those upon whom the labour organizations may. call to act as their agents on a conciliation board.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The same applies to
industry. The same situation might arise there.	[DOT]
Mr. O'NEILL:	But they have more to
draw from than labour.
[Mr. McLarty.J


Angus MacInnis: The bill will be improved slightly by the amendment. I think it will be helpful to the Department of Labour, because they would find it very difficult to define who was or was not affected by having a pecuniary interest in the dispute. But my objection to the section still stands. I am going to propose an amendment that will limit the prohibition not to solicitor, legal adviser, counsel or paid agent who acted for either of the parties, but to one who acted in respect of the dispute then before the board. I therefore move:
That the section be amended by striking out all the words after the word "agent" in the thirteenth line, and that the following be substituted therefor:
"in respect to such dispute or any matter involved therewith."


Norman Alexander McLarty: The effect of this proposed amendment would be to eliminate completely the benefit we hope to derive from the general amendment. It means that they may not have been employed as counsel in the particular dispute which is being heard by the board. The purpose of the general amendment is that they shall not have had the pecuniary interest of being employed by a company or of receiving financial remuneration from a union for six months. The hon. member's amendment would simply destroy the effect of the bill, since the limitation would be only in respect to the particular dispute involved. It would render the general amendment useless and prevent us from obtaining what we hope will be an impartial board. Before a dispute arises it is unlikely that there would be consultation with counsel, and the only limitation effected by the amendment of the hon. member would be that they had not been consulted in the particular dispute under review.


Angus MacInnis: The minister has referred on several occasions to the impartiality of the board, yet I think that both he and the Minister of Munitions and Supply admitted that you could not have an impartial board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But should that not be the aim?


Angus MacInnis: It cannot be the aim
as long as you allow each side to select its representative. It is pure nonsense to talk about an impartial board as long as you say: This man will represent me and that man will represent you and the third man is the umpire. The third man may be impartial or he may not. My own opinion is that he can be impartial only to a certain degree. But counsel may present arguments and help the union or the employees or the employer

Industrial Disputes
to place the evidence before the board. What you are doing with this measure so far as the employees are concerned is limiting them as to the number of qualified experienced persons from whom they can draw who are able to analyse the evidence and stand up against a judge and another trained representative of the employers.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Does the hon. member
think that the majority of employees' representatives on boards are as a matter of fact paid by some union in connection with that service?


Angus MacInnis: No.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think not.


Angus MacInnis: If they are not, why
this section, if it is not aimed at someone? What is the section aimed at if the representative of the employees-


Norman Alexander McLarty: Let me admit that there are some.


Angus MacInnis: Then the purpose of this is to prevent these few or this particular one or two from appearing on boards. The minister should be careful what questions he asks.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think it would be fair to my hon. friend if I suggested that more lawyers have been employed by employers appearing on boards than by employees.


Angus MacInnis: Of course, because lawyers do riot work for nothing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one does except members of parliament.


Angus MacInnis: Well, some members of parliament do not work. However, getting back.to the point, the minister withdrew the words "or otherwise" because he found himself .unable to define what they would mean. Can he define the words "of the parties to the dispute"? To whom will they apply? For instance, take my own organization that I mentioned this morning, the amalgamated association of street railway employees in America. If they have as counsel a man who appeared in a case in Toronto for division 113 of the association, would that man be debarred from appointment as representative of division 101 in Vancouver on a similar board? He is possibly a party to the dispute. Does this apply to national organizations, to provincial organizations or to local units?


Mr. MAYBANK:: I do not believe that the amendment would in any wise help, but I do not believe that the bill itself will accomplish what is expected of it. I think we shall find that after passing this bill we shall not have got any nearer to impartiality, for reasons 14873-229
which have been stated by several hon. members. They are simply to this end, that when a person is chosen by either side to the dispute he is chosen because he is a partisan, and we do not change that except to say certain types of partisans may not be chosen. If you cannot have men on the board who are regular counsel or have been regular counsel for the disputants, it seems to me you have to leave it open to the disputants to have their counsel before the board, which sometimes they have and sometimes have not. But I cannot believe that we shall accomplish anything by this legislation. I am in favour of it as it is written, in favour of the idea of getting an impartial board, but in voting for this bill I do not believe we shall really be accomplishing what we are aiming at. It may be well enough to try it for perhaps a year or two, and experience will show whether it has any value or has been a detriment, more particularly in the labour world. Would it not be a good idea, if the bill is passed, to withhold the application of it for a time in order to see what further reactions there may be, more particularly in the labour world, with regard to it? Very often it happens that central labour organizations, such as the advisory body mentioned by the minister, are not thoroughly representative of their membership on the particular issue upon which they are expressing their views. It might be well to hold up the application of the measure for a while.
To sum up, while I shall vote for the legislation, and while I should like to see impartiality achieved, I cannot bring myself to the conviction that we are going to get it as a result of this measure.


Major James William Coldwell: There is one interesting feature of the discussion. I would point out to the minister that hon. members who have opposed this legislation are representative of all three of our groups in the house, and have been intimately associated with labour organization. I refer to the hon. members for Winnipeg South Centre, Kamloops, Kenora-Rainy River, Waterloo South, Cape Breton South, ahd Vancouver East. Under these circumstances it is fairly evident that there is an uneasy feeling among those who are intimately connected with labour organizations and understand the working of these disputes and of the conciliation boards. I believe that feeling will be in the minds of labour at the present time, and if there is one thing all of us should try to avoid, it is giving those elements in our country that are trying to subvert our war effort any opportunity of using anything we do in this house to promote dissatisfaction in the labour field at this time.

Industrial Disputes

I join with others in urging that the bill be withdrawn for the present and that, perhaps, the reaction of organized labour be obtained in order that we may arrive at some conclusion upon the subject.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has
organized labour not approved the principle of this bill?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Oh, yes. So far as
organized labour is concerned, the notification I had from the national labour supply council, which is representative-very representative-of organized labour, was that the matter was unanimously approved, without any recorded dissent in connection with it.
The hon. member for Vancouver East suggested that in agreeing to the withdrawal of the wmrds "direct or otherwise," I did so because I could not explain what it meant. I can assure him that that was not the purpose. I was impressed with the argument that the term might be difficult to apply in the matter of administration, and for that reason I am quite prepared to have it withdrawn.


Angus MacInnis: Would the, minister allow me just one word? I was speaking the day before yesterday to the president of one of the national labour organizations who is or was a member of the national supply board. He told me that he was opposed to this amendment. I did not speak with other representatives of labour here, and consequently I do not know the views of all of them, but that is the position so far as this man is concerned.


Norman Alexander McLarty: All I can assure this committee of, Mr. Chairman, is that he did not record in any way his dissent from the recommendation that this legislation be passed.


Clarence Gillis: The minister has stated on two occasions, confirming it in his answer to the hon. member for Vancouver East, that labour as represented on the national labour supply council were unanimous in their approval of this legislation. Is the Canadian congress of labour represented on the supply council at this time?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, they are, but I did not use the word "unanimous" as regards their approval. What I said was that there was no dissent recorded. I took it that the council approved; it was without recorded dissent.


Angus MacInnis: I believe the minister said in reply to the leader of the opposition that the vote was unanimous.
(Mr. Coldwell.l


Norman Alexander McLarty: No. Well, I wish to be fair. If I did state that, I was in error. I said that there was no recorded vote to the contrary.


Mr. EDWARDS:: As a matter of information, may I ask the minister how the provisions of this section will be implemented? How is he going to ensure that the board is impartial within the meaning of this section; and what would be the effect of an award made by the board if it were discovered that one member was not in fact impartial within the meaning of the section?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is, perhaps, going pretty far. I suppose that, once the board is established, it will have to be assumed that it is qualified to act, and that a subsequent discovery that the information is wrong should not be allowed to upset the award of the board.	[DOT]


Hugh Bathgate McKinnon: Probably the minister can clear up a difficulty which has occurred to me. Heretofore, both sides have been appointing their representatives-you can call them legal representatives or agents-on this conciliation board to represent the views of the contending parties. Under section 42 of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, an agent or legal representative is prevented from appearing before the board without the consent of both parties to the dispute. How will employees get their case before this board if they are not allowed to have a solicitor or an agent there to present it?


Norman Alexander McLarty: There is no prohibition of an agent appearing before the board. Section 42 does not provide that. It says that counsel shall be allowed to appear before the board only with the consent of the board. There is no reason why agents should not be allowed to appear. Of course they will. This will not affect in any way section 42.


Angus MacInnis: Do the words "solicitor, legal adviser, counsel or paid agent" apply to a legal firm or to an individual? If Smith, of the firm of Jones, Jones, Jones, and Smith, has acted for one of these organizations within the six months, will this section prevent him from acting in that capacity, while it would not prevent one of the other partners?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think we shall have to be consistent and say, where Jones and Smith are partners, and Smith has had a retainer and has acted for the company within six months, any member of his firm would be precluded from acting.


Angus MacInnis: The minister did not answer my other question, asked a moment

Industrial Disputes
ago, as to whether the solicitor for the national organization of any of the many local unions throughout the dominion-remember, it is the local unions which have the disputes-will be debarred from acting for the local union in another city?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The answer is, yes, in
the same way as a solicitor for the Canadian Pacific Railway company might have a dispute at one point or another. I would say that the national solicitor for a union could not under this provision sit upon a board, because he would be drawing direct remuneration.


Thomas Vien: It is moved by the
Minister of Munitions and Supply:
That the words "direct or otherwise" in the sixth line of section 1 he deleted.


Alan Webster Neill: If this amendment passes, we shall be very little, if any, better off than we were before. We appreciate the minister's giving way to the argument that these words made the section too restrictive, but let me turn to the wording of the section as it appeared in the act originally:
No person shall act as a member of a board who has any direct pecuniary interest in the issue of a dispute referred to such board.
That is now changed in the bill to "any pecuniary interest, direct or otherwise." It is now proposed to strike out the words "direct or otherwise," so that the section will now read "who has any pecuniary interest in the issue of a dispute." That, Mr. Chairman, is exactly as it was before, although expressed in somewhat different words. The inference would be to a pecuniary interest, however small. The argument could be used about which I spoke an hour or two ago, to the effect that the section might be applied to a man who rode on a street-car.
If the minister is going to give effect to what he offered to do, then he should put the section back as it was before, and insert the word "direct" so that it will read, as it did for many years, "who has any direct pecuniary interest."


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member must realize that the last five lines in the amended section constitute a difference between the original section, and the suggested one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Those are alternative.


Alan Webster Neill: I cannot see that the following five lines have any bearing on the matter. If we are going to put the section back as it was before by striking out the words "direct or otherwise," then it certainly should read 14873-229*
"any direct pecuniary interest in the issue of a dispute." Anything else is promising us bread and giving us a stone.
Amendment (Mr. Howe) agreed to.


Thomas Vien: It has been moved by Mr. Maclnnis:
That the section be amended by striking out all the words after the word "agent" in the thirteenth line, and that the following be substituted therefor:	.
"In respect to such dispute or any matter involved therewith."
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Thomas Vien: In	my opinion the
nays have it.
Amendment negatived.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. McLARTY moved the third reading of the bill.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I endeavoured to make
a few observations when this measure was before the committee, and I was told that they were not relevant at that time. At this time, therefore, I desire to make a general summary of the measure, as I see it. The bill brought before the house by the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) is one through which ways and means are sought to improve conciliation machinery. In my opinion, however, this bill absolutely restricts and definitely rules out any opportunity labour may have had of having adequate representation on conciliation boards.
I am endeavouring to point out to the minister that the amendment proposed in the bill will serve to make more confusing an already badly confused situation. I believe that the present state of unrest in labour is attributable to at least some of the measures enacted by order in council, but never implemented.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
are they?


Clarence Gillis: I refer first to order in
council P.C. 2685, which gives the workers the right to organize. The principle of the right to recognition of trade unions is set out in no uncertain terms right through that order in council. Industry is strongly advised to meet employees, to give them the right to organize, and to sign collective agreements.
Industrial Disputes

That order in council was well worded, but it has never been given legal status. So far as labour in Canada is concerned, order in Council P.C. 2685 is not to-day worth the paper on which it is written. It is advice to those who, in my opinion, are to a great extent responsible for the present situation, but that advice was never followed by action, nor was it given any legal interpretation. The failure of the Department of Labour to follow up that order in council and to see to its enforcement, as the department follows up and sees to the enforcement of legislation which has for its purpose the restriction of the rights of labour in war time, cannot be excused. Practically every piece of legislation in which the rights of labour are restricted has been enforced, but order in council P.C. 26S5 has not been. The bill before the house will only make greater the confusion which at present exists. As I tried to point out this morning, to cure a disease one must get at the cause. The government cannot cure the disease of industrial unrest by operating from the top, through conciliation boards. It must get to the bottom, to the base of the trouble. At the present time that struggle has its basis in the efforts of the workers to form collective organizations through which they may have a say in the management of industry. That is the point from which the government, if it wishes to effect a cure, must work.
The minister must first give some consideration to the enforcement of order in council P.C. 2685. Second, order in council P.C. 7440 was another move which badly confused not only the average workingman but those men who sat in on conciliation boards. They have not been able to interpret it. Perhaps that suggestion is best exemplified in the dispute which has taken place in the rubber industry. The personnel of conciliation boards have not been able to obtain a proper interpretation, or a correct understanding of order in council P.C. 7440, The Minister of Labour will remember that the Bowmanville rubber workers put in motion all the legal machinery of conciliation. A board was set up and made an award of increased wages which was satisfactory to both employer and employees. After that report had been made, the Minister of Labour wrote to the rubber workers' organization in Bowmanville and stated that the conciliation board had erred in its award which had been accepted by employer and employees. It was stated that the decision was over and above what was called for by order in council P.C. 7440, and it was stated that at some future time this organization would be called upon to defer their right to further increases on account of increased costs

of living until such time as the overpayment had been made up. I think in that case the board understood its duties and took the real meaning out of the order in council.
This situation is illustrated by what has occurred at the Peck rolling mill. They put into force all the legal machinery as stipulated by the government. A vote was taken, and an examination of the situation was made. In their Trenton, Nova Scotia, plant, Dominion Iron and Steel pay a base wage of forty-five cents an hour, and the same rate is paid in the Sydney plant. Yet in Quebec they pay only 30-7 cents an hour. The conciliation board split, the majority holding that their interpretation of order in council P.C. 7440 was that the wages paid in 1926 and 1929 should be the basis of the award, and their award was made accordingly. The union representative presented a minority report, which was based upon his interpretation of order in council P.C. 7440, to the effect that in areas where wage levels had been depressed during normal periods, the board had jurisdiction to level up.
As a result of all this, a strike has been in progress in the Peck Rolling Mills for the past month. Employees are suffering, and an organization which should be producing war materials is shut down. Confusion exists because order in council P.C. 7440 beclouds the issue. The interpretation has been given by the Department of Labour that wages must conform to the 1926 and 1929 level irrespective of whether they have been depressed. My information is that not very much is being done to cope with this situation. In my opinion an examination should be made of this entire industry which controls twenty-six subsidiaries from Sydney west into Ontario. The industrial rates of wages should be the same for all plants. If the basic rate in one plant is forty-five cents an hour, then that rate should apply to the entire industry. Instead of this strike being prolonged for a month, instead of the people having to suffer and production being curtailed, the board should have been reinstructed. The wages at the Peck Rolling Mills in Montreal should be levelled up to the rates prevailing throughout the rest of the industry.
The National Steel Car corporation established a plant in Montreal. They pay forty-five cents an hour in Hamilton and 30-7 cents an hour in Montreal. Quebec is a low-wage province. We hear much about national unity, and yet wages in Quebec are much below those in other parts of Canada. This tends to create in the minds of the people of that province the thought that they are not being treated exactly the same as the rest of Canada.

Industrial Disputes
This is, in my opinion, one of the reasons for any disunity which may exist among certain sections of the French-speaking people. I could discuss this question for perhaps a week if I examined into all the problems. I shall, however, deal only with contentious matters.
A few months ago the hosiery workers in Oshawa went out on strike in an effort to have redressed what I consider were legitimate complaints. The wage rates ran from sixteen to thirty-seven cents an hour. These people did not understand the working of the conciliation machinery-one must have some legal understanding in order to interpret these orders in council-and for that reason they perhaps got away on the wrong foot. They went out on strike, and the minister instructed them as to the necessary road to travel. The result was that they returned to work and applied for a conciliation board in the ordinary way. Since the board was set up, something else has been done to antagonize them. A commissioner was appointed to examine into why the trouble developed. He is investigating the officials who are making an attempt to present the facts in a reasonable way to the board. This only leads to confusion.
This is why strikes occur. As I said before, 75 per cent of these disputes are in the unorganized sections of industry. In the final analysis, what is a strike? It is simply the result of the accumulation of grievances over a period of years. Restrictive legislation and other matters place the employees in a position where they cannot exercise their rights as citizens and express their opinions. I have never found a member of a labour union who was not ready to recognize a problem that really existed. These grievances pile up, and finally someone comes along and gives the needed leadership. I do not think any of these people want to break the law; it merely happens that someone comes along who is prepared to take responsibility and a strike develops.
We have a situation like this at the present time in Toronto. Only this morning the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) asked the minister about a strike in the General Electric plant at Toronto. These people have not union recognition, and they do not know the rules. Many of us who have made a study of these matters are not as clear on them as we should be. As a result, confusion now exists at that plant. I believe the minister stated that a delegation was in Ottawa at the present time to see him in connection with this problem. Some people are going to get into trouble because they accepted leadership in order to bring their grievance to the attention of those in authority. There are perhaps
three or four hundred who have grievances which they want to discuss. In my opinion the way to handle this whole situation is not by 'bringing in a bill like this which merely restricts the right of the working people to have proper representation upon these boards.
The Department of Labour is one of the most important war departments because it has jurisdiction over the hundreds of thousands of workers in this country who are turning out the raw materials necessary for the proper prosecution of the war, and what the Minister of Labour has to do, as an hon. member said this morning, is to accept responsibility for the administration of his department, stand on his own feet, and keep as closely in touch as possible with those who represent organized labour in Canada to-day. I know that they are reasonable and want to travel the right road. Take, for instance, the Congress Journal or the Canadian Unionist, the two official organs of the two major unions in Canada, and you will find that they have mapped out a constructive programme of advice to those who are attempting to handle the affairs of labour through the department. If the road mapped out by them were put in order of council form or in a bill, and brought before this house and the Minister of Labour were given complete jurisdiction over his department and told to go ahead and cooperate with the workers in order to get the best effort possible at this time, this would go a long way towards clearing up our present difficulties.
As I view the situation, however, there are things holding back the Minister of Labour. There are advising him people who have the wrong viewpoint, and a lack of knowledge of the particular problems which the minister must have if he is to find a solution which will put the relations of labour and industry on a sound basis in Canada as they are in England. I think Ernest Bevin in England is the most important man in the British government because he has the confidence of the organized union movement 100 per cent, and the workers in England are prepared to relinquish many of the rights which they have fought over a long period of years to gain, and to place them in the hands of Mr. Bevin on the assurance that, after the war, a new England, and perhaps a new Canada, will be -built and that what they relinquish will then be handed back to them. They are relinquishing those rights because they have confidence in him.
We should do that with the Minister of Labour at Ottawa, but the way to do it is not to tie him up with restrictive legislation such as we have here. I could cite case after
Industrial Disputes

case, and I bring these matters to the minister's attention only in order that we *may get down to basic principles and endeavour to set up an organization through which the working people will be given an opportunity to express themselves. I believe that 90 per cent of the trouble in all our industries across Canada to-day is on account of the fact that the working people are denied the right of sitting in with the management. I know from my own experience of thirty years in unions that the employees will always be reasonable if the case of the employer is properly understood. The Dominion Iron and Steel Company in the Sydney Mines section

 and if the hon. member for the district were here he would corroborate what I say-when it went into liquidation in 1932 called in the union membership and said: "You have to take a 25 per cent reduction in wages if this industry is to continue".


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the hon. member in mind that a great number of plants have shop committees of the employees, and is it not a fact that the companies receive advice from these shop committees and consult with them, as I think they should?


Clarence Gillis: I am speaking, not about company unions but about legitimate union movements.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am speaking about workers' associations in the shops.


Clarence Gillis: That is right. As I was proceeding to point out to the minister, when lit was shown that a section of that industry was insolvent, the workers took a 25 per cent -reduction in their wages. I think they were more reasonable than they should have been because the bondholders' holdings were made good, and the workers worked at reduced wages for two years, to put the industry back on its feet, and are still slowly climbing back to the wages they received in 1932.
The same thing was true in Pictou county, where the workers had $125,000 taken directly out of their pay envelopes -to put -that industry back on its feet. That could never have occurred were it not for the fact that there was a recognized union whose representatives could sit round the conference table with the employer and take back a message to the employees.
What is happening in the General Electric company's plant at Toronto to-day? The workers have nowhere to go, no organization through which to present their oase, and as a result they are out on the street trying to find a solution. Their wages and working conditions are not what they should be, but they have no way of bringing the matter to the attention of those in authority.
[Mr. Gillis.J
In the final analysis, those in industry are largely responsible on account of the antiunion attitude they take. They fail to recognize the fact that the very democracy which they exercise so freely themselves they deny to their employees. The mining industry of Ontario is solidly organized and represented by a general mining association. Dominion Iron, Steel and Coal is organized for the three maritime provinces one hundred per cent through their associations. The general merchant is represented through merchants' associations. The boards of trade represent commercial enterprises. There is a bankers' association. Every phase of our economic life is organized with the exception of the industrial and agricultural workers, and every stop-block that can be put in the way to deprive them of that right is used.
I should like to warn the operator. While he may be afraid that if the workers are organized and start to bargain collectively, they may cut into his profits 5 or 10 per cent, yet if the operators continue to travel the road they are travelling at the present time and to terminate democracy, then before this war is over they may lose much more than they would lose by recognizing the rights of the organized workers. That is something which they must face at the present time, and my advice to the minister, if he wants to do something, is very simple.
First, I think the conciliation machinery should be speeded up. A board is applied for, and months go by before it makes its report. That makes the workers a prey for any subversive elements that wish to exploit their unrest. I have no hesitation in saying that 90 per cent of the workers who go on strike do not do so because they want to strike and be idle. They have many troubles; when they do go out on strike, the subversive elements are apt to play on the men and exploit their unrest and the next thing one finds is that a bad situation has arisen. All that could be cured by setting up legitimate unions. Therefore I say that, first of all, the conciliation machinery must be speeded up. There is no reason why a board should take months to get down to the facts of the case and make its report.
Second, there is order in council P.C. 2685. Those regulations have been passed, and it is simply a matter of putting teeth into them. The Minister of Labour would be one of the biggest men in Canada if he rose in his place, accepted responsibility one hundred per cent and, in cooperation with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), said that that order in council is going to have legal status from now on, and a proclamation was issued that industiy shall recognize the right of the

Industrial Disputes
workers to organize and from this date on accept committees of its employees through their legitimate representatives.
I think order in council P.C. 7440 must be clarified. It should really be repealed, but, if not repealed, it should at least be amended and a new start be made. It has many drawbacks.
I should like in closing to leave this thought with the minister and to make this plea. All our outstanding disputes could easily be cleared up. The situation at the Peck Rolling mills could be cured very easily. The workers in Quebec should be assured that their right to the same wage levels as prevail throughout the rest of Canada is recognized. Stop the situation in Toronto at the General Electric plant before it spreads to many other industries in wat city where the workers, are endeavouring to do the same thing. In the Chrysler plant at Windsor many men lost their jobs, and some of them have not yet been reinstated. These little odds and ends should be cleared up and a new start made. I know that the workers will go down the line with any man who they think is honestly interested in their welfare. The workers axe reasonable, and they, will assist the Minister of Labour in doing what should be done, provided he accepts responsibility.
I regret having to take up the time of the house; but in view of the fact that I am closely associated with the unions, know their point of view, and understand what they want, I wished to make a general statement in order to sum up the situation so that the Minister of Labour or any members of the government who might be labouring under the delusion that certain palliatives of the kind proposed in the bill will remedy matters might have their minds disabused of that idea. Every time you patch the thing you make it worse. A new start must be made on the basis I have indicated. We must do a good job once for all, so that we shall forget all the sectional difficulties and quarrels that beset us and put our minds to the main issue of producing machines and placing them in the field in order that we may defeat those whose intention it is to regiment us and deprive us of those rights that we have now, including the right of every one of us to rise in his place in this house and discuss matters with the rest of the members.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have giyen some study to this matter, and I should be glad if the hon. member would elaborate a little. What is the clarification which he thinks desirable and necessary in connection with order in council P.C. 7440? He ought
to be specific about that, because it has troubled me a good deal to know what the point at issue is. I know the trouble in the rolling mill case. The minimum wage is too low.


Clarence Gillis: Order in council P.C. 7440 fixed the wage rates' at the 1926-29 level, and every conciliation board that has sat so far has applied that literally. The order in council states that in areas where wages were depressed at that time, the rates could be levelled up, but there never has been any levelling up. A rate of 30-7 cents an hour in the steel industry is a depressed wage, and a strike has been in progress now for a month, an endeavour being made to iron out that situation. In my opinion the board should be instructed definitely that the wages prevailing in the steel industry, in Dominion Iron and Steel, should apply in every province. That would be a clarification. Moreover, the basis for the awards of the board in fixing rates is the cost of living as set out in government statistics. But the order in council also states that any sections which may be exceptional should be taken into consideration and that increases in the cost of living might be applied.
There is unrest at the present time in Nova Scotia, and I have particular reference to the eastern end of the province. The reason I know; and a conciliation board has been sitting there. They took as a basis in fixing the wage rate the fact that the cost of living had risen 7-2 per cent since the outbreak of the war. I know that the union in cooperation with the merchants' association made a cost of living examination embracing practically the whole island of Cape Breton, particularly the area in which about 7,000 organized workers are centred, and in that examination they proved to their own satisfaction that there had been an increase of 26-1 per cent in the cost of living in that district. That figure was not their own, because the merchants' association participated in that examination.
If you expect to compensate these people for the increased cost of living by giving them thirty cents a week as a war bonus to offset an increase of 26 per cent in the cost of living, you are bound to have antagonism, and there will be a tendency to fight back. In addition to that, there is the national defence tax, and there are all the other ingredients that go to produce unrest, turmoil and misunderstanding. When a board sits, if the increase in the cost of living is to be made the basis of settlement, that board should make an examination and adjust wages to the increased cost of living. That would be a clarification.
Industrial Disputes

The boards proceed on the assumption that if you were paid twenty cents an hour in 1926-29, that is the prevailing rate in that section, and they go no further. If an understanding were arrived at on these matters, it would in some degree help order in council PC. 7440.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was the case in connection with the Peck Rolling mills.


Clarence Gillis: That is pretty general
throughout.


Norman Alexander McLarty: So far as I know, no board is prohibited from going into local cost of living conditions if it so desires. That is a matter which is in the discretion of the board.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; but that has not been done. It will be observed that on the board held in Halifax, one of the first things that the representatives of the men were told, when they sat in, was that order in council P.C. 7440 fixed wages on the cost of living basis of 7-2 per cent, and the board took that for granted. No sectional examination has ever been made.
Again, there is the question of the right of workers to organize. I did think that order in council P.C. 7440 had some merit in those sections where the workers were not organized, in that it instructed conciliation boards to recommend union recognition. I think they gave some legal status to the order in council. That has never been done. There is no recognition in the Peck Rolling mills; the operator is not dealing with them. In the Hamilton situation, where the head of the Hamilton steel company was displaced, there was turmoil. There is no union recognition. The controller placed there by the government still refuses to do business with the union. The government is managing that plant through a controller, but who is controlling the controller? He still refuses to carry out the provisions of the order in council P.C. 7440. There is room for clarification there. Someone must accept the responsibility of coming to an understanding of what these things mean, and so declare.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There is nothing in order in council P.C. 7440 or P.C. 2685 compelling recognition of the right of collective bargaining. It is purefy a matter of giving freedom, as they have done in England.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a
recommendation.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes; it is a recommendation, and, in the opinion of the government,

if that is done, labour relations will be improved. I believe they will.


Angus MacInnis: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: Yes. But note the implication of that, the clear implication is that it is sabotage now, because the situation has not been clearly put and clearly analysed. I say again that that is a libel on labour leadership in this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If that is what it means, certainly it is.


Angus MacInnis: That-definitely-is what it means. It cannot mean anything else. I am coming to the basis for the amendment with which we are now dealing. The minister used this afternoon the word "technique". It occurred to me that I had seen that word somewhere before, quite recently. In his speech Mr. Justice McTague said:
You often hear of what is commonly called a technique. You all know what I mean. In the last few weeks I think I have been able to detect a new technique in labour conciliation machinery. A certain union applies to the Minister of Labour for a board of conciliation. It represents that it is the accredited bargaining agency for the employees in a certain plant. The fact may be that it does not represent the majority at all.
This is the beginning of the technique. The next step-


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Speaker, might I interrupt? I did not use the word "technique" in relation to that at all. My reference was to technique in the matter of members of boards, and in the sense that I used it, it had nothing to do with the application for a board.


Angus MacInnis: Just wait a minute. We shall reach, in due time, the matter of the technique with regard to the board. I was dealing only with the first step.
The next step is that the parties appear before the conciliation board and then the question arises as to whether the union represents the men or not.
Industrial Disputes

The union would not raise that question. That question will always be raised by the employer. But here it says that it is the union that raises it.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Would that not be a fair question to raise before the conciliation board by either of the parties concerned?


Angus MacInnis: But why accuse union leaders of using this as a part of their technique?
The union executive then suggests that a vote be taken.
Note this.
The conciliator appointed by the union mildly and subtly suggests that the only fair way to ascertain the disputed fact is for the conciliation board to order a vote.
And then we have this gem:
The chairman and the other conciliator who usually have not the necessary experience to recognize the technique agree and a vote is authorized and held at the expense of the Department of Labour.
Here we get the full basis for the amendment to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act which we have now before us. The other poor representatives-a judge of a superior court and a well-paid, highly-trained corporation lawyer-these poor innocents do not know what to do when this union conciliator subtly and mildly suggests what should be done; and lo, the vote is taken, and the result is, although the judge does not say so, the employees agree that they want to be represented by the union.
I did1 not wish to bring this out, but there is the reason for the amendment which is now before us.
Then he has something to say about order in council 7440:
To-day government policy as to labour is illustrated by order in council 7440. As a part of the national economy against rising inflationary costs of living, wages are stabilized at the 1926-1929 level or higher thereafter to the date of the order in council. Labour is to be entitled to a flat bonus against rising costs of living- again consistent with the ability of the industry to pay.
I do not think that is in order in council 7440.
In principle, there can be nothing unfair about that in time of war provided the levels in any particular industry were not unfair-and that can be only the rare case. Yet, sometimes, one gets the impression from their conduct that leaders of certain unions are encouraging a deliberate attack on the order in council.
The other day I got a return from the Department of Labour, in which there was a letter written by Mr. Justice McTague to the Minister of Labour. I wish to read that letter. I do not know that the material

tabled is all the information I asked for, but undoubtedly it is all the information the minister could give me. The letter is as follows:
Toronto, April 7, 1941. My dear Mr. Minister:
Dr. Stewart has forwarded to me various documents in connection with the Peck Bolling Mills dispute in Montreal for my formal opinion to you.
The report of the majority of the board is, I think, sufficiently within the terms of P.C. 7440 as now framed that it should not be referred back.
Then there is this paragraph:
However the report confirms me in a view which I have held for some time that it might be advisable to amend the order in council so as to bring it better in line with what I conceive to be general departmental policy.
The last few sentences of the letter are:
As this is a subject having to do with policy I feel that I should do no more than write you personally and confidentially as to the views which I have. Accordingly I am writing you a personal letter on the subject.
Therefore I imagine, there is another letter,
personal and confidential. This one is not so marked; if it were, the minister would be within his right in refusing to table it.
It is regrettable that such things should happen in our country to-day. At the conclusion of his speech Mr. Justice McTague said:
Presently a lot of people are treading dangerous ground. They should be leading in the direction of preparing the way for the aftermath, not sabotaging the present. Canadian labour leaders must handle the situation so that they can look a Bevin or a Morrison or a Greenwood or a Citrine in.the face, and Canadian labour must behave so that it can meet khaki, navy blue or air force blue without the blush of shame. Techniques must be abolished and honest and constructive estimation of facts must take their place.
When I was a young fellow there was a saying that distant fields looked green. I iwould point out that even to-day there are in Great Britain people who are suspicious of Bevin, Morrison, Citrine, Attlee and Greenwood, and who really fear what may happen if Bevin, Morrison, Citrine, Attlee and Greenwood come to power. They fear that more than if Hitler crosses the channel. I wish to say to this house that there are people in this country who are of the same opinion. There are some who are so afraid of social change that they are willing to take a. chance with nazism. They must take their choice, but they cannot avoid 'both.
Having mentioned Mr. Bevin's name, I should like to quote something he said quite recently:
You can easily recreate wealth. You can't recreate liberty once it is gone, nor can you

Industrial Disputes
recreate confidence, the spirit of cooperation and contentment in the heart of the worker after class-hatred once is implanted.
I should like to assist the minister and the government in dealing with the labour questions confronting us to-day, because I believe I know as well as any man in Canada the forces working to subvert labour.
On March 10, I discussed in the house the Hamilton Steel Car situation. I drew attention to the fact that an application for a board had been made on February 3. That situation has not yet been settled. What a field for those who wish to carry on subversive activities! How well is the field prepared for implanting doubt as to the sincerity of the intentions of the government, and the people in industry! Yet, we must deal with those things adequately and quickly, or we shall have more trouble.
There was on'e other difficulty in connection with the Hamilton Steel Car affair. The board took a vote of all employees in the plant with the consent of the company; yet the company refuses to allow the board to deal with any matters except in those particular departments in which the conciliation board was applied for. But there is a conciliation board sitting in connection with a strike at Kitchener. I have in my hand a copy of a letter from the Minister of Labour to the chairman of that board. It is dated at Ottawa, May 29, 1941, and states:
Dear Judge McGibbon:
Re Kitchener strikes
During the course of the day I have been interviewed by several of the Kitchener manufacturers in regard to the labour conditions existing in Kitchener and I am addressing my remarks to you as chairman of the board of conciliation and investigation.
As Minister of Labour I would like to know the reasons behind the trouble in Kitchener and I hereby authorize you to widen the scope of your board into one of investigation and a fact-finding board, so that myself and my department will be fully informed as to the reasons for the existing situation in Kitchener.
I would be glad, therefore, if you would extend the scope of your board to one of a board of inquiry or fact-finding, and report to me the reasons of all the strikes in this industrial centre.
In my opinion, that is a misuse of a board of conciliation. I have no doubt in the world that a fact-finding board in that area, and all over Canada, is needed at the present time. But I doubt very much if Judge McGibbon is the man to undertake it. It should not be undertaken without consultation with labour and employers. Such a commission would be along the lines of the one known as the Mathers commission, which w'ent across Canada in 1919.
The point which I wish to draw to the attention of the house in reading this letter, is that in one plant in Hamilton, where the government has appointed a controller, the employees have asked that the conciliation board investigate the whole of the plant. That request was refused. On the other hand, we. have the request of a few manufacturers from Kitchener, and a conciliation board is set up-
Mr.	McLARTY:	That	request was not
refused.


Angus MacInnis: -giving a wide field to
find out the cause of the strike.
Mr.	McLARTY:	The	hon. member is
incorrect in his statement. It has not been refused.
Mr.	MacINNIS:	But	it has not been
granted; is that not correct?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The last application has
not been granted.
Mr.	MacINNIS:	"The	last application."
Then I take it that the first application, or the previous applications were refused?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No; there has been no
refusal. But the fact is that the application has not yet been dealt with, because the present chairman of the board, Judge Dowler, has been in communication with my department for some time in connection with the matter.


Angus MacInnis: Whether the last application has been accepted or not, the fact remains that when the workers asked for something, it was not done; but when a few employers asked for something much wider in scope, their request was granted, right on the spot. I say that is not the way to obtain the confidence and cooperation of labour.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think I must correct
what the hon. member has said. What was done was done on the recommendation of the chairman of the board, Judge McGibbon.


Angus MacInnis: I have just read the
letter-


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: -in which the minister authorizes and instructs the chairman of the board to do certain things that the chairman would not take it upon himself to do.


Norman Alexander McLarty: He recommended it.


Angus MacInnis: I do not wish to say anything more in this connection. I am sorry that, after all the objections raised to-day, the minister has not seen fit to defer the third reading of the bill until the beginning of
Industrial Disputes

next week, thereby affording himself an opportunity of thinking it over during the week-end. Here are problems which are going to require the best thought all of us can give. Leaving su6h a matter over for one or two days, or until such time as he might be able to judge the reactions from various parts of Canada, would not jeopardize the effectiveness of the measure.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Speaker, I was going to make a brief answer to certain points which have been raised. If it is desired, I could do so when my estimates are before the committee of supply.


Thomas Miller Bell: It would be better to have the reply in this discussion on the bill.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Then, Mr. Speaker, if there is no objection I shall make my remarks now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The debate has covered a wide range of matters, and I do not think I should attempt to deal with each individual case which has been investigated by an industrial disputes investigation board. There are quite a number of them, and possibly I could take up one or two now and leave the rest until we are considering the estimates of the department.
I consider that the decision in the Peck Rolling mills case was an unfortunate one, it being based more upon the company's capacity to pay than upon any other basis. The result was that we amended the minimum wage section and raised the rates of pay for those employed in war work throughout Canada. I would point out that the matter of minimum wages is primarily and essentially a provincial one. In other words, the province is responsible for wages.
Reference was made to Kitchener. I may say that the chairman of the board came to see me, and I discussed the matter with him. He told me that he thought the reference was a little limited. He was not referring to it on behalf of industry or on behalf of labour; it was simply as chairman of the board. He asked me if I could widen the scope of the investigation. It so happened that I saw the manufacturers that day, but no suggestion came from them. I deemed it a reasonable request that the board should be permitted to go into not only the petty issue, but any other issues which might be cause for trouble.
The suggestion has been made that the government should make the provisions of order in council P.C. 2865 coercive, that we should compel collective bargaining. The pro-
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
visions of that order in council are not mandatory; they are simply a recognition that in the opinion of the government this would be the best way to produce satisfactory labour relations in war time. If you enter into the field of compulsion on the one side, you have to enter it on the other, and then you stir up inevitable difficulty. One trouble leads to another. If you have compulsory recognition, then you must have compulsory arbitration, and I believe that the labour organizations of this country are not in favour of that.
There are a number of other matters. Reference was made to the address of Mr. Justice McTague, and I am sorry it was thought necessary to bring that up. Mr. Justice McTague enjoys a high reputation as a judge in the province of Ontario and I believe he has proven consistently that he is a friend of labour. I think the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) will agree with that. It is a little unfair to extract one sentence from his speech-


Angus MacInnis: Not one sentence, the whole speech.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The sentence to which the hon. member paid the most attention was a very brief one. I rather doubt that Mr. Justice McTague meant exactly what the words convey in connection with the lot of workers in Canada. The fact is that his actions do not correspond with those words. I do not believe there has been an occasion where Mr. Justice McTague has not secured the support of the workers in connection with the work of any conciliation board of which he has been a member, and he has been a member of quite a number. He has a wonderful record, and I think in fairness to him I should state definitely that some misconstruction has been placed upon the words he used, perhaps unintentionally. A number of labour leaders have come to me and have told me what a splendid chairman Mr. Justice McTague has made.
I think an almost unfair attempt is being made to give the impression that this bill is directed against labour. It is not. I can state quite frankly that one of the reasons which prompted its introduction was what happened in the Peck Rolling mills case. This bill is not directed against labour in any way, shape or form. The fees paid under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, while perhaps not large, have made it easy for labour to get representation upon these boards. They are not doing it merely for the sake of the money but in order to try to produce peace and harmony. The only purpose of the bill is to see if we cannot rehabilitate the impartiality of the boards and get unanimous

C.N.R.-Guarantee of Securities
reports. That is not militating against the interests of labour in any way, and it is not designed that it should.
There are a number of incidental matters which have been brought up, but I think it will be well to let them stand while we are on the third reading and take them up when the departmental estimates are under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 98, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National railways system during the calendar year 1941, to provide for the refunding of financial obligations and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Power to issue securities for refunding and capital expenditures.
Richard Burpee Hanson: So far as I can observe, this bill follows the resolution. Is it the bill usually presented on such occasions, or does it contain any new provisions?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is the usual bill except that there is a provision relating to pension funds.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Power to aid other companies. .
Angus MacInnis: I assume that this is
restricted to assisting other companies controlled by or a part of the Canadian National railway system?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is the same as the section in the act of last year. It is to enable -the Canadian National Railway company to assist companies in which it is interested, in which it owns all or part of the stock. I think the term "said companies" refers to the companies mentioned in section 3 of the bill. That is "any one or more of -the companies or railways comprised in the said national railway system." Section 6 uses the words "any other or others of the said
companies and railways." I think this refers to the companies or railways comprised in the said national railway system. Where the words are used in section 3, there is no doubt that that is the meaning of the reference.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think anybody could possibly give it any other interpretation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Guarantee.
Thomas Miller Bell: These clauses more or less deal with financing. Has the minister an3r idea as to the rate of interest to be paid on these securities? I suppose they are government guaranteed bonds and will be issued at practically the same rate of interest as government bonds.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot speak accurately
on that. The rates vary with the terms of the bonds. It would be the market rate. My recollection is that the return on government guaranteed securities is usually slightly greater than the return on government securities, but only slightly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
quite right.


Major James William Coldwell: What will be the terms of these bonds.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They will be issued from
time to time.


Major James William Coldwell: It is left to their discretion, and the term will govern to some extent the rate?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Proceeds paid to credit of Minister of Finance in trust.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What are the terms under which the proceeds are released? What evidence is supplied to the minister? I was familiar with it once; I do not know now. Is it just a resolution of the board of directors? While the minister is looking that up, may I call attention to the fact that subsection 1 provides that the proceeds of the sale of these securities are to be paid to the Minister of Finance in trust. Subsection 2 provides for the application for the release of any part of the proceeds. But on what evidence are the proceeds released? Is it the mere resolution of the board of directors?



C.N.R.-Guarantee of Securities


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not familiar with
exactly what is done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
what this section says, and I wondered whether a mere resolution was sufficient?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are safeguards. The board of directors would proceed by way of resolution to authorize a capital expenditure, and it is also authorized by the governor in council. The method of application is set out in subsection 2 of section 9.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That only means a resolution.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But that does not mean that they can move behind the back of the governor in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not suggesting that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They must comply with the law about their expenditures. This section merely relates to the method of getting release of the funds. The railway goes to the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Transport goes to the Minister of Finance, who releases the funds.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What I am suggesting is this, that a mere resolution of the board is all that is indicated in the section. My understanding of the position is that in the finance department there is an officer whose duties involve-I will not say the complete control-following these guaranteed operations very closely. He is the man who has to be satisfied before the minister authorizes the release of any of these moneys. Mr. Roberts used to have that position, I think, some years ago before he was transferred. I have no doubt as to the regularity of the proceedings. I do not think the railway will get any of this money unless it conforms with the intentions of parliament, but I was just wondering whether some other evidence more than a mere resolution of the board of directors should not be required. In the case of trust deeds, before you can get moneys of this kind released, you have to go a long way further than this. You have to acquire the new security upon which the bonds are to be issued. I quite agree that the government in railway financing would not need all that, but a mere resolution does not seem to be enough. There ought to be some evidence that would set out the whole position so that, if there was error, it could be checked, instead of leaving it all to just a resolution of the board of directors. These matters soon become routine unless you require more than that.
rMr. R. B. Hanson.]


James Lorimer Ilsley: The expenditures must be authorized.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
evidence of the expenditures is required other than the passing of a resolution? That is one of the-things about which I am thinking.


Mr. MULOCK:: It is in the discretion of the Minister of Transport, by lines 30 and 31 on page 3 of the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know, but that is just a matter of his approval. What evidence is supplied to him?


William Pate Mulock: The Minister of Transport may in his discretion approve.


Richard Burpee Hanson: His discretion does not mean anything. I do not wish to be abrupt, but I do not think the hon. member who has interrupted knows anything about the matter. I should be quite surprised if he did. What I am suggesting is that this money is paid out on the basis of a resolution of the board of directors and on that alone, and that would not be enough for other corporate financing. It may be enough for the government-owned railways.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I presume that the comptroller of the treasury has control of this, and the finance department would be careful that money did not go out that was not for an authorized expenditure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So long as it was within the terms of the statute.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Contribution to Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways employees' provident fund.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Just what is contemplated under this?


Major James William Coldwell: If we are going to have a discussion of this clause, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that it is six o'clock, although I would be quite willing to continue sitting for a few minutes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask one question now because I cannot be here at eight o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: That is all right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is contemplated to be paid into the provident fund this year? I recognize this fund as an old friend, and I have no doubt that these supplementary contributions are necessary. I am not opposing them because the fund is not adequate to take care of what is to be paid under it. Some of t'he older employees

Consolidated Fire Insurance
come under this fund, and they think they should be treated the same as the men they work alongside who come under the new fund. How much is intended to be paid into the fund this year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are two funds here. One is the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways employees' provident fund.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; that is the old one.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The other is the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada superannuation and provident fund. The amounts that have been paid by the railway into the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada superannuation and provident fund, in the years from 1936 to 1940 inclusive, have been $100,000 a year. I can give the reason why these payments had to be made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not asking that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The other fund is the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways emploj'ees provident fund. Regulation 4 provides that his majesty shall contribute annually to the fund out of gross earnings of the railway an amount at least equal to the total monthly contributions [DOT] by employees, but not exceeding in any one year $100,000, in such sum or sums as the governor in council from time to time determines to be necessary for the maintenance of the fund. In 1940 the railway paid, as a special contribution to offset the deficit in this fund, the sum of $1,443,511.


Angus MacInnis: How many employees are covered?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The number of contributors in 1940-41 was 7,972. The number in receipt of pension in 1940-41 was 2,044,


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
Section 1 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order. I submit that this process will not be legalized
unless whoever is leading the house moves that we suspend the resolution passed February 17. We can pass that by unanimous consent, otherwise this procedure is not in order.


William Pate Mulock: It was so stated last night, and I move to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The house in committee on Bill No. 62, respecting Consolidated Fire and Casualty Insurance Company-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 1-Classes of insurance authorized.
Mr. STIRLING:: Would the sponsor of the bill give a short statement explaining its purport?


Mr. McILRAITH:: This company was
incorporated in 1930 to carry on a general insurance business. It was authorized by section 6 of the act of incorporation to carry on several different classes of insurance, but the main business was fire insurance. Since that year, insurance practice has changed considerably, and it is now customary to include in a fire insurance policy classes of insurance that were not included at that time. In addition to that, this year the regulations defining the classes of insurance have been amended. These regulations may be found in the Canada Gazette, volume LXXIV, page 3072. The changes in the definition of the various classes of insurance have also made it necessary that the new classes be authorized. Therefore, while certain new classes of insurance appear to be authorized by section 1 of the bill, it is not quite fair to say that those classes are entirely new; part of them are merely covered by the change in definition and by the change in insurance practice. It is impossible to be precise about the extent to which the classes of insurance authorized by the amending section 1 are new.
Section 2 of the bill merely deals with the amount of capital required before the company may engage in any particular class of business. That is made necessary by reason of the changes in the previous section. There is no substantial change; it is a change in form rather than in substance, in order to bring the section dealing with authorized capital into line with the object section of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
3632	COMMONS
Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 63, to incorporate the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of James Bay-Mr. Mcllraith (for Mr. Chevrier)'-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Property of corporation.
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: How much land is covered by this diocese?
Mr. MoILRAITH: Possibly I might be able to give some information on that point. The sponsor of the bill is not in the chamber, and I happen to have some knowledge of it from memory and familiarity with the bill in the committee stage.
The area covered is very large, but the actual population in the area is very small. The population is, I understand, some 5,300 Indians, about 120 white people and a few Eskimo. I am sorry I cannot answer the hon. gentleman's question as to the exact area.


George Hugh Castleden: I think in committee they mentioned that there were something over 500 square miles of territory covered, and section 2 reads:
All lands, tenements, hereditaments and property, real and personal, now or hereafter belonging to and used, held, occupied and possessed or enjoyed by the said Right Reverend Henri Belleau or his church, in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, or by the corporation, and which are situate within the said vicariate apostolic of James Bay, are declared to be vested in the corporation.
This means that any property which may now or in future come into the possession of this reverend gentleman will also become the property of the corporation. Therefore I thought it would be well for the committee to know how much territory was covered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the diocese.


George Hugh Castleden: I wanted to know where the diocese was situated.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: It is the area surrounding James bay. It does not cover the whole territory, but it covers the property.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the bishop wishes he had less territory.


Ernest Lapointe: To be
owned by the reverend bishop, but instead of his owning it personally it will be a corporation.


George Hugh Castleden: Is there any limitation to the property owned?
[Mr. Mcllraitki..


Ernest Lapointe: No. Why should there be?


Thomas Miller Bell: It might be one church and one rectory.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I can throw
some light on that also. It is largely what they describe as mission territory, and the church property is now held by the Right Reverend Henri Belleau in his own name. It is intended that this property shall be put in the name of the corporation now being created by this bill. Practically all the property now held is in the name of the Right Reverend Henri Belleau, and very little of it is held otherwise.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 66, for the relief of Vivienne Rhodes Whitaker Storey-Mr. Emmerson-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Right to marry again.
Alan Webster Neill: I should like to ask if the
sponsor of the bill, or anyone else who knows, can explain to me the inconsistency between sections one and two, and which is found in all these divorce bills. The first section reads:
The said marriage between . . .
I will not give the names; there is no use in embalming the names of these unhappy people in Hansard. The said marriage between this woman and her husband-
... is hereby dissolved, and shall be henceforth null and void to all intents and purposes
whatsoever.
That seems final and definite. The second section reads:
The said . . .
Giving the lady's name.
. . . may at any time hereafter marry any man whom she might lawfully marry if the said marriage with the said (man) had not been solemnized.
Either that is unnecessary, or else it should have gone further and conferred the same right on the man. If section one is correct when it says that the marriage is null and void, there is nothing more to it; nothing more is needed; but if it is not enough, and it is necessary'' to confer the right of remarriage on the woman, the petitioner in this case, it is also necessary and advisable to confer it

Divorce Bills
on the other party. I would suggest that the form be changed. I do not wish to hold up the bill and have it stopped, but certainly there is an inconsistency.


Ernest Lapointe: Unfortunately the other party is able to marry again, too. I have already advocated that there should be a clause that the party against whom the divorce is granted should not be entitled to marry again, but it was not accepted by parliament. Both parties have the same freedom.


Alan Webster Neill: At any rate, the bill should
read one way or the other. Now, it seems to throw a doubt: it says that one party may remarry, but it does not say the other may.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The divorce law provides it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 89, an act for the relief of Ann Elsie Buckley-Mr. Bercovitch

Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Alan Webster Neill: I want 'to say a few words on this. I am using it only as an illustration to show what a burlesque this procedure is. I have no objection to this particular bill, and I shall not long detain the committee.
The other night the leader of the opposition-


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: I have to call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the present procedure is the procedure which must be followed in connection with the adoption of these bills. There is an inquiry into these bills in the senate, and they go before the private bills committee before they come here. I do not think the word "burlesque" should be applied.


Alan Webster Neill: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. I will withdraw the word "burlesque". If I can think of a suitable substitute, I shall supply it later on. For the time being we shall call it "the proceedings". I do not believe that the word "burlesque" would be any worse characterization than' this language:
The action of this house in respect of the measure was much more governed by reason and common sense than was the action of the other house.
That was an expression used in the senate about a bill we passed two or three days ago. However, we shall let that go.
The other day the leader of the opposition made the comment that it would be a good thing for the public life of Canada if we had an official equivalent to what is known in the old country as the king's proctor. To those who may not be familiar with that term, I would explain that he was an eminent lawyer appointed to keep a watchful eye on lawsuits, in the public interest, and if he saw a palpable miscarriage of justice he was supposed to intervene. Very often he did so in connection with divorce bills, where he had reason to suspect collusion.
Three things are required in connection with the passage of a divorce bill. These three things must be proved. The first is the matter of domicile. The second is the question of non-collusion between the parties. That is, it must not be a frame-up. The thirdi is that adultery has been committed. Whatever our feelings about divorce may be, that is the law. The law requires these things. It must be proved that there was no collusion. This is generally done by getting the petitioner to make an affidavit. In this particular case this is the affidavit, the statement made under oath:
Q. Is there any collusion between you and your husband with respect to this divorce?
A. No.
Q. Is there any connivance

connivance means consent or acquiescence-in respect of this divorce?
A. No.
That, of course, was made under oalth. Let us look at these facts. I shall recite them briefly, and if hon. members think there has not been collusion-well, then, of course, I am wrong. We find in the evidence that the lady visited her husband some weeks before these proceedings started, and slept in the same bedroom with him. Of course there was no suggestion of arranging a divorce, at all! However, they had a discussion, and she said she was not going to have anything more to do with him. Still, they were quite friendly, apparently-at any rate they slept in the same bedroom.
All this happened at Kingston. I have always understood that Kingston is a place where there are things like hotels, and where they have plenty of accommodation. It was not a case of going out into the bush, and having to occupy the- same place. At that time she was drawing an allowance from her [DOT]husband from the Department of National Defence, because of his being a soldier. She was still drawing it at the time of these proceedings.
The next thing to which I would call the attention of hon. members is the evidence of the detectives. They must have been rank
Divorce Bills

amateurs, from the way they went about their business. Perhaps it is because of my mean disposition that I come to this conclusion, but if there is not a thread of collusion running through this whole thing, then I am badly mistaken. The detectives, or the snoopers as they are sometimes called, consisted of a father and his son. They were of Jewish persuasion, and evidently did not believe in working on Saturday. It will be noted from the evidence that, curiously enough, these things always happened on Fridays. They spotted this man on August 9, again on August 16, again on August 23 and again on September 6-and again, curiously enough, it was always about the same time, namely, a little before six o'clock, or about that.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Just before sundown.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. In the other chamber
somebody has curiosity enough to ask the question as to where this man had been, owing to the fact of his being a soldier. The answer was that he was at Petawawa on the dates mentioned. It was said that he was not on leave on the days in question, with one exception, but that he might have got leave from his commanding officer after the day's work was done. Petawawa is 120 miles from here, and I should think he would have quite a job to get through his work, and get down to Hull, where these things are supposed to have happened-and always to be there around six o'clock. However, the two witnesses agreed that he was there.
When a man goes out to be unfaithful to his wife, he does not generally advertise it. He does not herald it from the housetops. He generally chooses secrecy. This gentleman on the other hand seemed to be almost ostentatious in his infidelity.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Bragging about it.


Alan Webster Neill: Finally, in the evidence which is really to the point-and again this is on Friday, the 6th, at 6 p.m.-the detective saw this man, as he put it, go into the hotel and sign the sheet. He does not say what kind of sheet it was. Then they watched. There was the usual performance-I might be reciting the facts of any one of fifty divorces; they all read the same. A man stands to the left of the man who signs the register, and then he is able a few weeks later to swear to it. It is almost phenomenal that they should be right beside the man who signs, and just at the right time-or the wrong time.
Well, at eleven o'clock these two gentlemen went to the door and knocked. I have read some of these divorce cases, and in most of them the gentleman concerned usually chose to be snappy, or had some objection.

Sometimes they even went so far as to tell the other person to get out, sometimes to mention where he could go to, or ask what he was doing there. But that was not the situation here, at all! What happened was this: He went there, and he was received almost with open arms. He knocked at the door and said, "What time are you going back to camp?" And then the evidence continues:
So before I had finished speaking the door was opened by-
Lieutenant So-and-so.
-and when he opened the door I told him I had been watching him on behalf of his wife's solicitor. He said, "What for?" I said, "Divorce proceedings." So we got talking. He said, "You are not going to the camp?" I said, "No." Meantime someone was coming along the corridor, so he opened the door wider and we went inside.
Just a nice, friendly get-together meeting!


Ernest Lapointe: A party.


Alan Webster Neill: There was no objection, at all. "Come inside", he said, "there is somebody coming down the passageway." Then he was asked to tell the lady's name who was lying there. The answer was that she was Miss somebody-I will not drag her name into it, because I think she is the most respectable of the whole lot.
The proceedings more or less terminated at that point. Does all this not suggest collusion? Read the whole thing through. Apart from all that, I would call attention to the sloppy way-I believe the Chairman will permit me to use that word; we will call it "sloppy"-in which this evidence was collected.
Thus, when these snoopers were watching they saw' the corespondent and the respondent meet together, and "they both shook hands." What kind of lay-out would it have been if only one of them had shaken hands? But all this is solemnly recorded as part of the evidence, as to why this woman should get a divorce. The evidence states that:
.	.	. they both shook hands and went into
the dining room.
They stayed there no less than two hours. Then, we find this later on, regarding the lady, one of them having discovered her as follows-and I would not shock your feelings, even if the house were full of ladies, because she is described in this way:
Her face was bare, and her shoulders -were bare.
Well, you can go to the governor general's assembly in this building and find ladies much more bare than only their shoulders and faces. But, in this case, "Her face was bare"-

United Grain Growers
perish the thought! Yes, "Her face was bare" -what kind of stuff is that? Does that comply with reason and with common sense?
I do not suggest that we should reject this bill, because it was not properly established. We are following the usual sloppy, inefficient, unfair, non-legal way of doing it. But it does suggest a definite need either for a king's proctor or, still better, for amending the laws so that these cases will be tried before courts, where matters of this kind should be taken care of.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend would make a good king's proctor.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I do not wish to give the Minister of Justice an extra job, but I suggest that if he could find some way of taking out of these proceedings provision for the right to marry again, he would find there would not be so many seeking divorces. I know one case of a lady who had been married twice and who wanted a divorce in order to get married again. Such procedure does not make for the upbuilding of Christian homes inj the Dominion of Canada. I do not read through the evidence of these divorce bills, or very many of them; one is enough. We should throw out the whole procedure and bring in something more in keeping with the upbuilding of Christian homes in the Dominion of Canada, and then there would be fewer divorces.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with my hon. friend. If we were to eliminate the section giving the right to marry again, the number of divorces would be greatly decreased.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: A number of the provinces grant divorces in the courts, not to make it easier but to make it cheaper. I call the attention of members of the House of Commons to the fact that it costs about $50 a minute to have the house sit here. I think it is too much to ask us as members of the House of Commons to spend time in debating this question of divorce when we have nothing at all to do with the manner in which the bills are brought before us. I protest against the whole procedure.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 65, respecting United Grain Growers Limited- Mr. Thorson-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Characteristics of new shares.
Mr. PERLEY:: Might we have an explanation of this section from the sponsor of the bill?


Mr. THORSON:: This proposed division of the shares and the attaching of certain rights to the divided shares came before the annual meeting of the company in 1039, and the directors were authorized to work out an amendment and devise a plan. The proposed amendment came before a meeting of the delegates in November, 1940, and the request that parliament should be asked to sanction this division of the shares was approved unanimously by the delegates, 284 in number. Some of the details of the plan were objected to by two delegates, but otherwise the approval was unanimous. This division of the shares and the attaching of certain rights to the shares are made desirable on account of certain limitations imposed upon the shares at the present time. Shares can be owned only by farmers or their wives, and this means that when an owner dies or ceases to be a farmer, his shares cannot be transferred to anyone who is not a farmer. The whole scheme has been thoroughly discussed by the shareholders.


George Hugh Castleden: I do not wish to oppose the wishes of the majority of the shareholders as expressed at the annual meeting, but there are some observations which I think should be made at this time. This bill destroys the very principle upon which this company was founded in 1911. At that time the farmers wanted to protest against the accumulation of profits of the grain exchange going into the hands of persons other than farmers, and this company was formed for the purpose of having the profits which arose out of the operations of the farmers accrue back to the grain growers themselves. It was originally provided that all shares should be held by farmers and so forth. I have a copy of the minutes of the annual meeting, and an outline is given of the plan of capital stock organization. This is:
For each share of capital stock (par value $25) there be issued one class "A" or investment share, par value $20, and one class "B" voting share, par value $5, subject to the following rights and limitations.
In carrying out the division not more than four class "B" or voting shares will be allotted to any one shareholder. To the extent his present holdings of shares will permit and subject to the consent of the directors, a shareholder may elect to receive "A" (investment) shares only.	.
These are the qualifications with respect to class "A" or investment shares:
Dividend-the right to a preferred dividend as earned (non-cumulative) of five per cent.
United Grain Growers

The bill does not contain that qualification; the rate of 5 per cent is not mentioned in the bill. There is no restriction on ownership, but the restriction on holdings is limited to 250 shares. They would have no voting rights and would be redeemable by purchase at market price, or, on call, at $24 a share. A preferred dividend of 5 per cent is paid upon the investment shares, apparently in lieu of their having the right to vote. Subsection 2 of section 2 is out of line with what the annual convention of last November demanded. I maintain that this bill does not express the wishes of these people. For the past week I have been trying to get in touch with some of the shareholders of United Grain Growers Limited, but, as was the situation with ten other companies to which I wrote, I could not get a list of the shareholders because they said it was not published. In view of the fact that this subsection is not in line with the resolution passed by the convention, I think we ought to postpone passing this bill until it has been completely ratified in its present form at an annual convention.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The essential character of the company is preserved in every respect. With regard to the other points raised by the hon. member for Yorkton; first, with regard to the preferred dividend, it is true that the rate of the dividend is not specifically included in the bill; but if the hon. member will look at section 1, subsection 2, he will see that the powers which are to be exercised as a result of the passing of this bill must be exercised:
... by the enactment by the directors of the company of a by-law in accordance with the terms _ of -a resolution approved by at least two-thirds of the delegates present .at a general or special meeting duly called for the purpose of considering such resolution and held either before or after the passing of this act.
That resolution was passed at the annual meeting in November, and therefore the resolution and the plan that was adopted at that annual meeting become the foundation for the whole bill. Therefore in that way the rate is fixed by implication.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Might I ask whether the resolution was passed by a vote of the delegates at the convention?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: We were informed in the private bills committee as to the number of delegates present. Perhaps it might assist this committee to know the number of delegates who were at that meeting and whether they were unanimously in support of the resolution.
[Mr. Castleden.l


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There were 284 delegates present at the annual meeting, and I think every local in the company, with the exception of three, was represented at the annual meeting.


George Hugh Castleden: By voting delegates?-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: By voting delegates. The resolution to divide the shares was passed unanimously without a dissenting voice. The resolution approving the plan was passed by all the delegates with only two dissenting votes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Shareholdings of delegates, etc.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: I think this bill should have been sent to the banking and commerce committee instead of to the private bills committee. I do not know why it was ever sent to the private bills committee.


Mr. HAZEN:: May I ask the sponsor if this bill will get over the difficulty that was faced on account of the fact that the shares are to be owned by farmers or lessees or farmers' wives or farm owners? Will the same difficulty not arise later on when some of the present owners of the shares die, or does the bill take care of that?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think the passing of this bill will bring the character of the company more in line with its essential purpose of being exclusively a farmer-owned company, because the shares to which voting rights are attached will be reduced in their value and can therefore be more easily sold to farmers than the present existing shares.


George Hugh Castleden: That is quite true, that the farmers are going to have control, but the majority of the profits accruing from the operations of the company will go into the hands of those who are going to hold the preference shares, and they do not need to be farmers. One preference share valued at $20 and one common share at $5 are to be substituted for each old share. The information given to the private bills committee was to the effect that almost half the original shares had passed into other hands through farmers dying or retiring or willing these shares to someone else, and that they were not now in the hands of actual farmers. Those who hold or can get control of these shares, which are probably worth nothing if t'he holders are not farmers, will immediately have shares in their hands to the value of perhaps $25 or $30, and the information given to us in the committee was that within the past two years some of these shares have sold for

United Grain Growers
as low as $6 and $6.50. The market for the shares of such a company is restricted to farmers, and the price of the shares is a reflection of what is happening to agriculture, in the west particularly. The farmers have no money to invest in anything. They are trying to keep alive. But if the shares do start paying dividends, say of $1.50 a share, there may be farmers who would be willing to pay $1.50 for them; and if the company is left as it is, the agricultural population will benefit from its operation as one of their own businesses. Is it not true that the largest share of the profits of the company will be in the form of preferred dividends to the people who own the preference or class A shares?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The hon. member forgets that all the holders of these shares will receive, in return for the shares they now hold, two shares, one of which will be the voting share, and the other the investment share.


George Hugh Castleden: I stated that.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: That should answer my hon. friend's question.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not quite follow the argument of the hon. member for Yorkton when he says that this is going to restrict the number of shares held by farmers. I am not a western farmer, but I have followed this bill carefully through the private bills committee, and as I see it, this bill is going to result in a much wider distribution of these $5 shares. Farmers are not precluded from investing in the dividend shares, the preference shares, if they wish to invest in them. I think the hon. member ought to think the matter over a little more carefully.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many shareholders are there at the present time, how many were there when the company was first incorporated, and what is the present value of the shares?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The number of shareholders as at August 1, 1940, was 26,850, and the book value of the shares was approximately $40.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the hon. membei tell us what dividends which have been paid in the last four or five years, going back, say. to 1936?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: With regard to the last four years, no dividends were paid in 1937, 1938 and 1939, but in 1940 five per cent was paid.


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. member said that the book value of the shares was $40. What is the market value?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The market value prior to 1929 ranged from $25 to $30, but since then the market value has gone to as low as $6.50 a share, and they are currently selling at around $9.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Has the sponsor of the bill any idea of what the value of these shares will be after this legislation is passed?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No one can foretell the future value of shares.


Mr. CRERAR:: I may be pardoned for intervening in the discussion since for twenty-two and a half years I was president and general manager of this company. The hon. member for Yorkton is, ,1 am afraid, not very well informed either upon the history of the company or upon the provisions of this measure.


George Hugh Castleden: I was merely trying to get some information.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The company was incorporated, not in 1911, but in 1906, by letters patent issued in the province of Manitoba. It then sought dominion incorporation by special act of parliament in 1911, and that act of parliament was, as I recall it, further amended in 1916.
This company started as a farmers' company. There were definite and strict limitations in the matter of qualifications for the holding of stock. Only farmers and farmers' wives were eligible to be shareholders, and the par value of the shares was $25. In the early years from 1907 to 1917 or 1918 the company secured by far the greater number of its shareholders. The hon. member for Selkirk has given the number at the present time. Consequently we had in the early years of the company thousands of shareholders scattered over the prairies, all farmers, since only farmers could qualify as shareholders. Many, however, did not remain farmers. Some left the farm and went into business, becoming merchants or implement dealers or preachers or school teachers or something else, and so passed from the rigid qualification of farmer into some other class.
As time went on, many of the shareholders died, and there arose the problem of the disposal of shares by their estates. That accounts for the remarkably low value which the shares reached a few years ago. On any reasonable valuation of the assets at the present time, the shares are worth from $35 to $40. Why then does the farmer who wants to sell his shares not receive that amount? He cannot on account of the limited market there is for them. It may be that the depressed conditions of agriculture
363S
United Grain Growers

have militated against the ability of executors of estates to find a market for the shares among those qualified to hold them.
It is that very condition which, this bill proposes to cure, as I understand it. At the same time, it retains the essential principle whereby the farmers continue to hold control of the management and direction of the company. Shares of a new class are created which may be held by merchant or preacher or anjmne else, but the return which they can get on those shares is limited to 5 per cent. That is not an unreasonable return to people who have invested their money, having supplied the capital that went into equipment, buildings and other necessities which the company required.
I may tell the hon. member for Yorkton, if he has studied the history and practice of the large cooperative organizations in Great Britain, where they have carried the cooperative idea to a greater extent than we have ini Canada, he will find that one of the essential provisions in their charter to do business is that the first charge on profits is a return on capital invested; and a few years ago, and I presume it is still the situation, this provided a return of 6 per cent. In this case the company proposes to give to those who supplied capital, under this new arrangement with regard to shares, a return of 5 per cent, and I do not think that can be regarded as unreasonable. Thus the limitation is 5 per cent return to those who may hold shares of the class described in the bill, and the essential principle is retained that the control and direction of the company remain in the hands of farmers and cannot be taken away from them.
The bill is a necessary measure to meet the changed conditions that have arisen through the change in the ownership of the stock and the movement away from the essential provisions in the charter of incorporation. that only farmers should hold stock. It simply provides a means of rearranging that, retaining the vital principle of control.


George Hugh Castleden: I thank the minister for his explanation. I did use the word "organized", and I suppose I should have said "constituted", in 1911. I believe the minister left out two other dates. There were amendments in 1915 and 1918.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: In 1917.


George Hugh Castleden: And in 1918 as well. The point is that the profits accruing out of the operation of United Grain Growers Limited, through this bill, can now go to persons who are not farmers. Like the minister, a good many farmers who were originally

in the business have gone into some other occupation, being no longer engaged in agriculture. I should like to have a statement of what percentage of the shares-are there not
26,000	shareholders?-are in the hands of farmers, and the number that are not.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not know that I can give the exact percentages, but the number of shares that are not in the hands of farmers is only a very small fraction of the total.


George Hugh Castleden: Approximately what?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not think I can give the figures. I believe there are only one or two thousand.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: That is, at
present?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: What will it be after the bill goes through?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The reason why these shares are not in the hands of farmers is that, in most instances, they belong to estates, and the beneficiaries of the deceased holder of the shares cannot be registered as shareholders because they are not farmers. I think I can safely say that the number of shares which are not held by farmers is very small. After this bill passes, for each share that now exists there will be two-one which will be the voting share, which cannot be held by anyone except a farmer, and the other which is the investment share and which may be disposed of. What will happen in the course of time with regard to that, no one can tell.


George Hugh Castleden: The hon. member says that a number of these shares are now in the hands of estates. What has happened to the dividends which were payable on those shares?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Any dividends applicable to those shares cannot be paid to anyone, because in respect of those shares where the owners are not farmers they cannot be registered as transferees.


George Hugh Castleden: Then I take it that
the profits which have accrued for the past few years have been distributed among the shareholders who are real farmers?


Major James William Coldwell: Or are they in a trust
fund?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am not sure on that
point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If they
are not paid they would be held as unpaid dividends.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.

United Grain Growers
On section 7-Acquisition of shares.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I have read this bill with a good deal of care, and I understand there is real necessity for the passing of the bill. The only clause in it that I queried in my mind was this one. This, of course, is a real departure from the principle governing joint stock companies, because it provides that shares in the company "to the ownership of which there is attached the right to take part in the selection of delegates or the right to act as delegate shall not by devolution or otherwise become vested in persons disentitled to exercise the rights aforesaid". Then it goes on to provide that the company may purchase those shares under certain limitations. Provision is made for resale by the directors of any shares acquired under subsections 1 and 2. The fourth subsection provides for a limitation of purchases so that:
No shares shall be acquired under this section so as to increase the number of shares acquired and not resold hereunder beyond one-tenth of all the outstanding shares of the same class.
That, of course, is a distinct departure from the ordinary principle governing joint stock companies whereby a company cannot purchase its own shares.
I mentioned this to the counsel whom I queried about it, and he was very frank and told me that it was not absolutely essential to the immediate objective of the company, and that he was fully appreciative of the danger of the clause in ordinary joint stock company organization. But he pointed this out, and this is a consideration which I should like to pass on to the committee; that the fundamental conception of the company was that it should be controlled by farmers, with voting rights limited to one man one vote, regardless of the share holdings, with the distinct limitation on the number of voting shares which, one person might hold; and that this removed any temptation to manipulate the market either to secure control or for speculative purposes. Of course that is true; it would be an effective deterrent from attempting to get control or to manipulate. He further asserted to me that the company is cooperative in nature, organized to serve the western farmer, and it is a principle of legislation affecting cooperatives that they can cancel the membership of any member if he ceases to be one of that class. They are not, however, asking for any such power as that of cancellation. This is the method they have adopted, under advice of counsel I understand, whereby a market may be provided
for the shares of deceased persons which cannot be transferred to or registered1 in the name of other than a farmer.
The market for these shares must be more or less limited. Therefore they have asked for this right. I am informed that in the committee of the other house where this bill was examined with considerable care, perhaps a good deal more than we can give here in this committee, the suggestion was made that the company should have even wider powers than those provided by the bill, as a means of getting rid of members who are no longer active farmers, so that the company would be definitely owned and controlled by activ.e farmers.
I am not opposing the bill; from the explanation given me I think it is necessary; but I thought it right that the committee should understand just what the underlying principles of section 7 are. It is a very unusual power; I never saw it in a bill before; it is expressly prohibited by the Companies Act. With that explanation, however, I think it . might go through.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the sponsor of the
bill inform the committee as to the number of directors and who they are?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have not that information at the moment. I wonder whether that is relevant to this section. I shall be glad to obtain it for the hon. member.


Ernest Edward Perley: Do they draw a salary?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not know whether
they do as directors. The officers of the company do.


Ernest Edward Perley: What salary do they draw?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I do not know that I
can give that information either, but I shall obtain it for the hon. member.


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. member has not
very much information about the matter. Maybe he can inform the committee how many terminal elevators they operate; if they lease one in Vancouver from the dominion government, and if so, what the terms of the lease are.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I shall have to obtain
that information also. I shall be glad to do
so. But it does not really touch the section.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They have two terminal
elevators, one at Port Arthur and one at Vancouver.


Ernest Edward Perley: The one at Vancouver is,
I think, under lease.
Divorce Bills


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think the company
own it.


Ernest Edward Perley: We wish to know.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It may be under lease.


Ernest Edward Perley: We should like to have
the terms of the lease.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: What is the relevancy of these questions to the section under discussion, dealing with the acquisition of shares?


Ernest Edward Perley: It is relevant to every
section of the bill. If, however, no one knows, I do not wish to detain the committee. I think we can get the information.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. [DOT]
Section 8 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Dora Lemisch Boyer.

Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Muriel Mary Murphy Carvey.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Eileen Henrietta Seville Orchin.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Edythe Gertrude Dover Schawl.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Agnes Mary Johnson Messett.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Manson Wilton Roach.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Gertrud Kohn Storper.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Frederick William James Hobbs.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Elizabeth (Elspeth) Brown Rattray Selkirk Morphy.- Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Stanley Jackson.-Mr. Whitman.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Vera Black Slatkin.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Stella Cohen Baboushkin.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Kate Abrarno-vitch Reinblatt.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Dora Catherine Sullivan Evans.

Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Ilona Klein, otherwise known as Eleanor Klein.-Mr. Boucher.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Leonard Moore.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bercovitch.
On division.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Dorrien Edson Weaver.-Mr. Hill.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of David MacDonald.-Mr. Maclnnis.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
21/6. Audit of revenue, money order, postal note and savings bank business; issue of postage stamps and postal notes, including amounts required to pay allowances to office appliance operators grade 2, in accordance with regulations approved by order in council, $1,408,700.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister explain the increase?


William Pate Mulock: Yes. According to the estimates, an increase of $126,795 is shown in this item. Actually there were supplementary items last year; and when the supplementaries are added to the estimates of last year, the actual increase for this year is $87,195. The increases are these: First of all, the salary item, $16,230, which includes statutory increases amounting to $13,770; one additional clerk, grade 1, $720, and a postal clerk, $1,740. There are two positions dropped, so that this represents, in the total salary account, a net increase, on that item, of $13,195. The next one is printing and stationery, showing an increase in the estimates, but, if the supplementary estimates of last year are included, a decrease of $2,250. In equipment and maintenance there is an increase of $45,000. The particulars are available; would the leader of the opposition like to have them?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


William Pate Mulock: Other increases are: in
sundries, $850; in the manufacture of postage stamps, $23,400; in printing of postal notes, $7,000. In all these figures there is taken into consideration the fact that the supplementary estimates are added to the estimates-which really gives the true position so far as the increases are concerned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course the supplementary estimates show there was an increase last year. I understand that this item was kept open because somebody might wish to ask a question on some other item. The only question I desire to ask with respect to the post office is, how the country is going to determine whether the post office is a losing or a paying proposition, having regard to the large sum of money which is expended

Supply-Post Office
by business and others in the purchase of stamps for excise purposes. This, I know, is an old story and an old question, but we shall never know whether the post office is on a sound and proper basis until we can have some estimate, even though an approximation, of how much money in revenue the post office gets from the purchase of stamps which should go to the excise branch. Many people use postage stamps when properly they should use the excise stamps. Occasionally I do so myself, although in business we always try to purchase the special excise stamps. In my view, as this amount may be very large, there is no knowing how the post office is breaking. I think we should have some check on that, in order to know exactly what the position is.


William Pate Mulock: I know the leader of the opposition realizes the difficulty of obtaining
any accurate statement on that point.


Mr. HANSON (York-Bunbury):: Yes.


William Pate Mulock: If one tried to figure it out and keep track of each one of the transactions, the cost would be out of all reason. There is, however, some information available. First of all, 75 per cent of the business comes from city offices, and the banks and the merchants in general use excise stamps and not postage stamps in those centres.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think likely that is true.


William Pate Mulock: The remaining 25 per cent comes from offices of lesser revenue where excise stamps are not so much in use. The use of postage stamps is a great convenience to the public in the rural districts, but the number used for excise purposes is not very great.


Richard Burpee Hanson: "Not very great." Is that a statement of fact or an assumption?


William Pate Mulock: That is the opinion of the officials.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is an assumption.


William Pate Mulock: So far as they can find out from a careful check-up on the situation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think it is just an assumption.


William Pate Mulock: To get definite figures it
would be necessary to establish a fairly complicated accounting system, and, when one got through, it would not be of any advantage to the public from a financial point of view.
It would cost a good deal of money without bringing any additional revenue to the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Agreed.


William Pate Mulock: The use of postage stamps as affecting revenue is relatively very small, but it is a great service to the public in many places since it facilitates the transaction of business. I understand the desire of the leader of the opposition to obtain an idea of the approximate amount, but I believe he also realizes that the cost would be out of all proportion to the benefit to 'be derived.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree with that general statement; and of course, the statements made by the Postmaster General are also general. Is there any approximation of the amount? Would it run to a million a year? Have the officials made some check on the city offices?


William Pate Mulock: The officials say that they would not like to make any statement as to the actual amount. It might be possible for us to put on a check on the city offices, without too much expense-if we were to pick out different days on which to do it. But we could not do it over a period of time, because it would tie things up considerably.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We shall have to give it up.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I believe the minister is most anxious to expedite the delivery of mail, because the more quickly mail is carried, the more mail service will be used. I recently had occasion to go by train from Ottawa to Pembroke and return. In each case I travelled on a train which carried mail. From my experience that day I would say that the people of the Ottawa valley are most shockingly treated by the mail service-and of course that is not the responsibility of the Post Office Department. I refer to the mail service on the train. I am finding fault, not with the postal employees on the train, but rather with the train service itself.
The afternoon train leaves Pembroke at 1.45 p.m. and is supposed to leave Carleton Place at 4.15 p.m., having arrived there a half hour earlier. But for some time past, the train from Pembroke upon reaching Carleton Place must stand there waiting for the train to arrive from Toronto.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Three quarters of an hour.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That train is frequently late. Four coaches, including a mail coach, are taken from the Toronto train. That train left Carleton Place at 5.20 p.m., and, I

Supply-Post Office

suppose, arrived in Ottawa about 6.30 p.m. A wayfreight would carry mail more quickly than this mail train, so-called, carries it. In my judgment the postal authorities should take note of these facts, because I am told by many people that it is a regular occurrence. The department should see that the people of the Ottawa valley receive more expeditious mail service than is now accorded them.


William Pate Mulock: I believe the hon. member for Davenport will realize that this is really a transport matter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes; but the minister's department should make them speed up.


William Pate Mulock: We make representations from time to time to the board of transport commissioners, asking them to speed up service, in so far as our mails are concerned. I thank the hon. member for having brought this matter to our attention, and I can assure him we shall be glad to make further representations.


Thomas Miller Bell: I was about to ask about the post office savings bank. How many depositors have we, and what would the average deposit amount to? Let us have some idea of what our savings bank business amounts to. I ask the question because I hold the opinion that a great deal could be done, and particularly in the country districts, to encourage the post office savings bank. Many of our towns have no banking facilities whatever, and I should think we might be able to extend the post office savings bank business, and develop it into something which would give service to people in communities where there are no banks.


William Pate Mulock: The aggregate balance to the credit of depositors on March 31, 1941, was $22,176,632.54. The number of offices authorized to transact business was increased from 1,645 to 1,664.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What interest is paid?


Thomas Miller Bell: What are the qualifications necessary to conduct an office?


William Pate Mulock: If the hon. member wishes, I can place on record a short statement.
Mr.	COLD WELL:	That would be
satisfactory.


William Pate Mulock: The aggregate balance to the credit of depositors on March 31, 1941, was $22,176,632.54, a decrease, during the year, of $923,485.90. The average to the credit of each depositor was $225.96, compared with $246.90 on March 31, 1940.

New accounts opened during the year numbered 11,189, and 6,606 accounts were closed, leaving the number open at the close of the year, 98,144, or an increase of 4,583.
The deposits were 81,532 in number, for a total amount of $3,998,091.16. The average amount of each deposit was $49.04 compared with $53.21 for the previous year.
Repayments numbered 102,447 and amounted to $5,355,477.82, of which 92,669 for a total of $2,383,030.82 were made in cash, and 9,778 amounting to $2,972,447.00 were made by cheque. The average cash repayment was $25.72 compared with $25.64 the year before, and the average withdrawal by cheque was $303.99, compared with $313.40 in the preceding year.


Major James William Coldwell: What are the requirements by which a post office becomes a savings bank office?


William Pate Mulock: Generally, where there are no other banking facilities, when application is made it is granted, provided, first of all, that the official at the point in question is able to carry on a savings bank business and capable of performing the duties of looking after it. The second consideration is that satisfactory premises are available at the point indicated.


Major James William Coldwell: I was wondering where these funds are invested. Presumably they are invested with the government, or are retained in one of the government funds; is that correct?


William Pate Mulock: They are placed to the credit of the consolidated revenue fund.


Major James William Coldwell: Then they are accessible for use by the dominion?


William Pate Mulock: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: It seems to me that we have been looking round for ways of increasing our financial resources during war time; here is one way. When the Minister of Finance brought in his budget, and previously when we were discussing the unemployment insurance measure, one of the reasons given for the desirability of setting up that fund at this time was that it would enable the government to obtain more money during the war. Here we have a channel which, it seems to me, we are not using as we ought to be using it. The government of New Zealand -not the present Labour government, but the previous government-fostered the post office savings bank until it became an institution which was exceedingly worth while from the point of view of the government itself. I have often thought that here was a channel which might be used.

Supply-Post Office
In some cities, hundreds of school children and students are encouraged to open savings accounts in their own names. These accounts are usually handled by one of the chartered banks, and the result is that these children become acquainted with the bank, and many of them continue to do business for the rest of their lives with the same bank. One of the ways of building up the post office savings bank would be to encourage the children now using these penny-banks to put their money in the post office savings bank. Ten or twelve years ago we had a superintendent of schools in Regina, who happened to come from this city and who instituted* a penny-bank system. I do not know how much money they have in that bank at the present time, but when I left the teaching profession in 1034 there was some S50,000 in the savings accounts.
The teachers in these institutions are public servants who are performing a voluntary service, first, for the children and, second, for the private banking institutions. I have heard it stated on more than one occasion by the teachers that they would feel more enthusiastic if they were performing this service for the post office savings bank or some other public institution. I bring up this matter so that it may be considered by the department. We should encourage our children to open accounts in the post office savings bank in order that they may continue to be customers in future years.


William Pate Mulock: The hon. member will notice that there was a drop of approximately $1,000,000 in the savings accounts, but that is due chiefly to the fact that people were withdrawing money to buy war savings certificates, war savings stamps and things of that kind. The rate of interest paid is 2 per cent, and it might be interesting to note that last year the interest amounted to $433,900.76, of which only $11,586.05 was paid out, the balance of $422,314.71 being added to principal by the different depositors.


Major James William Coldwell: They were really saving the interest?


William Pate Mulock: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many postmasters were guillotined last year?


William Pate Mulock: There were none guillotined, but if the leader of the opposition wishes any particular information, I shall see if I can get it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not going to pursue that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Following up the question asked by the leader of the opposition, I should like to make a complaint on behalf of the returned soldiers in my constituency. I have received a number of complaints from these men that they have not received consideration when new appointments or changes were made. It is true that announcements go out to the provincial command in Regina; but in a constituency such as the one I represent, where we have poor mail service and poor communication, some of the legion secretaries may be living eight or ten miles from town; they do not receive their mail regularly, and many of them have no telephone connection with the other officers of the legion. Even if a secretary is advised that a change is about to be made in a post office in the district, possibly twenty-five or thirty miles away, it is not always possible for him to notify veterans living in the community that a change is about to be made. Would the minister take greater pains to see that returned soldiers are notified more directly.
Just a year ago I appealed to the veterans in connection with the national registration, and they responded in a remarkable manner. At the present time they are cooperating in connection with the war loan. On every count these returned veterans are coming across, but there is keen resentment when appointments are made without their being notified. I do not expect the Postmaster General to recommend the appointment of returned soldiers when they do not possess the necessary requirements, but in man}'' of these communities there are returned soldiers who have the necessary requirements and yet they do not seem to be given an opportunity of making an application until it is too late. A recent change has been proposed in one post office, and I am told that the suggested postmaster is not a returned soldier.


William Pate Mulock: I shall be glad to look into the hon. member's statement and would be pleased to have him give me particulars of those places in his constituency where there is poor mail service. I should like to have that investigated to see who is to blame. I am advised by my officials that in every case a notice is sent to the provincial command of the Canadian Legion in advance of any appointment being made. In connection with the case referred to by the hon. member, the file shows that no returned soldier applied for the position, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, no representations were made on behalf of any returned soldier.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not complaining about the poor mail service. In many parts
Supply-Post Office

of my constituency there is a mixed train only three times a week. As I pointed out, some of these people live eight to ten miles from town and possibly go in only once a week for mail. While I realize that notice would be sent to the provincial command in Regina, the fact is that it might be a month before this information would reach the secretary and then go from him to the returned soldier's in the community. In the particular case I complained about, I do not suggest that word did not go to Regina; all I say is that the returned soldiers in that community are complaining that they had no knowledge that a change was being made. Naturally they resent having an appointment made without being given an opportunity to submit an application.


Major James William Coldwell: I think every effort
should be made during war time to get away from this pernicious patronage system. It is galling to a man who is qualified to take charge of a post office to be told by some petty village politician that he will never get it because he did not vote right. I know of a number of cases like that. We are being asked all the time to get our people to assist in salvage campaigns, recruiting campaigns, the sale of war savings certificates and so forth, and yet these things happen. I have had men say to me, "You asked me a year ago to give my services or my house for registration purposes, and I did so, but I see now that in other fields, the census, for example, or when a post office comes up, the same old gang round here profess to have the political patronage." We should get away from that.
Having given the department something like a kick perhaps, may I say that I appreciate the action taken in one instance I know of in my own constituency when tremendous pressure was brought to bear on the minister and the officials of his department to appoint a man who was not qualified. I refer to the town of Biggar. But the minister and his officials did the right thing. They took the recommendation that was made on the qualifications of a returned soldier and appointed him to the position. Having made the other observation, I think it is only fair that I should compliment the minister upon having stood firmly against what I know was tremendous pressure brought to bear by several people in that locality.


Mr. TRIPP:: I hope the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar does not apply his implications to myself as probably he has done regarding every member on this side.


Major James William Coldwell: What is that?


Jesse Pickard Tripp: The implication of rottenness.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no. I was not dealing with members of the house at all. Of course, however, I cannot speak for the consciences of individual members.


William Pate Mulock: The leader of the opposition
asked about the number of dismissals. From July 9, 1940, to March 10, 1941, the total number dismissed was thirty-three, six for political partisanship and twenty-seven for other reasons.


Mr. McNIVEN:: Would the Postmaster General be good enough to give us the gross revenues of the ten largest centres? And would he state beforehand just what the gross revenues include?


William Pate Mulock: It includes postage on all mail matter, the sale of stamps, but not money orders. The revenue in 1939-40 at Calgary was $660,741; Edmonton, $673,242; Montreal, $5,212,180; Quebec, $806,198; Regina, $973,293; Saskatoon, $343,500; Toronto, $7,913,357; Winnipeg, $3,092,225.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Postmaster General will recall that last summer, along with his able deputy, he visited the city of Windsor and inaugurated an air mail service in that important city. There are now two services a day, one in the afternoon and one in the early evening. I know there are difficulties on account of the Chicago connections, but could not arrangements be made for a morning service, thereby providing added facilities for Windsor and all that area, and increasing the revenue of the department?


William Pate Mulock: Now that the hon. member has drawn the matter to my attention, I will give it consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Postmaster General undoubtedly has forgotten that I have drawn it to his attention on no fewer than six occasions since last fall. I might refresh his memory by informing him that he told me one of the difficulties was not with his department but with the ministry of transport. Possibly he has had an opportunity of discussing the matter further with the ministry of transport so as to' bring this necessary service to the important city of Windsor.


William Pate Mulock: I can assure the hon. member that I have not forgotten his representations, but all I can say is that I' will give the matter consideration. That is as far as I can go.


Mr. QUELCII:: Does the ruling still hold good that an applicant for the position of postmaster must have been a patron of that post office?

Supply-Trade-Canada Grain Act


William Pate Mulock: Generally speaking, yes. That is the general rule, but occasionally there have been exceptions.


Victor Quelch: Would a veteran living
outside the district be given a preference over a man within the district who was not a veteran?


William Pate Mulock: No. If there was no one
within the district who was capable of performing this sendee, we would have to consider applications from outside, but that is not usual. Offhand I do not know of any case where it was impossible to find someone within the district who was capable of performing the duties.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Is there any way of
knowing whether the postal note division operates at a profit or a loss?


William Pate Mulock: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
3J/9. Canada Grain Act -* administration, $104,648.50.
James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Chairman,
ordinarily in taking up my estimates I would have the first item on the list called and proceed in sequence, but to oblige members of the house and to fulfil an undertaking I gave earlier in the session, I am having this item called in order to give an opportunity to those who desire to speak on wheat and kindred subjects.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That subject has not been discussed at all this session, has it?


Ernest Edward Perley: As the minister has stated,
he agreed to allow a general discussion on this item, the Canada Grain Act. I discussed this with him on one or two occasions, and he graciously agreed to accord us this opportunity. On one or two occasions since this session opened I have endeavoured to obtain additional information beyond that supplied in answer to casual questions. This house has been in session continually since November 7, except for a short recess at Christmas We have had very little information with regard to the real operations of the wheat board and the grain situation generally. I have here a report dated January 11, 1941, in which there is given a partial record of the workings of the board to that date. Certain amendments to the wheat board act are set out and discussed, and we have had a number of orders in council, which are to all intents
and purposes amendments. But we have not had any amending act, and I object to this way of dealing with the board's operations.
On March 12 we had what might be called a double-barrelled announcement from the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and thereafter we had an order in council tabled by the minister on May 14, and another one recently on May 30 setting out certain regulations to show how the board proposed to operate during the coming crop season. Apart from that, we have had very little information. The report to which I have referred mentions certain amendments of 1939 in which the price was fixed at 70 cents, and it also refers to the amendments of 1940 again setting the price at 70 cents. It then gives a general review of the operations of the board. It is not widely distributed, however, and very few farmers of western Canada have seen it. But even if they have seen it, they cannot get a detailed account of the board's operations.
We have a balance sheet which shows that the 1938 crop was disposed of, and finally there was a loss of $61,000,000. It deals further with the rest of the 1939 crop, showing that there was on hand on July 31, 1940, 182,095,733 bushels of that crop. But there was a deficit up to that time, in the handling of t'he 1939 crop, of $6,000,000 odd. Certain exhibits are set out in the report-A, B and C. Exhibit A, which appears on page 28, sets out the liabilities to the bank, with interest, amounting to $68,825,078. There is a liability to agents of the board for wheat purchased from producers but not yet delivered to the board, the amount being $28,927,925. There is, I presume, interest on that amount. I think we should have some further information with regard to these liabilities, particularly that to the agents of the board.
On page 21 of the report we have a statement to the effect that there are certain liabilities to the agents. It is stated that when wheat is delivered by the producers to the country elevators of the companies who are acting as agents for the board, the companies pay the producers for the wheat on the basis of the board's initial price. The liability continues to be carried by the companies until such time as the wheat is unloaded in deliverable position. These liabilities represent approximately 42,000,000 bushels of wheat carried in country elevator^, in transit at the date of this balance sheet. I think we should have some particulars as to what the amount of this liability is.
This evening I am going to direct certain questions to the minister with a view to

Supply-Trade-Canada Grain Act
obtaining information. He has his two chief officials before him, and he can get the information. I do not intend to hurry. I should like his officers to take notes and give us the necessary information through the minister.
I will not take time to deal with the rest of the report. It is more or less confusing, however, to the ordinary individual. Coming back to some of the orders in council, and what I have called the doublebarrelled announcement of March 12, when the minister made a statement with regard to what might happen in connection with the 1941 crop, I would point out that on several occasions I have tried to get information from the minister, but without avail. He was always taking certain things into consideration, and so far this session he has not given us a proper detailed report indicating the present position of the board and of the entire situation. I might refer to certain representations made to the minister before the announcement of March 12. The federation of agriculture and other interests in the west stated their position when they demanded a better price than 70 cents. They asked what might be called a parity price. We were disappointed that no results ensued from those representations, but that is water under the bridge. In the budget statement, however, reference was made to the present situation, and it was pointed out that the board's present carrying of wheat showed that they would have at the end of the crop year some 570,000,000 bushels of a carry-over. The minister also said that there was $400,000,000 invested in the business and that it was costing the country about $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 a year to carry it.
The regulations which I have here provide for taking out of this year's crop a delivery of 230,000.000 bushels. The regulations are given with regard to deliveries and so forth, but I am not going to take time to-night to discuss them. The regulations have been distributed, and they are pretty well understood by those who will be delivering wheat-the producers-and those who will do the physical handling. Let me refer to the announcement made some time ago with regard to the sale of 120,000,000 bushels of futures to the United Kingdom. At that time it was stated that the sale was made considerably above the then market price, which would be 70 cents, but the minister did not say what the price was. I remember asking him if he would state the price, and he replied that for certain reasons he did not think it advisable nor did the British government wish to have the price announced.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think the hon. gentleman has made a mistake there, if he will allow me to interrupt. On this occasion, according to my recollection, I did not say anything regarding the amount paid for the grain or the price at which the sale was made. I did not refer to it as being considerably above the market price.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister did not give any information at all.


Ernest Edward Perley: He said it was over the market price. Then I asked the price, and the minister said that it was not in the public interest to announce it, that the British government did not want the price announced.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is correct.


Ernest Edward Perley: If it was 70 cents, it would not have been necessary for me to ask. The minister said that there was a request by the British authorities that the grain exchange remain open. I ask him to-night through his official to produce some evidence, real evidence, that that is the situation. I have here the monthly statement by his own department, dated May 23. On page 6 of this we find a statement or chart headed "Liverpool wheat offers", and it shows that for the month of May, the date his statement was made, the price they offered was 91 cents at the port of shipment. Therefore I cannot see why, if they were offering that price-and that is from a document put out by his department-we could not have the exact price. I do not suppose that if they were offering that, the wheat was sold at less.
I quote from a further statement, the weekly bulletin of his bureau, dated May 17:
The export of wheat in April amounted to 20,322,400 bushels at a value of $17,393,126 or an average of 85-6 cents per bushel. This compared with 93-8 cents in April, 1940.
Then during the four months ending April there was an export of 46,284,793 bushels of a value of $39,017,774, or 84*3 cents a bushel. So why not divulge the price?


James Angus MacKinnon: The hon. member is quoting seaboard prices there.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is correct, but we know what the freight from Fort William is, and it figures back to much more than 70 cents. It is rather a joke for the minister to say that they cannot divulge this price when Liverpool is advertising it, as is also his own department.
I wish now to refer briefly to another document. Some hon. members may recall that when the budget resolutions were going through and the last item was reached, I asked the Minister of Finance if he would

Supply-Trade-Canada Grain Act
permit me to refer to the appendix in the budget resolutions, and I was refused an opportunity of asking the question. I am now going to refer to that and ask a question. On page 2389 of the ways and means resolutions under the heading "indirect liabilities", paragraph 53 reads as follows:
Guaranteed bank advances to the Canadian wheat board outstanding on March 31, 1941, amounted to $101,052,679. This amount constituted the board's gross liability to the banks and mainly related to the purchase of the 1939 and 1940 wheat crop at the fixed price of 70 cents per bushel No. 1 northern, Fort William. The guarantee of the dominion to the Winnipeg Grain and Produce Clearing Association Limited, referred to in previous budgets, is still outstanding. No liability accrues from day to day in connection with this guarantee as margin deposits are made to the clearing association daily.
I ask the minister to tell us to-night what that guarantee to the Winnipeg Grain and Produce Clearing association is, why there is a guarantee, and if the government is guaranteeing the accounts of those brokers or grain firms that are operating for the board? Also we wish to know what margins the board has to put up in the clearing house. The $120,000,000 referred to a few minutes ago was futures, and we wish to know what margin the board has to put up daily, as referred to here. Also we wish to know what the margins in the clearing house are at the present time. Would it by any chance be that owing to the fact that the wheat board has a guaranteed liability in the Winnipeg clearing association, the government want the grain exchange to remain open? If their account were cleared up with the grain exchange or the clearing association, would they need the exchange to remain open? These are some of the things we desire to know. I wish to know the margins put up, and I think we should have some information with respect to how the board is now operating, whether the funds provided for the board are advances made by the finance department here. Does the board draw on the finance department here daily? I know how Mr. McFarland operated; I know the worry he caused that government on certain occasions. I think we should have the information as to how and why accounts are still outstanding, particularly whether these are guaranteed accounts of the brokers, the rate of interest paid to the grain companies on the grain for which they pay the producer, and also the interest paid to the brokers if they put up money on account of the board.
Coming to this question of closing the exchange, I have made some inquiry and
investigation recently, and I find that statements have been made-this is more or less in reply to the minister when he says that the British government does not want the grain exchange closed. I have here a statement by David Muir, Glasgow manager of the Scottish Cooperative Wholesale, in which he says that there would be no difficulty if the Winnipeg futures market were closed. Another statement is from Mr. A. C. Bracey, buyer for the English Cooperative Wholesale society, Liverpool, in which he says the advantage would be to the western producer if the Winnipeg grain exchange were closed. Another is from the Glasgow Corn association, that if the Winnipeg futures market were closed, there would be one less to watch. Another is from the British National Millers association that they never deal there at all. Yet we have the statement that the exchange is necessary.


Ralph Maybank: I believe the hon. gentleman is quoting letters. I ask that he table all the correspondence from which he is quoting.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am quoting from sworn evidence given before the royal grain inquiry commission.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That rule has no application; it is only a minister who has to do that.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am going to make certain references to the board's operations on the Winnipeg grain exchange, and I make this statement, that any institution which is so important in the national life of the Canadian wheat producer and the marketing of Canadian grain, which has been the subject of seventeen inquiries in about thirty years, which is carried on under certain rules and regulations, which is subject to control by no outside body and not even by the government, which does not know the volume of trading each day in it and whether there is speculation and does not know who operates on that exchange, whether operating for the Canadian wheat board or the British government or who, and will not give that information-such an institution of such a character should be closed and taken over by the government for at least the duration of the war.


Mr. GRAHAM:: May I ask the hon. member, simply for my own information, when was the evidence given to which he refers?


Ernest Edward Perley: It was given before the
Turgeon commission and tabled here in 1938.
I come to these orders in council. The one of May 14 gives directions with respect to the delivery of grain and the time for


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask my hon. friend if there is any charge of crooked work now- on behalf of the board?


Ernest Edward Perley: There are certain things
going on. I will read in a minute or two some of the-few-things that are going on, and you can judge.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The hon. member should not use that language.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I repeat that, that the hon. member should not use that language.


Ernest Edward Perley: I will say this. The board is playing into the hands of 'certain interests in Winnipeg. Maybe the company of which the hon. member was vice-chairman-or president and manager for twenty-two years -might be one of them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If the hon. member will
do me the courtesy of allowing me to make a remark, I should like to say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member that he has no right whatever to make an imputation of the character he did, that there is crooked work in the administration of the wheat board; and I would ask my hon. friend to withdraw it.


Ernest Edward Perley: I said that the whole thing
is a racket.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, no; you used the words that it was crooked work.


Ernest Edward Perley: I said that it would not bear the light of day, and that we wanted an investigation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; you used the words "crooked work".


Ernest Edward Perley: I said that it would not bear the light of day, and that there were certain things-and I say it again-going on in the Winnipeg grain exchange, with which the 'board has something to do, which will not stand investigation.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think the hon. member had better be specific.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, well, now, what he has said so far is all right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What lie has said so far is all wrong.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not all wrong.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has used the words "crooked work". He has either to make good that allegation, or withdraw it, with regard to any official working in the government service.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The hon. member made no reference to crookedness with regard to the present grain board. What the hon. member said, Mr. Chairman, was that the members of the Liberal party sitting on this side of the house in'1935 demanded that Mr. Bennett bring Mr. McFarland here, and there was no question of crookedness at all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, that was not it at all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member for
Waterloo South is certainly not helping the situation. He is not helping the hon. member for Qu'Appelle by the explanation he has just given. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle used the words "crooked work"-


Alphonse Fournier: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -and carried the imputation that it was being applied to the wheat board.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Definitely not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Attention was immediately called by the Minister of Mines and Resources to the expression used by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. That expression was immediately challenged, and the hon. member must withdraw it, or prove it before this committee.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What was the expression?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That the time had come when the crooked work of the officials of the wheat board should be exposed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; he did not say that at all.


Alphonse Fournier: I was listening very attentively to the hon. member. He said that in 1935 the opposition party had forced Mr. Bennett to bring Mr. J. I. McFarland before the committee, and that there was nothing crooked then. The word "crooked" is not parliamentary, and I suggest that it be withdrawn.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To say that there was no suggestion of crooked work then is not objectionable.


Ernest Edward Perley: I do not propose to have words put in my mouth. I said that Mr. McFarland was brought down here, but that there was no suggestion of crooked work. I

Supply-Trade-Canada Grain Act
said that the operations of the whole grain business was a racket, that it would not bear . investigation, and that we wanted a committee when we came back next fall-it is too late now, of course. We want that committee.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think it would be satisfactory if the hon. member would state that he made no suggestion of a charge of crookedness against-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He did not make any such suggestion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I request that the official Hansard be produced.


Ernest Edward Perley: To facilitate matters, and to get on, I made no suggestion of crooked work on the part of these officials. I said that the general grain business was a racket. We know the board has something to do with the operations; they cannot do otherwise. I said that they are dealing with it, and I said, further, that the whole thing would not bear the light of day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We shall see what the record says.


Ernest Edward Perley: We shall just let that go. If you will give us a committee-yes, give us a committee; if you will give us a committee and we can call certain witnesses here, we shall see, then. If the Minister of Mines and Resources will not, then just let the Minister of Trade and Commerce say he will give us a committee. Will you give us a committee?


James Angus MacKinnon: I see no objection whatever.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a promise.


James Angus MacKinnon: I say that I see no objection whatsoever; but I am not speaking for the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a promise.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have here a copy of a telegram. I have suggested on several occasions that, in the event of a war being in progress, the government should have taken things over last fall, and operated the grain trade for the duration of the war. I have a copy of a telegram directed to the chairman of the board, and signed by nine members of the grain exchange, namely, N. M. Paterson & Company Limited; McCabe Brothers Grain Company Limited; N. Bawlf Grain Company, Limited; Alberta Pacific Grain Company Limited; Canadian Consolidated Grain Company Limited; Pioneer Grain Company Limited; Western Grain Company Limited; 
Federal Grain Limited, and National Grain Company Limited. It is dated July 18, 1940. In the telegram they review the situation, stating that they know we are in a critical situation, that certain charges had been made in this house that there were exorbitant charges, or money being made unduly. These firms offered their services to the government to operate as agents of the board. They offered their whole systems for the duration of the war on the basis of a 6 per cent earning on capital invested. I have the reply before me of the chairman of the board; he may recall it. The question I wish to ask is: Why did the minister not accept that offer?
The chairman of the board replied:
, Answering telegram from your members as in the past terms of the handling contract for this coming season will be arrived after complete discussion between all companies and our board. Your proposal re operating as agents noted. This has been brought to the attention of the government.
I should like to know why this offer was not accepted? This is the chairman, one of the minister's advisers.
I am now going to review what the situation is at the present time on the grain exchange. If I am not right in what I say., then we shall hear from the minister. There are certain shippers, and grain interests and millers who cannot make delivery of their wheat that is stored in terminals or interior positions. Under their contracts they cannot make delivery, even if they so desired, because they are out of position. Then, there are futures contracts. A lot of it is held by the board, a great amount of it-at least a part of it, anyway, and cash wheat is the remainder. There is a limited capacity at Fort William. This wheat cannot be shipped there to make delivery on their contracts, because the wheat in Fort William is held as options.
Since the board owns most of this, in either options or cash wheat, they cannot take delivery. There is a situation arising there now where the options have to be changed from month to month, and I am informed- and if I am not correctly informed, we shall find out-that the grain firms are in the position similar to that in which they were in 1935, and that they are now negotiating with the wheat board to have their July futures changed into Octobers on a basis of 80 cents for the October. That, of course, would be taking the July as it is now, at about 77J cents, plus storage. That would be about right.
This would commit the wheat boardi to take delivery of wheat in October at or around 80 cents, basis No. 1 northern. Here is what I wish to say, that if that deal is going on

Supply-Trade-Canada Grain Act
now, it should be confined to the 1941 crop, and there should be a price of 80 cents; the 70 cents should be increased to 80 cents. If the board is now making a settlement with the grain firtns on a basis of 80 cents for October wheat, when the wheat is supposed to have been taken at 70 cents, then we, the producers, should receive 80 cents for the 1941 crop. If that arrangement is going on- and we can find out whether it is correct or not-and we know that the board controls all wheat, either by options or cash, then if they are making that settlement with the grain firms, I say that it should apply to the 1941 crop for the farmers. That is the situation. I say that we should have the price fixed higher.
Here is another point to which I should like briefly to refer. I may say that since yesterday-


Alphonse Fournier: I must remind the hon. gentleman
that he has spoken for forty minutes.


James Angus MacKinnon: I should be glad to have the hon. gentleman proceed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am going to refer to
something mentioned yesterday by the leader of the opposition, the shipment of wheat to Japan. I want the minister to follow me, and perhaps he can give us some more information. I made inquiries about this, as well as about the situation to which I have just referred. In connection with the shipment of wheat to Japan I am informed that the Canadian exporters, James Richardson and Sons, the Reliance Grain company and three others would have nothing to do with this deal. This shipment was made by the Continental Grain company, the Dreyfus company and the Bunge company, three international Jew firms. The Dreyfus company has since been changed to the Leval company.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
think I should correct the statement the hon. gentleman has just made. He has stated that this shipment was made by three
companies.


Ernest Edward Perley: International companies.


James Angus MacKinnon: The Canada Grain company of Vancouver, a well known Canadian firm, handled this shipment of wheat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were they the agents or the principals?
14873-231}


James Angus MacKinnon: They were the principals.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the evidence of that? I have other evidence.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
am giving the information asked for. This is a Canadian company headed by Mr. McKee, a prominent resident of Vancouver.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have been informed on
good authority that these three companies figured in this deal and that the two companies I have named refused to have anything to do with it. These other companies are international companies. I am informed also that grain is always shipped in bulk to Japan or China, and that the fact that this shipment was in bags is evidence that it was intended for Russia or for enemy hands, to be reached through Russia.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have heard that before.


Ernest Edward Perley: These international grain
firms should not be permitted to do business with the grain board, and the grain board should not deliver a single bushel of wheat to them.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
have just denied the transaction.


Ernest Edward Perley: These are not loyal Canadian firms, and therefore the board should not deal with them in any way, shape or form. An investigation should be held into this sale in order to find out if these firms had anything to do with it. This investigation should, also cover the taxes paid by these firms and just what their capital investment is. I understand that these firms cover up their tax returns by showing the business they are doing in other countries as well as in Canada. They are evading their taxes, and this should be investigated.
The policy adopted by the board for the coming season has not met with the approval of the western producer. When the proper time comes, the minister will have to answer other questions with respect to the board's operations. I think I have produced sufficient evidence to-night to warrant the government in taking over the whole business. If that is done there will be no possibility of the things I have mentioned happening in the future.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not intend to speak at any length, but there are one or two observations I should like to make in connection with our wheat marketing, coming as I do from a province where wheat has been king for a number of years. As the hon. member

Sup-ply-Trade-Canada Grain Act
for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) stated, there is dissatisfaction with the price and with the operations of the grain exchange.
I am going to ask the minister, first, to clear up a point which I raised the other evening with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). It has been stated in various parts of western Canada, as well as to myself, that the wheat board is assisting a number of grain operators on the grain exchange on a relief basis. The statement is made that the board is allowing these men sufficient business in the way of spreading options from month to month or from period to period to give them about $150 a month. If that statement is not true, this is the place where it should be cleared up. If it is true, the practice should be discontinued. With the situation as it is among our farming population, with low prices and no prospect of better conditions, the farmers feel that their industry should not be used to maintain operators who are part of an organization which they have fought for a good many years. I am referring to the Winnipeg grain exchange. As the minister knows, there is a widespread feeling among the farmers of western Canada that the grain exchange should be closed.
Then there is the other matter of storage referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. It is unnecessary to traverse the points he made because he presented them very clearly indeed. But our farmers are uneasy about the future; they wonder what the policy is going to be next year. They feel that if storage is required, they can build satisfactory weather-proof bins, and with the prices at their present depressed levels, they should be entitled to receive adequate storage charges. A return was brought down a short time ago showing that one grain company had rented a government terminal elevator at a rental of $51,000. On the basis of the minimum use of that elevator, the storage charges will give that company a revenue roughly five times that amount. Under certain circumstances, that revenue might be increased considerably, in which event the rent would be increased to some extent. But the revelation which was given wide publicity in western Canada has certainly not tended to give confidence to farmers of the west when they see a parliamentary return indicating a rental of that description and payment for storage in the neighbourhood of the figure I have mentioned. Some consideration should be given to that problem.
We as a group thoroughly endorse the request which was made early in the session and repeated in a few words to-night by the the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-I do not
MMr. roldweU.J
know whether he represents his entire party in that regard-that the whole elevator system in the country should be taken over under
the War Measures Act at least for the duration of the war, and that there should be no private gain in connection with the elevator service. The hon. member for Wood Mountain last year discussed the amounts that were paid in storage. I was not sure that his figures were altogether correct, but even if they were not, his statement revealed a storage condition which is most alarming to those of us who wish to see the producers get from their industry all that it is possible for them to get, particularly at this time.
There are a number of questions which will come up under individual items of the estimates, and I do not propose to ask a series of questions now, particularly because some of our members have various questions to ask. I do, however, wish to place ourselves clearly on record that we think, first that the government of Canada under the circumstances which now exist, with vast accumulations of grain in our country, which are likely to remain in our country, should undertake to see that this tremendous accumulation of wheat is carried in the most economical way. The government has endeavoured this year to cut down the production of wheat, and incidentally the farmers responded better than I thought they would in reducing their acreage. But with the moisture conditions which now exist in western Canada, and with a good month in June and a few showers in July, we may actually, even with the reduced acreage, hatm a bigger crop this year than we had last year. With that possibility facing us, these tremendous accumulations of wheat, I repeat, should be carried in the most economical way possible and to the benefit of the producers rather than of the grain companies. I am certain that I speak for a very large number of people when I say that in order to do that, the entire elevator system in this country should be taken over by the government at least for the duration of the war, or, in the alternative, until we can dispose of these large accumulations. Then a further policy regarding the elevator and storage system of Canada can be decided upon through this parliament.
Second, I am of the very firm opinion that the grain exchange to-day performs no useful function. There was a time when we had long arguments here as to the advantages of spreading options month after month or period after period because it was suggested that was an economical way of carrying grain over. As Mr. Mclvor's predecessor once

Supply-Trade-Canada Grain Act
suggested to the parliamentary committee on wheat in 1936, it was a way of spreading the speculative losses over the largest number of people. The little speculators in those days were the people who took the losses; that is the interpretation I placed on his remarks, and that I think is true. At the present time there is no considerable trading on our grain exchange, and there seems to be no good reason why the exchange should be kept open.
One other thing I would like to say, and this is an endorsement and perhaps a repetition. Our group for a number of years has protested against the sending of munitions and supplies to potential aggressor nations, and I certainly was surprised when, after the government had stated a policy last year of preventing supplies of various kinds going to a possible enemy-and Japan now certainly is that without a doubt-I learned that we have just lately loaded a very large shipment of wheat to go to Japan. Of course it is said that it is only on Japanese account, that the wheat is going to China. But it is going to Japanese-controlled China in any event, and there is a possibility that either the shipment itself, or by replacing some other supplies, may eventually benefit our principal enemy, Germany. I certainly think the time has arrived when we should ship nothing to a possible aggressor. We may be at war with Japan at any time. As we know, she is threatening the Dutch East Indies to-day, and if that threat is carried out there will be war with Japan in a very short time. One of the reasons why I was so critical of the policies of the governments leading up to this war, one of the reasons why I feared that the democratic nations which were continuing this policy were not interested in maintaining democracy but that they might even be found on the side of the aggressor nations eventually, was the fact that we continued all through the pre-war years to ship supplies to countries which were ultimately going to use them to destroy us. We are following that policy now when we ship supplies to Japan. We have a fairly good excuse for not doing so because we have no control over that part of China. We have not a friendly government in that part of China to which the wheat is being shipped. Therefore I wish to endorse the principle that the wheat ought not to have been allowed to be shipped, and I hope that certainly no further sales of that kind will be made.
There are other matters I wish to bring up on individual items of the estimates as we come to them, but with these general remarks I shall leave the matter to-night.


Victor Quelch: I shall confine myself
to-night largely to general remarks. First of all, on behalf of this group I protest against the shipment of grain to Japan. I was amazed when I heard that that is being done. I do not see how we can expect a really united war effort in this country so long as transactions of that kind are being carried on. It would be bad enough if the real destination of this grain was Japan, but apparently it is being shipped to Japan in transit to other countries which, if not our actual enemies to-day, at least are potential enemies.
In the past we have laid down what we considered to be a sound policy in regard to wheat, and I shall not take much time to-night to refer to that. We have stressed the fact that we consider the price of 70 cents a bushel altogether too low. We have pointed out that that policy has been largely responsible for building up the great surpluses which we have because farmers have been compelled to increase their operations in an attempt to reduce their overhead. We have suggested that a price of SI a bushel for a limited delivery, with a minimum of 1,500 bushels graded upwards, should have been put in operation.
We have also urged on many occasions that the grain exchange should be closed because we do not believe it is performing any useful or necessary function at this time.
We have urged the government to take over all grain-handling facilities in order to do away with the very heavy storage charges *Which have to be paid during the war.
Another point which I believe is important is that regarding an advance against grain in storage on the farm. The minister himself has admitted that it is possible we may only be able to have an initial quota of two or three bushels to the acre instead of five. If that is so, I am wondering how the farmers will be able to carry on this fall.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
would not want the idea to go out to the country that either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the government or the wheat board suggested that only two or three bushels would be taken on the first quota from the 1941 crop. The intention is that it will be five, but a great deal will depend upon the condition with regard to available space at the time.	.


Victor Quelch: I understand that, but the
figure "five" was mentioned. The minister will agree; however, that under certain circumstances it may be possible to give only two or three, and even at five bushels to the acre, if a farmer has a crop of thirty or forty

Supply-Trade-Canada Grain Act
bushels, he will not be able to pay his threshing expenses if he can deliver only five bushels. It is essential that advances should be made against the grain in storage so that the farmer can at least pay the actual cash operating expenses. I have here, order in council P.C. 3849 containing what I presume are the latest regulations, and I confess I find it difficult to know just where we are, because there have been so manj^ orders in council, one cancelling the other, that unless we have the very latest we are out of date. I thought all this time I knew what the regulations were, regarding acreage bonus, but I find another one has recently been passed which entirely changes the picture.


James Angus MacKinnon: There is just one in this case.


Victor Quelch: There is only one in so
far as these regulations are concerned, and section 17 reads:
Wherever a quota of the grain produced on any land becomes deliverable, any producer entitled to a definite share of the crop as landlord, vendor or mortgagee, shall be entitled to have delivered in his name a share of such quota proportionate to such person's said interest in the grain, and shall have equal rights of delivery accorded to producers under the act. . . .
Does that mean that out of his five bushels delivered the farmer will be able to get only a portion for himself, and that the mortgage company will have a portion and the landlord a portion? Surely it means that. I should like to be corrected if I am wrong.


James Angus MacKinnon: The farmer will have the permit. Let me quote:
. . . for such purpose the permit holder shall make the permit available, but the enforcement of this provision shall be the direct concern and responsibility of the interested parties themselves and no legal obligation shall devolve on the board in respect thereto.


Victor Quelch: But that does not alter
the situation. It merely means that the board itself is not taking legal responsibility for enforcing it. The fact remains that the provision is there which compels the farmer to divide his quota with certain interested parties.


James Angus MacKinnon: The farmer will have the permit, and he will get delivery.
_ Mr. QUELCH: According to section 17, it is supposed to be divided among the various parties. The board will not assume the legal responsibility of enforcing the provisions, but through the courts these other people can insist upon a share of the quota being delivered to them., According to section 17, the farmer
[Mr. QuelchJ
can be compelled by law to deliver a certain portion of the five bushels to the mortgage company and the landlord, and I suggest that it will be hard enough for him to carry on with five bushels.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Has that not
always been the law?


Victor Quelch: No, it has not always been
the law. The farmer has not been compelled to deliver only five bushels to the acre.


John Gordon Ross: I am referring to the proportions that are delivered.


Victor Quelch: Yes; but the farmer has not formerly been in the position where he has been able to deliver only five bushels, or possibly two or three. He has been able to deliver the whole crop. Out of the five bushels he will have to pay his threshing bill, so that if a man threshes forty bushels to the acre, five bushels will not cover that expenditure.


Mr. DONNELLY:: How could he get by last year?


Victor Quelch: Last year he was allowed to keep the whole five bushels.


James J. Donnelly: Who allowed him?


Victor Quelch: He had a special permit, and the five was quickly increased in the heavy producing districts to ten to the acre. In the Morrin district, the five was increased to eight almost immediately.


James J. Donnelly: Who allowed the farmer to retain the five bushels to the acre?


Victor Quelch: The provincial government at that time took steps to guarantee the farmer's retention of the first quota.


An hon. MEMBER:: And only the provincial government can do it.


Victor Quelch: 
James Angus MacKinnon: I
have here a long statement which I intend to put on Hansard on another occasion with an accompanying explanation, but first I wish to deal with a large number of categorical questions that have been asked me to-night.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, June 9, 1941.