1945-11-05

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked- me a question in regard to counsellors. My reply is as follows:
Attached is a list of cities where counselling services are available in our rehabilitation centres.

Ford Motor Plant Strike
In addition to the counselling provided in the rehabilitation centres mentioned, an exserviceman may also secure information and advice from our veterans welfare officers located on the premises of the national employment service offices at the same points.
A specialized form of counselling service for veterans with disabilities is also provided by our casualty rehabilitation officers who are located in all hospitals of this department, and a similar counselling service is available in the health and occupational centres of this department.
Further extension of advice and guidance is to be found in the agreement between the Department of Labour and this department whereby veterans' officers have been appointed to a great number of national employment service offices. These officers can give advice and information regarding the rehabilitation aids of this department and can provide application forms. Furthermore, if specialized counselling is necessary they may arrange transportation so that a veteran may proceed to a rehabilitation centre to have his case thoroughly considered and counselled.
Where a specific appointment has not been made as a veterans' officer, the manager of the local national employment office is empowered to act in the capacity of a veterans' officer.
To ensure that a counselling service is provided for those centres not covered by the officials of the Department of Labour and this department mentioned above, superintendents of rehabilitation send out counsellors periodically to outlying points to deal with . cases that have arisen that require counselling.
I think this describes in general terms our counselling service for veterans.
District Offices where Counselling Services are
Available-Department of Veterans Affairs
Halifax, N.S.-Camp Hill Hospital.
*Charlottetown, P.E.I.-76 Great George street.
Saint John, N.B.-91 Prince William street.
Quebec, P.Q.-2 St. Andre street.
Montreal, P.Q.-634 St. James street west.
Ottawa, Ont.-Aylmer building.
*Kingstpn, Ont.-Post Office building.
Toronto, Ont.-55 York street.
Hamilton, Ont.-42 James street N.
London, Ont.-343 Richmond street.
fWindsor, Ont.-346 Victoria street,
Winnipeg, Man.-Commercial building.
Regina, Sask.-New Regina Trading Co. bldg.
*Saskatoon, Sask.-London building.
Calgary, Alta.-217-7th avenue west.
Edmonton, Alta.-11250 Jasper avenue.
Vancouver, B.C.-717 Granville street.
tVictoria, B.C.-202 Belmont building.
[Stage Direction]
' These are presently subdistricts which will operate as district offices very shortly.
t Subdistricts of London and Vancouver respectively.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. II.SI.EY (Acting Prime Minister) : I should like to make a brief statement to the house regarding the dispatch of a detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to Windsor.
On Monday of last week, the premier of Ontario came to Ottawa to discuss the situation at Windsor. He stated that, with the approach of colder weather, the provincial government was increasingly concerned about the protection of life and property in and around the Ford plant at Windsor. Particular anxiety was felt as to the danger of fire. During the course of discussions which were continued over on Tuesday and Wednesday by telephone, Mr. Drew asked for an assurance that, if the provincial government, in pursuance of its responsibility for the preservation of law and order, requested the assistance of the R.C.M P., such assistance would be forthcoming.
The responsibility for deciding that additional police protection was required would be taken by the provincial government, and once the province had taken that responsibility, we felt it wou'ld be the duty of the federal government to furnish what assistance we were in a position to afford. Mr. Drew was accordingly given the assurance he requested.
An official request for a detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to support the Provincial Police was received from the attorney general of Ontario on Friday and the request was complied with immediately.
Hon. members will have noticed the exchange of telegrams -between the attorney general of Ontario and the mayor of Windsor published in the press to-day. In Mr. Blackwell's message to the mayor he is quoted as stating that "Police action if taken will not be taken in relation to the issues between employer and employee in the strike nor will action be taken to prevent peaceful picketing.
I point that out to indicate that the action of the provincial authorities which the federal government supported was not, in any sense, intervention in the strike but was solely for the maintenance of law and order and the protection of life and property.
In the event of a request by provincial authorities for the dispatch of additional police in a case of this kind it is not the usual practice for the federal government to look beyond the provincial request. At the
Ford Motor Plant Strike
[Stage Direction]
same time, the house, I am sure, will be interested in the information which has been furnished to the federal government as to the reality of the fire hazard which occasioned particular concern to the province.
I shall now read a copy of a letter from the Canadian Underwriters' association to the attorney general for Ontario, dated November 1, and a letter from the Canadian Underwriters' association to the premier of Ontario, dated November 2, copies of which were sent to the Minister of Justice in this government. The letter to the attorney general for Ontario is as follows:
November 1, 1945.
The Honourable the Attorney General tor the Province of Ontario,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
Re-Ford Motors of Canada Limited, Windsor, Ontario
Dear Sir:
This association, through its sprinklered risk department has had to issue a bulletin to its members which reads in part as follows:
"The plant (of the Ford Company at Windsor) is entirely without fire protection. The fire pumps are out of commission, the gravity tank has been drained, the sprinkler systems have been drained and watchman's patrol service has been cut down to one supervisor and four men per shift.
"The fire alarm system is out of commission, and all lighting and power circuits throughout the plant have been disconnected. All yard hydrants are without water and the only protection at the moment is from inside chemical extinguishers. If the strike continues, these extinguishers will have to be emptied, otherwise the contents will freeze.
"We wish to draw your attention to the fact that there are in the basement, 5-storey office building, many hundreds of sprinkler' heads, which are pendant. These pendant nipples have not been drained, and apparently the union objects to men being assigned to do this. If severe weather conditions prevail, there is every chance that the water in these pendant nipples will freeze, which may result in the rupturing of the fittings, with cpnsequential damage to the ceiling and other equipment."
The situation is one of very serious concern not only for the insurance companies directly interested but also for all fire underwriters doing business in Canada.
Unless protection is afforded forthwith, a fire loss of calamitous proportions can readily occur. The insurance coverage on this particular plant amounts to $35,000,000.
In stressing the concern of the underwriters we would wish to respectfully draw to your attention that this association fully realizes that it is not called upon to take sides in the dispute between the owners and the employees, or to consider the merits of their respective contentions. They are, however, vitally interested in the fact that there is no protection at the plant and that they, as innocent third parties, might have to bear a tremendous loss. They definitely feel, therefore, that they are entitled to call [Mr. Hsley.l
upon the attorney-general of this province to see that the plant is protected against the fire-risk. This lack of protection has nothing to do with the rights of the -workmen to strike or can it have any legal bearing upon the settlement of the dispute. It must, however, be noted that if a serious loss occurs, quite apart from the exceedingly heavy pecuniary loss, workmen will be without employment for a long time to come.
This association, therefore believes that not only in the interest of its members but equally in the interest of the general public and of the workmen of Windsor, steps should be taken forthwith to ensure that the maintenance men who could reinstate the fire-fighting apparatus and all other protective equipment should be immediately allowed to return to the premises.
It might be well to note that a continuation of the present situation in this and possibly in other plants under similar circumstances would lead to a disruption of the present insurance rate structure and consequential heavy imposts upon the premium paying public of Canada.
In view of the foregoing this association is* bound to respectfully call upon the government of this province to take immediate steps to remedy the situation and to grant adequate protection at the plant in order that all necessary maintenance staffs be permitted to enter and leave unmolested.
Yours very truly,
J. O'Brien,
Manager.
The second letter is as follows:
November 2, 1945.
The Honourable George Drew, K.C.,
Prime Minister of the Province of Ontario,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
This association has written to the Honourable tha Attorney-General for the province of Ontario as per copy of letter annexed.
The situation is one of great danger and the necessity of immediate action to protect the plant against fire hazards cannot possibly be overstressed. A loss, under present circumstances, could involve the payment of $35,000,000 by the association members. It would also mean lack of employment for thousands of men in Windsor for a very long period of time. -It -is respectfully and urgently requested that steps be immediately taken to' afford protection to the maintenance men who should be allowed to reenter the plant in order to prevent the occurrence of an event which would be disastrous for the city of Windsor and the province of Ontario.
Yours very truly,
J. O'Brien,
Manager.
I asked the superintendent of insurance to make further inquiries to-day to find whether the situation had changed and to bring the report on the situation down to date. He made inquiries, I think of the Canadian

Criminal Code
Underwriters' association, and as a result has sent me a memorandum which reads in part as follows:
Strike conditions have greatly increased the liability of the property to damage by fire.
Two elevated gravity tanks, the company's private water supply, and the yard hydrants are out of commission.
The entire plant is without protection except such as the Windsor brigade can afford but the distance from city water is so great and the mains are so small for a plant of this size that it is almost useless.
The only protection at the present time is fiom extinguishers but there is no heat on in the plant so that these are in danger of freezing and will have to be drained soon. All hand hose connections are now useless; there is no heat, light, power, or domestic water in the plant. The electrical alarms are all out of commission; the normal staff required to maintain protection in the plant is about forty men per shift, or 125 men in all, and this has now' been reduced to one supervisor and four men.
The plant's fire department and patrol cars are out of commission.
A big coal handling bridge is in danger from a pile of burning coal and the heat may buckle the bridge. The bridge is insured but the burning coal is not insured.
A gas reservoir with a capacity of one-half million cubic feet is water sealed and is now without any heat to prevent freezing; freezing may rupture the sides and allow the gas to escape.
I might also inform the house that the premier of Ontario called me by phone and suggested that perhaps something could be accomplished in the settlement of this dispute if the minister of this government would accompany a minister of his government to Windsor to see whether something could bp done. I suggested that the premier of Ontario support his telephonic request by a telegram, and I understand that a telegram came in after I entered the chamber, and I have not had an opportunity of seeing it. If the premier of Ontario in his telegram makes a request in accord with the request he made by telephone, this government will be prepared to have the Minister of Labour accompany a minister from the Ontario government to Windsor to see whether anything can be done, even at this stage, to settle the dispute.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
house has listened with great interest to the statement made by the acting leader of the government. He has outlined to us the situation now existing at Windsor as a result of the developments - of the last two or three days. I am sure that the house and the public will be pleased to know that the action taken by the Ontario government and this government with respect to sending police to Windsor is not
with a view to taking sides in this dispute but is rather with a view to the protection of valuable property and the maintenance of law and order under the conditions that now obtain.
May I ask, in view of the vital issues at stake in this matter, that after the representatives of the two governments have proceeded to Windsor, or even before, if necessary, an opportunity be provided in this house for a full discussion of the issues at stake, on their merits?


Mr. ILSLEY:: I do not think that the government should be asked to make any special arrangements for a discussion in this house.
I had understood that possibly a member of the house was to move the adjournment of the house this afternoon for the purpose of discussing the matter, but of course I do not know whether that will take place. Any arrangements for discussion would have to be in the regular course without any special arrangements being made.



TRANSPORT ACT, 1938 JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN WATER CARRIERS IN MACKENZIE RIVER AREA

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister ol Transport) moved for leave to introduce hill No. 32, to amend the Transport Act, 1938.
He said:	The object of this bill is to
amend the Transport Act so as to bring within the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners certain water carriers having a tonnage of ten tons or more operating in the Mackenzie river area. The government has received complaints from shippers concerning the tariff tolls in that area, and it has been decided to amend the Transport Act, particularly part II, so that the tariff tolls may be regulated in the same manner as they are on the great lakes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. CRIMINAL CODE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. AA'. GLADSTONE (Wellington South) moved for leave to introduce bill No. 33, to amend the criminal code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: Section 124 of the criminal code makes it an offence to point at another person any firearm or air gun without lawful excuse.
Criminal Code

The purpose of this amendment, which adds two subsections to section 124, is to make it an offence to print, publish or import, sell or distribute, magazines on the cover of which appear pictures depicting the pointing by one person of an offensive weapon at another person, or the shooting with an offensive weapon, if the picture illustrates a hold-up, robbery, murder or other criminal act.
It is entirely wrong and detrimental to the morals of young boys that they should continue to be permitted to observe and study on magazine counters such scenes as are described in these two subsections, or that they should be encouraged to read the sort of literature contained in these magazines by looking at such pictures depicting shooting scenes which can only tend to educate them to think that there is nothing wrong in pointing a gun at a person.
It will be observed that my amendment relates to the gun-pointing pictures on magazine covers, which pictures usually are printed in flashy colours. I shall be glad to have the assistance of an amendment that will cover also gun-pointing pictures on the inside pages of magazines. More than one news-stand dealer has told me that the elimination of gun-poimting pictures would not affect adversely the sale of good detective stories.
The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) indicated to the house on Friday that at the earliest possible moment a bill would be .brought down to amend the criminal code, in order to check the series of crimes and violence reported from many centres in Canada. I shall be pleased if the minister will incorporate in the government bill an amendment to meet the objective of the bill I am now introducing.


Mr. HOMUTH:: You are not going to do away with Superman, are you?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: No, we are not worrying you.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. J. MelLRAITH (Ottawa West) moved the first reading of bill No. 30 (from the senate) to incorporate International Air Transport Association.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Explain.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time, *



ARCTIC INSTITUTE OP NORTH AMERICA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. W. WINKLER (Lisgar-for Mr. Benadicksou) moved the first reading of bill No. 31 (from the senate) to incorporate the Arctic Institute of North America.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. WINKLER:: In the absence of the
sponsor, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), I am authorized to move the first reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions hon. members have been anxious to learn the gist of the legislation envisaged by senate bills before the first reading is agreed to. While the rules I understand prevent the ordinary explanation, there is no reason why they should prevent the sponsor of the bill from giving some explanation before first reading is given, because the first reading is not necessarily a mere form, although it is sometimes regarded as such. I think we ought to make it the usage in this house that before we give first reading to senate bills the sponsor explain the proposed legislation and give a synopsis of its details.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	Mr. Speaker, for a change
I am largely in agreement with the suggestion of my hon. friend. I understand that the merits or demerits of senate bills are explained at a later stage of the proceedings, but there is merit in my hon. friend's suggestion, and it is one that might very well be considered by the new committee on the standing rules and orders of the house. .



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave, seconded by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the critical situation at Windsor, Ontario, due to the action of the federal government in sending in Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which has led to the spreading of the Ford strike to other plants so that more than 18,000 workers
TMr. Gladstone.]

Ford Motor Plant Strike
are now affected, with the result that immediate action is necessary to formulate policy that will prevent civil strife and provide for the settlement of disputes on the basis of cooperation.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: On a point of privilege. Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will permit me-


Clarence Gillis: I should like to know who has the floor.


Humphrey Mitchell: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the right to explain his motion.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall not say this if I am not permitted, but all I wanted to say-


Clarence Gillis: I do not want to make the rules of the house.


Mr. COLDWELL:: We have to follow the rules and the minister must follow them.


James Horace King: No interruptions must take place without the permission of the hon, member who has the floor. It is his privilege to speak on his motion for leave to adjourn the house, to enable me to decide the question of urgency.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend will permit me-


Clarence Gillis: Is it a question?


Humphrey Mitchell: All I want to say is
this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just wait. Be decent about these things.


Major James William Coldwell: I think other people need to be decent too, sometimes.


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to get away to Windsor immediately, and all I want to suggest to my hon. friends is this. I ask them not to say anything that might make my very difficult task more difficult.


Clarence Gillis: It is not my intention at this time to embarrass the Minister of Labour or anyone who may be trying to bring this matter to a successful conclusion; and further, I do not intend to argue now the merits or demerits of the matter. I merely want to say, on the question of urgency, that I think the Minister of Finance, in the statement which he has just made to this house, has
made all the arguments necessary with respect to urgency, and I will leave the matter, Mr. Speaker, in your hands.


James Horace King: The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) the mover of this motion, courteously notified me of this application; I have had an opportunity of considering it, and will not need to delay the house further by examining the statement.
Before giving this ruling I have considered among others two standing orders to which I should like to draw the attention of the house: (a) standing order 31, (b) standing order 15.
(a) Under standing order 31, leave may be , obtained to present a motion for the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent.public importance. Paragraph 6, subsection (d) of same standing order reads as follows:
The motion must not anticipate a matter whicE has been previously appointed for consideration by the house, or with reference to which a notice of motion has been previously given and not withdrawn.
It is the duty of the Speaker to see that the order of the day is followed, as the hon. members have it before them for some time before the opening of the house, and have prepared their work accordingly. However, I realize that it is the privilege of eveiy member to avail himself of standing order 31 and to request that the business prepared for the day according to standing order 15 (business of the house) be set aside, and it is for the Speaker to decide whether it is of sufficient urgency and public importance to suspend the daily business in order to discuss a matter which is deemed urgent and of public importance by the hon. member. On this question the Speaker has not to decide whether it is urgent to settle the strike immediately in order that the workers return to work and the industry get back to normal conditions. As I said in this house some time ago, the only question which is before the Speaker is to decide whether it is sufficiently urgent and important to set aside the orders of the day-in order to discuss the matter for which the hon. member is asking the adjournment of the house.
My opinion is that if the hon. member will look at the programme before us to-day he will find that some other opportunity will be given to him this afternoon to submit in committee the question which he has just presented.
On Friday, November 2, page 1809 of Hansard, business of the house, the acting leader of the house said:
On Monday we shall resume the discussion of these estimates.
Questions

Meaning to-day, and referring to No. 4 of the orders of the day, which reads:
November 2-House again in committee of the whole on the following resolution.-Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, inter alia.
1.	That sums not exceeding $1,365,000,000 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1946, for-(a) The security, defence-
I emphasize those words:
-peace, order and welfare of Canada.
Consequently, I have no hesitation in deciding that the matter is not of urgent importance within the meaning of standing order 31, since the hon. member and every other member' of the house will have an opportunity to discuss the matter referred to in his motion when this house in a few minutes will resolve itself into committee of i lie whole to consider item No. 4 of the orders of the day, which is of sufficient scope to permit such a discussion.
I must say to the hon. gentleman that in giving this ruling I do not explain a point of order but explain a practice, and so it is not debatable and there is no appeal to the house.
I would ask the house to proceed with the business on the order paper.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
PURCHASES OF CANADIAN WHEAT*
['1.\t1,535 persons.\n2.\t548 persons as of November 1, 1945.\nNote:\tThese figures also include the\nemployees at the St. Isidore storage which is operated in conjunction with the Salaberry island plant at Nitro.']
Mr. MacKINNON:: I have a reply prepared in answer to this question, but rather than table it I would like to mention that the publication of the actual quantities of Wheat purchased by .the various importing countries ' in a relatively short period of time would undoubtedly be embarrassing to the governments of the importing countries whose purchases may have been covered some time previous to this particular period. I am quite willing to hand the reply to the member for

Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) for his personal information, in the hope that this will suffice. If, however, there is any strong feeling that this information should be made public, I would be willing to reconsider the matter.


Mr. THATCHER:: I will accept that.



Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	(a) What governments of countries receiving mutual aid from Canada were notified by the Canadian government that transfers of supplies as mutual aid would cease at the end of hostilities, and (b) when were they so notified?
2.	(a) Were all said governments also notified by this government that supplies also transferred after the end of hostilities would be paid for, and, (b) if not, what governments were not so notified, and why?
3.	If so,-what governments answered, (a) that they would like production to be continued for their account, or the equivalent, or (b) that they duct mot like production to be continued for their account, or the equivalent, or (c) did not answer at all?
4.	Were (a) the production; (b) the delivery, of munitions and other military supplies halted immediately it was evident that Japan was going to surrender?
5.	If so, (a) where; (b) for whom; (c) how long in each case?
Mr. McILRAITH;
1.	(a) The governments of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, India, France, U.S.S.R. and China.
(b) August 15, 1945.
2.	(a and b) Yes, except that in the case of the U.S.S.R. it had previously been agreed that certain minesweepers would be provided as mutual aid regardless of the date of the end of hostilities. The U.S.S.R., on its side, had previously agreed to pay the cost of certain other items if delivered after the end of hostilities, and the U.S.S.R. was invited to discuss with the Canadian authorities the disposition of remaining undelivered items which would not be available as mutual aid.
3.	(a, b and c) All governments, with the exception of India, replied requesting that deliveries of certain supplies be continued for their account, and that production and deliveries of other supplies be stopped. In the case of India there were no active mutual aid requisitions outstanding, and therefore there was no question of continuing or cancelling deliveries of mutual aid supplies.
4.	(a) production of all munitions and other military supplies was stopped except in cases where a government requested production to continue for its account, or where it was

Questions
considered more economical to complete or partially complete production in the expectation of being able to sell the product for some useful purpose.
(b) General instructions were issued to halt the movement and deliveries of military equipment and supplies on 15th August. Certain individual items were permitted to move forward during the period August 15 to September 1, when it appeared that some useful purpose would thereby be served or the disposal of apparently useless or dangerous material facilitated.
5.	(a, b and c) See answer to No. 4.


BRITISH WAR BRIDES
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	How many British war brides, whose husbands are still serving overseas, have come to Canada ?
2.	Are such wives still being allowed to come to Canada?
3.	Are British wives, whose husbands have been returned to Canada, being brought forward when transportation is available? If not, why not?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Approximately 5,000 brides have come to Canada before their husbands, but in a large number of the cases the husbands have since returned to Canada. To determine the number of husbands of such brides still serving overseas would require searching of individual files.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. The amount of shipping available however only permits a limited number, of compassionate cases coming forward at present time.


FEED AND MALTING BARLEY
Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: 1.	Under order in council 6238 does the farmer receive the same price for feed barley as for malting barley?
2.	Is malting barley required to be cleaned at Winnipeg before being sold? If so, does the farmer have to pay for the cleaning?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 4.	All grades of barley are currently trading
at the ceiling price of 64| cents per bushel, basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur but there would be variations in the net return to the producer because of dockage. The 20 cent bushel guaranteed advance equalization payment is made on all barley delivered and- sold within the regulations since July 31, 1945.	[DOT]
2.	Malting barley does not necessarily require to be cleaned at Winnipeg before being sold. If the official grade shows there
is dockage to be removed from the barley in order that it may qualify for the grade given then, of' course, the dockage is taken into account when settlement is made for the barley; that is to say, if there were 1,000 bushels in the car and the inspection certificate showed 3 per cent dockage then, of course, the seller would only receive settlement for 970 bushels of barley. He would be charged for the cost of removing the dockage and given the value of the dockage removed from the barley.


SEAFORTH HIGHLAND REGIMENT
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	On arrival in Canada, was the Seaforth Highlander regiment sent direct to Vancouver?
2.	If so, what date did it arrive?
3.	Were there attached to this unit men whose homes were in military district No. 2?
4.	If so, how many were there so attached?
5.	Were such service men brought back at. once to their homes in military district No. 2?
6. If so, how long were they kept in Vancouver?
7.	What is the estimated cost of transporting such service men to Vancouver and return?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	October 7, 1945.
3.	Yes.
4.	Eight.
5.	Yes.
6.	Approximately five hours.
7.	Additional cost involved, approximately $1,046.33.


RESEARCH ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	What is the total value of the production of Research Enterprises Limited, to date?
2.	What proportion of such total represents the value of, (a) radar equipment; (b) instruments; (c) optical glass?
3.	What proportion of such total represents work performed under subcontract?
4.	(a) What classes of products have been produced at Research Enterprises Ltd1.; (b) where else, in Canada, is each of these products nowr being produced?
5.	What orders has Research Enterprises Limited now on hand?
6.	(a) Is Research Enterprises Limited still accepting orders for products; (b) what efforts are being made to obtain further orders; (c) what orders, if any, for any of the products ox the company have been rejected by the company since V-E day, and why?
7.	(a) With a view to having the company do repair work, (i) what orders, (ii) what inquiries have been received by the company; (b) to what extent can such repair work be done elsewhere in Canada?
8.	What attempt, if any, has been made to adapt, (a) the products; (b) the producing capacity, of this company to peace-time uses?
Questions

9.	What attempt, if any, has been made to make the products of the company available to educational institutions and research laboratories?
10.	What assets of the company have been listed with War Assets Corporation for disposal?
11.	Are the buildings of the company available for rent or sale?
12.	What job-classifications have been established for employees of the company?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Approximately 1230,000,000 as of November 2, 1945.
2.	Approximately, (a) radar, 80 per cent; (b) optical instruments, 19i per cent; (c) optical glass, J of 1 per cent.
3.	Approximately, (a) radar, 60 to 70 per cent; (b) optical instruments, 25 to 35 per cent; (c) optical glass, nil.
4.	(a) Radar equipment, instruments, optical glass; (b) none.
5.	Orders to the amount of:	radar,
S30.000.000; instruments, 81,000,000; optical glass, nil.
6.	(a) The company would accept any orders sent by the Department of Munitions and Supply; (b) none; (c) none.
7.	(a) Orders received for repair work have been insignificant in volume and value and no inquiries for repair work have been received recently; (b) The type of repair work would have to be specified before this question could be answered.
8.	(a and b) Discussions have taken place with National Research Council and the Department of Transport on the adaptation of certain products to civilian and other use.
9.	Answered by 8.
10.	Land, buildings, equipment and materials, as they have become surplus to company needs, have been so declared to War Assets Corporation over a period of several months.
11.	Yes; under certain conditions.
12.	Job classifications, such as were approved by the management of the company and the union, were established throughout the entire company some time ago.


HOG PRICES-SAUSAGE MEATS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the meat board increased or permitted the increase of the price of sausage meats?
2.	If so, when and by how much?
3.	What is the justification for this, having regard to present hog prices?'


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-ASSINIBOIA AIRPORT BUILDINGS
Mr. ARGUE:: 1.	Has War Assets entered into arrangements for disposal of airport buildings and/or equipment situated at Assiniboia, Saskatchewan? If so, what arrangements have been made?
2.	Has the Assiniboia cadet organization made application for any of the airport buildings? If so, what was the reply?
3.	Have any other individuals or organizations made application for any of the buildings or equipment? If so, what were the replies?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) The land, buildings, services and immovable equipment have been transferred to the federal Department of Transport.
2.	No application by the Assiniboia Cadet Organization for airport buildings was made to War Assets Corporation.
3.	Yes: other applications were received from (a) the Department of Reconstruction, province of Saskatchewan; (b) the village of Kincaid, province of Saskatchewan.


FORT ST. JOHN, B C., INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	What action is the ' government taking with regard to opening up for settlement the Indian reservation near Fort St. John, British Columbia ?
2.	Are lands in the control of the dominion government in northern British Columbia to be closed to all settlers except that of soldier settlers?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	This land has been surrendered by the Indians in order that it may be sold for their benefit. The land will first be made available for purchase by the department administering the Veterans' Land Act.
2.	The same policy will apply to other Indian reserves if and when any are surrendered by the Indian bands.


PITCHBLENDE DEPOSITS
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What are the locations of known pitchblende deposits in Canada?
2.	Who owns the properties indicated in the-answer to the above question?
3.	Have any surveys in connection -with pitchblende deposits been made by or on behalf of any department of the federal government?
4.	If so, when, by whom, and are reports of said surveys available?


Mr. HOWE:: The location of pitchblende deposits is a matter which the governments concerned have agreed not to make public.
I wish my hon. friend would drop the question. I would be glad to give him the information privately, but it is not information that we would like to give officially.

Questions


Mr. KNOWLES:: With regard to this question, may I ask the Minister of Reconstruction whether there are any parts of it that could be answered without violating the secrecy agreements made among the three governments?-part 2, for example.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Owing to the great war potential of the deposits, I do not think it is in the public interest to put on a public document an answer to any of these questions If there is anything my hon. friend would like to know, for some reason of his own, I shall be glad to tell him, because I am sure he would not use the information in any way that would be against public policy. It is not however in the public interest to give that information publicly.


WOODSTOCK DRIVING AND MAINTENANCE SCHOOL
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	Is the Canadian driving and maintenance school at Woodstock still being used in the training of troops?
2.	If so, for what purpose?
3.	If not, what is now being done with the school ?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	(a) The school accommodation is being used as the sortation unit for military district No. 1.
(b) Soldiers becoming available through disbandment of units or other sources are sent to the sortation unit of their respective districts where discharge is to take place. Such sortation units are part of the district organization for the control of manpower. They provide for the segregation of various categories of individuals and for their disposition in an orderly manner either for discharge or for other employment within the district, or to be held until such times as they become eligible for discharge.	'


CARIBOO CONSTITUENCY-ROADS AND HIGHWAYS
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	Are there any roads or highways either under construction or contemplated in the Cariboo federal riding, as joint projects of the dominion government and the government of British Columbia?
2.	If so, from ivhere and to ivhere are such roads?


Mr. GLEN:: 1.	(a) No joint highway projects are under construction by the dominion government and the government of British Columbia.
(b) No information on contemplated highways.
2.	Answered by 1 (a) and 1 (b).


ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. ADAMSON:: 1.	Is the Royal Canadian Mint open to the public?
2.	If not, for what reason?
3.	Can members of parliament visit the mint?
4.	If so, to whom should they apply for a permit?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	No.
2.	The Royal Canadian Mint has operated for the past few years on two or three shifts. It is felt that visitors to the mint interfere with the operations and result in lowered production at a time when it is necessary to produce as many coins as possible. In addition, it is not possible to spare any trained personnel to guide visitors through the mint.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


ATOMIC BOMB
Mr. FRASER:: What share did Canada have in the cost of discovering and producing the atomic bomb?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This question asks what share Canada had in discovering and producing the atomic bomb. The department would be unable to answer that, for the reason that it does not know what other countries have spent. If the hon. member would like to know what Canada has spent, we shall be glad to tell him.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will the hon. member put
that question on the order paper? It is not the question that appears there now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the minister take that as the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Gordon Graydon: As a matter of fact the minister might reasonably answer the question as it stands. The hon. members asks, "What share did Canada have?" I take it that what he means is-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It asks for a percentage.


Gordon Graydon: He asks for the share of Canada's cost in the discovery and production of the atomic bomb, and I should think the simple answer would be to state what the amount is that Canada has spent. That is all it means. Surely the minister does not mean the proportionate share, because- that is not what is asked for.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what he asks for.


Gordon Graydon: No; it is not,
Questions


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the hon. member asks for the cost, it can be stated in simpler language- what is the cost to Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not being a lawyer I
could not frame the question to suit the minister.


Gordon Graydon: The minister is taking it as the proportionate share; what the hon. member asks is simply the cost.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Amend the question.


James Horace King: Dropped?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Answered, I should think.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Can the minister tell me
what the cost is?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to give that on the estimates or at- any time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the minister take that as a notice?


TWEED, ONT., RURAL MAIL SERVICE
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Were tenders called for renewal of rural mail route number 1, Tweed, Ontario, for July 1, 1945?
2.	If so, what were the names of the persons who tendered?
3.	Who was the successful tenderer and at what price?
4.	Did the advertisement inviting tenders stipulate the route to be covered?
5.	If so, was this the same route covered by the previous holder?
6.	If not, is the same route now being covered by the successful tenderer?
7.	If not, why not?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Stafford Meraw, Wallace S. Moon.
3.	Stafford Meraw, the lowest tenderer, at $600 per annum.
4.	Yes.
5 and 6. No. During the time public notices inviting tenders were posted, representations were received to the effect that there was some unnecessary duplication between Tweed rural route No. 1 and Tweed rural route No. 4.
Investigation showed that the previous con-, tractor had not adhered to the route outlined in his contract on account of a bad stretch of road, but had performed a retrace in order to give adequate service to the boxholders.
It is further established that several of the boxholders could be provided with service on Tweed rural route No. 4 and so make possible a reduction in the mileage of route No. 1 from 15-8 to 13 miles per round trip.
The contract entered into with Stafford Meraw is for the modified route.

7. Adequate service is provided Iby the modified route-all eligible residents still being within the scope of rural mail delivery, and the rate of $600 per annum was not considered excessive for a six-trip-per week service over a route 13 miles in extent.


DEFENCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED-SALABERRY ISLAND
Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: 1.	How many persons employed at the war industry operated by Defence Industries Limited at Nitro, on Salaberry island, have quit work since May 14, 1945?
2.	How many persons are now employed at the said plant?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	1,535 persons.
2.	548 persons as of November 1, 1945.
Note:	These figures also include the
employees at the St. Isidore storage which is operated in conjunction with the Salaberry island plant at Nitro.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	How many officers and men have been employed at the army wood camp located on the property of A. D. MeGibbon and Sons, Ltd., at Laehute, Quebec ?
2.	How long have these men been stationed at this camp?
3.	How many of them have seen service overseas?
4.	How many cords of wood have been cut by them at this camp?
5.	What disposal has been made of any wood cut?
6.	What pay and allowances or wages have
these men been paid?	'
7.	By whom was such paid?
8.	Has the government any financial arrangement with A. D. MeGibbon and Sons, Limited? If so, what is that arrangement?


DESERTERS AND DELINQUENTS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Have deserters and delinquents been liberated after 28 days' detention?
2.	If so, how many, and in what county do they reside?
3.	Will the government grant a general amnesty to deserters and delinquents?
4.	If so, -when will such amnesty be granted?



COMMODITY PRICES STABILIZATION CORPORATION


Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What was the result of the laying of information by the R.C.M.P. against certain individuals as indicated by the Minister of Finance on page 5636 of Hansard for July 3-1, 1944?
2.	Were any other persons or firms, apart from those named in the above reference,

Questions as Orders for Returns
charged by any department, branch or board of the government with any infraction of government regulations, conspiracy to defraud the government or other malpractice, in connection with the manufacture of bedding, since September 1, 1939?
3.	If so, were any such persons or firms committed to trial?
4.	Have such trials been held? If so, what was the result? If not, why not?



NAVAL SERVICE-OFFICERS STATIONED IN OTTAWA

Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many naval officers, all ranks, are now stationed in Ottawa?
2.	How many of the above officers are in uniform or have been in uniform at any time during the war?
3.	How many of these officers have never seen service on the high seas or on war ships?
4.	How many army and air force officers, all ranks, are now stationed in Ottawa?
5.	How many of the above officers are now n uniform or have been in uniform at any ime during the war?
6.	How many of the above mentioned officers .ave seen active service in any theatre of war?



AGRICULTURE-SPECIAL PRODUCTS BOARD-HORSES

Mr. ARGUE:: 1.	How many horses have been purchased by special products board. Department of Agriculture, up to October 25, 1945?
2.	At what points have they been purchased; what were the buying dates at the various points, and what numbers were purchased at each buying point?
3.	What are the names of the persons from whom horses were purchased at LaFleche, Saskatchewan, and how many were purchased from each?
4.	What are the specifications required by special products board for horses bought by them, and what are the range of prices paid?
5.	Have any of the specifications been changed at any time? If so, in what way?



ACADIA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LIMITED

Mr. COCKERAM:: 1.	What was the date of organization of the Acadia Construction Company Limited?
2.	Who were its provisional directors?
3.	Who have been the directors of this company since its activities commenced?
4.	What is the total amount of contracts which this company has received, since its inception, from the Department of Munitions and Supply?



WARTIME INFORMATION BOARD


Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	(a) How much money was expended by or through the wartime information board (by years) while it was in existence; (b) how much thereof was paid to persons outside of Canada, and for what, and who were these persons?
2.	(a) What was the maximum number of persons employed by the wartime information board, and when was this maximum attained: 'b) how many persons were in the employ of
the wartime information board on September 28, 1945; (c) how many of them were transferred to the employ of the Canadian information service?
3.	What is the salary of the director of the Canadian information service?
4.	What is the estimated monthly expenditure of the Canadian information service, and of what items does it consist?



NETHERLANDS AND NETHERLANDS EAST INDIES LOAN AGREEMENTS

Mr. ROSE:: 1.	Who signed the loan agreements with Canada on behalf of, (a) the Netherlands; (b) the Netherlands Indies?
2.	What goods do the signers of this loan agreement wish to procure from Canada for, (a) the Netherlands; (b) the Netherlands Indies?
3.	Do requests for the purchase of Canadian goods by the Netherlands and Netherlands Indies include arms and ammunition?
4.	Have any arms and ammunition been sent to the Netherlands and Netherlands Indies military authorities?
5.	If so, have they been sent under the loan agreement or under any other agreement?



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD- ORDER NO. A-317

Mr. DORION:: 1.	Has wartime prices and trade board order No. A-317 been rescinded? If so, when?
2.	Since July 30, 1942/ date of said order, what quantity of articles covered by such order was purchased by the various departments of the government?
3.	What amount was expended for the purchase of such articles?
4.	In what manner have these articles been disposed of?
5.	Is there any quantity of said articles left in stock? If so, what quantity, and what is the intended use of same?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: For a copy of all correspondence received during the past year, in possession of the government or any department thereof, with refer.-ence to the application of the Saskatchewan provincial government for use of the former No. 32 airport building at Moose Jaw, as a mental institution.



CONSTRUCTION OF FLOUR MILL ON HALIFAX WATERFRONT SITE

Mr. ISNOR:: For a copy of all correspondence between Hon. Harold Connolly, Minister of Industry and Publicity for Nova Scotia, and the Minister of Transport or the national harbours board during the past six months concerning erection of a flour mill on a waterfront site in the city of Halifax.

Motions jor Papers


Mr. CHEVRIER:: With reference to this motion, I have to say that if it passes as it stands, the information which my hon. friend will receive will be very scant because there are just one or two letters. If the hon. gentleman will amend the motion to have it read from March 15, 1945, I think he will get from correspondence between the then Minister of Transport and the minister of industry and publicity for Nova Scotia the gist of the matter which he wishes.
I would point out also that in correspondence between a minister of the crown and a minister of a provincial government permission should be obtained from the latter. With these two reservations, if the hon. gentleman is agreeable, I have no objection to the motion passing.	,


Gordon Graydon: The minister is setting a very important precedent in this.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is not a precedent. I understand that it is-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A custom of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: -a custom here that correspondence between a minister of the crown and a minister of the provincial government should not be tabled without the consent of the other. I have no objection to tabling the letter from the then minister of transport, but I should first obtain the permission of the provincial minister.


Major James William Coldwell: Is that not a matter of courtesy? My recollection is that this practice has grown up only in the last few years. When I first came to the house when this question was not raised save under exceptional circumstances.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must correct my hon. friend. The rule in my early days was that these intercommunications were not produced at all, but latterly the Prime Minister established the practice that we should ask permission as a matter of courtesy. The minister is correct in saying that the consent of the provincial government concerned is asked for the production of such papers.


Gordon Graydon: The Minister of Transport entirely missed my point. I was not raising any question on the technical point on which he answered me. I was attempting to convey to him the idea that this is the first time in a long while that the government has suggested that it might amplify the information that had been asked for in a question, and I was suggesting that it was a precedent he had better watch.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very good.
[Mr. Isnor.3


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are getting
generous.



SURPLUS WAR ASSETS-SCRAP

Mr. SHAW:: 1.	For a copy of each and every contract entered into between Wrar Assets Corporation and/or any department of the federal government, or any agent thereof, and any individual and/or group of individuals, carrying on business in Alberta or operating under an Alberta address, relating to the sale of scrap and/or surplus crown assets.
2.	For a statement showing total sales of scrap and surplus crown assets sold by War Assets Corporation, or any agent thereof, in Alberta, up to October 31. 1945, and the total amount realized from such sales.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am going to ask the hon. member not to insist that this work be carried out. There is a motion on the order paper calling for a committee to investigate War Assets Corporation. The position of War Assets Corporation is such that it is terribly short of staff and is under great pressure to get its work done. The situation changes almost from day to day. I am sure hon. members would find it much more satisfactory to bring the officers of War Assets Corporation before the committee and there obtain this and any other information they like, instead of asking them to copy a great number of contracts. If my hon. friend insists that the return be brought down, it must be brought down, but I would ask him to consider the suggestion I make in view of the fact that the committee will meet and he will get his information there.	.


Mr. SHAW:: I am quite willing to allow the resolution to be dropped; but I might at the same time express the hope that this committee will begin its operations soon.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Very soon.



NORTH YORK HOUSING PROJECTS

Air. COCKERAM:: For a copy of the agreement between the city of Toronto, the township of North York, and the Soldiers' Housing Projects Limited, in regard to the housing project now being carried on in the township of North York.



CUSTOMS DUTIES-PIPE AND TUBING, ETC.

Wilbert Ross Thatcher: For a copy of all correspondence in the possession of the government, exchanged between the government or any department or branch thereof, and manufacturers of, (a) pipe and tubing; (b) diesel engines; (c) ground diamonds, since March 2, 1943, with reference to increasing the tariff on said items.

C ost-oj-Living Bonus



MANUFACTURE IN CANADA OF AEROPLANE AND AEROPLANE PRODUCTS

Mr. ADAMSON:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Curtiss-Wright Aeroplane and Motor Corporation and tlu director of aircraft supply, the war supply board and the Department of National Defence, during the years 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942, regarding offers to manufacture aeroplanes and aeroplane products in Canada; also a copy of memoranda submitted to the director of aircraft supply during December, 1939, in connection with the subject, and any subsequent correspondence between the said company and the Department of Munitions and Supply or the Department of National Defence.


Agar Rodney Adamson: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between officials of the United Aircraft Corporation or any of the subsidiaries in Canada, more particularly the Canadian Pratt and Whitney, and officials of the national defence department and the war supply board, during 1938 and 1939. in regard to the manufacture of aeroplanes, aerial motors and other aeroplane products in Canada by the said companies, and any subsequent correspondence between the said companies and the Department of Munitions and Supply or the Department of National Defence.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:.
John Bracken: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister to tell the house, if he is in, a position to do so, what advisers will accompany the Prime Minister on his visit to Washington to confer with Prime Minister Attlee and President Truman?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Norman Robertson, the Undersecretary of State for External Affairs, is with the Prime Minister and will go to Washington with him. Mr. Hume Wrong, the associate Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, will also go there from Ottawa. No definite arrangements have been made for anyone else to go. Whether anyone else does assist the Prime Minister in these discussions will depend upon the course which the discussions take.



CABLE AND WIRELESS SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: Press dispatches from London
and other capitals of the commonwealth in-47696- 115i
dicate that the governments of the commonwealth have under contemplation the nationalization of cable and wireless services. Will the Acting Priffie Minister tell the house whether there have been negotiations between Canada and other governments of the commonwealth on this subject, and, if so, what is the present state of those negotiations? Have any conferences been held, or is it intended that any shall be held? What Canadian communication services or Canadian interests in commonwealth communication services are involved in this proposal? What will be the cost to Canada of the proposed nationalization?


James Lorimer Ilsley: A statement of moderate length would be required to answer this question. I received the question only a quarter of an hour before coming into the house, and therefore have not had time to prepare a statement. I am afraid I shall have to ask the hon. gentleman to allow it to stand and I will answer it later.


John Bracken: That is agreeable.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGLTS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether any action has been taken on the recommendation made in the last annual report of the civil service commission, and the report of the national joint council of public service of Canada, that the cost-of-living bonus be paid to civil servants in the salary range 82.100 to 83,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, that has not been done, for the reasons which are contained in a letter which I -wrote to the chairman of the national joint council of the public service of Canada on July 25 of this year, which I shall table if the hon. gentleman wishes me to do so, or which I will send to him, whichever he prefers. I will hand it to him now. I may say, however, that the matter has been up for consideration again to see whether some of the difficulties that are set out in that letter can be overcome. So far nothing has been done.


Angus MacInnis: Would there be any objection to putting this letter on Hansardf


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think it is of sufficient importance to place on Hansard. I am quite willing to make it available to all
members.
Housing



HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
AVAILABILITY OF JESUIT COLLEGE BUILDINGS, EDMONTON, TO VETERAN^. AND THEIR FAMILIES
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. In vi^w of the serious housing shortage in the city of Edmonton, will the government give consideration to making the Jesuit college suites, which are under government control and which have been vacant for the past eight months, available to veterans and their families?
Clarence Decatur Howe: I am advised that the Jesuit college was taken over by national defence as a hospital, and has been used as such. The committee on hospitalization has recommended that it be turned over to mines and resources as a hospital for tubercular Indians, and it is proposed to establish it as such. Brigadier Colin Campbell, who is an officer of the Department of Munitions and Supply particularly concerned with the use of buildings that may be available for emergency housing, has examined the situation and has been attempting to get ten of the buildings for temporary housing. The Department of National Health and Welfare state that it will require all of the buildings by July 1 next, but that department . has consented to the use of eight buildings, on the understanding that the buildings will be turned back by July 1. Brigadier Campbell is now attempting to get some agency, either of the city or of the government, to administer the eight buildings for temporary housing with the understanding that they will be available only until July 1.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: The
Minister of Transport told the house on Friday that he would be able to give the house a reply to-day to my inquiry as to the policy of the department or of the government with regard to facilitating the transportation back to England of service men who fought in the Canadian army. There is a great deal of accommodation available which is going back to England empty. I understand there are several steamers sailing within a day or two. I have
[Mr. Ilsley.l	.
the names of twenty-one service men who are prepared to pay for their accommodation but are not permitted to sail on these steamers to return to England.	.


Lionel Chevrier: I have received a telegram similar to that mentioned by the hon. member, but I am informed that that is a subject matter which comes under the British ministry of war transport. With reference to the men of whom my hon. friend speaks-at least those under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott)-I have asked his office to give the matter immediate attention.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), having to do with men who are now being asked to volunteer for the interim forces. Many of them wish to volunteer, but before doing so they want the assurance from the government that, when they return, or when their service is completed at the end of two years, they will be in the position in which they are to-day, namely that of being reinstated in the civilian jobs they held before their original enlistments. Is the minister in a position to make a statement in the matter?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	The hon. member^asked
a similar question a week or ten days ago. I took the matter up at once with the Department of Labour, the department responsible in this matter, and I can assure the hon. member it is receiving the most active consideration at this time. I trust the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) will be able to make a statement to the house in the course of a day or two.



WAR AND DEMOBILIZATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, November 2, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures deemed necessary or advisable in consequence of the war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Golding in the chair.

Ford Motor Plant Strike

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: On Friday night we had reached item 6 in connection with air services, and I presume we will begin at that point to-day.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I attempted to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing what 1 consider a matter of urgent public importance. Mr. Speaker at that time pointed out that the matter concerning which I had proposed the adjournment might be discussed at this point. Therefore I now rise to make some observations.
May I assure the committee that I approach the matter with a good deal of diffidence. This afternoon the Minister of Finance read to the house a statement which I considered to be serious, urgent and important, setting out one side of the dispute at the Ford plant. It is regrettable at a time like this, when we have just finished a war which was supposed to have preserved certain rights, privileges and freedom to the people of this country, that we should find not far from the House of Commons, in this province of Ontario, thousands of men and women who stood on the production line, suffered and worked long hours, and all the rest of it, in order that we might defeat totalitarianism abroad, and all that it stands for. I say this is regrettable, although as yet there has been no declaration on the part of the government that the war is officially terminated.
In addition to that, a large number of the men who are on that picket line to-day at the Ford plant are men who went through Sicily, western Germany, and other campaigns, with packs on their backs, fighting for the right to live in this country. To-day, after a dispute which to my knowledge in the last seventeen months has been discussed in the house on several occasions, we find the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, operating with the sanction of the national government in Canada, in there on a picket line starting a new war on the home front. I say that to me it is very distasteful.
I make this further observation, that I do not believe what is taking place to-day in Ontario could take place in any other province of Canada. To me it is reminiscent of thirty years ago, when there was no labour legislation in Canada, when the mine workers m Nova Scotia had to face the cavalry and ail the machinery of war of that time to establish a union with a right to talk to their employers. But to-day that could not happen in Nova Scotia, and I do not think it could
happen in any province of Canada other than the one in which it is happening. The reason for this condition is that Ontario has no labour legislation to which the workers of that province can appeal in the event of the development of a situation such as we now find at Windsor.
While I am not being critical of the statement of the Minister of Finance, he pointed out that while this matter has been the subject of negotiation, and while the legal machinery of government was being canvassed by the workers at the Ford plant, the federal government was appealed to by the government of Ontario, despite the fact that according to press reports the council of the city of Windsor were asking for a postponement of any ' decision on the part of governments to use police. It was asked that this action be withheld until that city council had the opportunity of discussing the matter, and of trying to bring about a settlement by negotiation.
Mr. Drew and company did not wait until Monday. Mr. Blackwell ordered the police in. And, mind you, that is when the condition became serious. The picketing at the Ford plant prior to that time was not mass picketing; I am informed by union officials it never consisted of more than' fifteen men at any time at any gate. There was no disturbance; there was no disorder. There were many ways in which officials could have got to the plant, were they desirous of doing so, without going through the picket line. I understand the river side of the plant is tunnelled, and there is free access in and out. They did not go in or go out that way. It is simply a matter of provoking a bad situation, and the first responsibility must be accepted by the provincial government; I wish to make that clear. Secondly, the federal government will have to accept its full share of responsibility for sending in the mounted police, because to-day in Windsor, instead of peaceful picketing, the possibility of bringing about a settlement bynegotiation has been seriously hampered by such action.
There is mass picketing there to-day-and I have gone through enough of these things to know that your chance of settling it now. without a whole lot of misery, heartaches and scars, will be pretty slim.
Away back, months ago, we pointed out in the house on several occasions that the fact that the Ford Motor company had abrogated its signed agreement with the union in the matter of grievance procedure showed a weakness in the national labour code. We suggested at that time changes in the code which would prevent occurrences of this kind. I have not talked about the province doing anything
Ford Motor Plant Strike

about it because I knew they had no legislation that has a bearing on this situation. I am reasonably sure that they are not going to enact anything that will protect the working people of the province in this kind of situation.
Failing to get changes in the labour code that might hav'e offset this occurrence, just a few days ago we discussed the matter in the house. We had been watching the situation and realized that it was becoming serious. The longer settlement was delayed, the more difficult settlement became. We suggested at that time that a controller be sent in. Mind you, the union officials had made the ieclaration that if the government sent in a controller they were prepared to go back to work the next morning. This would enable the plant to resume operation and the status quo would be maintained. Such a controller sent in by the federal government would have the prerogative of getting management and the employees together and trying to work out a satisfactory agreement. It could have been done at that time without very much difficulty. But it was not done, and I am afraid that this is likely to spread. Already there are thirty other plants out in that area because of the police intervention; that has drawn out that many more. You have added to the picket line. In addition, representatives of this organization right across the country- they are tied in with the Canadian Congress of Labour, which has approximately 30.000 members-are discussing this matter. I am concerned about my own end of the country, where representatives of the automobile workers' union are consulting with the mine workers' union in Nova Scotia. I may get a telegram to-morrow morning stating that they are going to stand next. You may get word from the west to the same effect.
I am telling you that organized labour in this country recognizes that the Ford strike is not merely a struggle on the part of the Ford workers for union security or for a slight increase in wages; it is an official demonstration of a determination on the part of industry in this province to. smash the unions and trade union agreements. Organized labour are not going to sit idly by and see that take place in Windsor, because they recognize it as the initial wedge being driven in, action that will be repeated throughout the country. We asked the government to take some immediate action, to accept some responsibility, to send someone in there with authority who could take charge of that plant and get the men back to work.
I am concerned about this matter spreading across the country, perhaps within forty-eight [Mr. Gillis. 1
hours. If there is a clash op the picket line, someone is going to get hurt. If there is a clash on the picket line and someone is hurt in Windsor, you are apt to have a stand right from Vancouver to Louikburg. The unions in Ontario are new, they are war unions, and perhaps they are immature with respect to fighting this sort of battle. Do not forget that in the other provinces we fought this battle many years ago. We know what is taking place. It is just a repetition of what we went through thirty years ago. They are that far behind in this province in the field of trade unionism. The rest of the organized workers across this country are going to stand and give assistance to the men in Windsor, both financially and morally.
This is an attack upon many of the things we thought we fought this war for, including freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. I have heard lip service paid to it on the floor of this house. I am not surprised at the statements that were read this afternoon by the Minister of Finance. The people affected by that strike appealed to the government, but no action was taken. Then the insurance companies became afraid that $35,000,000 of insurance might be affected, and they appealed to Mr. Drew on the basis of the possible loss in money. In order to protect the insurance companies and private property, Mi-. Drew 'is quite prepared to promote civil strife in Windsor. I am very sorry to see that that action has been condoned by the federal government by way of lending assistance in the form of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
It is said that the police going in there is not intervention in the strike, that the provincial police or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police going in there has nothing to do with the basic issues of the strike. Well it has everything to do with it. You might as well say that the declaration of war on the part of the Canadian government against Germany had nothing to do with the war, that it. did not involve us in the war. There is a little war on in Windsor between the Ford Motor company and the workers of Windsor. The crucial issue is whether they are going to have the right to a union or not. They are fighting that battle themselves. The intervention of the police, no matter how you may try to cover it up or polish it np.ds intervention on the side of the employer, and it is recognized as such by those who are on the picket line to-day. It has strengthened that picket line a thousand per cent. It has caused tempers to flare.
I understand that this afternoon the Minister of Labour has gone to Windsor with a

Ford Motor Plant Strike
minister of the province of Ontario. It is unfortunate that they did not go down to Windsor months ago and take some action before this situation developed. My suggestion this afternoon, without saying any more about it, is this: Unless the federal government are prepared to do what we suggested in the first place, unless they are prepared to appoint a controller and allow the status quo to prevail; unless they send in that controller with the authority of the federal government to get management and employees together and work out a collective agreement-that is their own business-it will be difficult to have a settlement. That must be done if you want to protect property.
Do not forget that the action of sending police in there has jeopardized human life, which is much more important than the protection of $35,000,000 worth of insurance or the protection of this plant and equipment. Do not forget that every day the strike is on means a loss in wages, it means pinched stomachs for the women and children of the strikers who are on the picket line. Hundreds of the men on the picket line are men who offered their lives to protect the institutions of this country during the last four years.
In the light of the situation that has now developed and which may spread across this country, surely this is the time to send in someone with some common sense to try to iron this thing out with the union officials and the representatives of 'the Ford Motor company. We must recognize the fact that strife in this province may spread all over the country. If you want to protect the plant and equipment and insurance, the best thing to do is to settle this strike. They are not asking you to take sides one way or the other; they are asking you to send someone in who has sufficient common sense to work this thing out. Then leave the matter of wages, conditions and union agreement to the men themselves.
Neither the Minister of Labour nor the minister from che provincial government is going to get a settlement in there under the present situation. They cannot get at the thing to start with. They cannot talk to anybody there. The simple fact is that the situation has advanced to the point where they are not going to talk to you. As I have said, they have already made that proposal to you.
The Minister of Labour has stated in the bouse that he presented a four-point programme to them. There is no need of my going over that. He told us he never got a reply. My information is that the union officials, in consultation with the Department of Labour, were told that they could make suggestions about that programme. They sent back a four-point programme, but nothing was done about it. The matter has been poorly handled in all directions. In my opinion there is no way of settling it to-day except the way I have just suggested. I say this in all seriousness. It is so easy to start trouble, awfully easy, but it is awfully difficult to get out of it. I went through many of these things years ago. and I do not want to see anybody else go through them because I know what can happen. If that thing breaks loose at Windsor, and you try to smash that picket line, it will be a serious matter, and this government will be to blame, because once things get beyond a certain point you cannot stop it; people do not reason after that.
I am sorry I had to take up so much time, but I earnestly suggest to the Acting Prime Minister, in the light of his statement and of the situation that exists in Windsor at the present time, that instead of just allowing two ministers to go down there to meet a lot of people who are not in a frame of mind to talk to- anybody-let me say that I was talking to some of the union officials on the phone to-day and they made a declaration to this effect-let the government pass an order sending a controller down there and the workers will be back to-morrow morning; then let the employer and employees meet around the conference table and iron out an agreement satisfactory to all concerned. That is the only way in which it can be settled in the present circumstances.


Mr. CROLL:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on this question I am going to try to clear up some confusion and some misunderstanding and a great deal of honest difference of opinion about union practices and union terms and their meanings. I find that in this house there are various members who know a great deal about labour and who use union terms and give them various meanings, and so in my allotted time I am going to endeavour to clarify that situation and give to the house a bird's-eye view of the present labour machinery and make a suggestion that I hope will be helpful.
I will start by defining what collective bargaining is. It is a bargaining agency elected by the employees and which is not dominated, coerced or improperly influenced by the employer in any manner, by way of financial aid or otherwise, and so it presupposes that it is based upon honest intentions on both sides and that there is good will around the table. It does not for a moment contemplate synthetic bargaining-that is, sitting around a table and one party or the other shaking its head from left to right. I make reference
Ford Motor Plant Strike


Mr. MacNICOL:: If it is not too long, why can the hon. member not give a synopsis of it anyway?


David Arnold Croll: I read from the Ottawa Citizen of October 26:
Quebec, October 25.-Premier Maurice Duples-sis to-day told a delegation of Quebec labour unions affiliated with the Canadian Congress of Labour that he was "strongly opposed" to a national labour code. To surrender these labour rights to the federal government "would mean the destruction of confederation at its very base."
I think that puts the premier's position quite clearly. I understand that there may be some opposition from another province. In any event that is the position.
One of the other reasons that we find ourselves in the present position is that our machinery for settling disputes is lacking in the things which conciliation machinery requires. What we need above all else m addition to the laws on our statute books is an incorporation into the employment bureau and into selective service of conciliation services so that, under those circumstances, not only do we find the man a job, but we put him at work and keep him at work.
Let us get downlo the basic problem which' is involved. On the one hand we have the employees who wish to join unions. After all, what are they looking for? They feel that in joining unions they will have a greater amount of security than they formerly had. They feel that the matter of wages is paramount, because after all it is from the wages they receive that they are able to buy their food, clothing and shelter. But I think a great number of people take a very narrow view of this. Hon. members will recall when the average working day was ten or twelve hours, or perhaps some miners will remember when it was fourteen hours. We are now down pretty well to the eight-hour day. Our conception of wages however has not changed to a great extent, but it should change. The worker's conception of wages has changed. He looks upon his wages not only as buying food, clothing and
shelter, but as having an educational and cultural aspect, an entertainment aspect, an old age pension aspect, an aspect related to leisure. For that reason he wants to join with his fellow men.
On the other hand we have the employer of labour. Usually he is a rugged individualist, and in more instances than not he is a pretty benevolent fellow. He believes in free enterprise, and if you asked him I suppose he would say that he was living under a system which was enlightened self-interest. The men ask for union shop and the check-off, and the only way to attain that, they feel, is through collective bargaining. On the other hand the employer, having to submit to collective bargaining, can, if he likes, make that collective bargaining meaningless, as I have already indicated.
Now there you have two opposite schools of thought. I do not think it is necessary for us to' go into either camp. I believe there is a middle way, a way of compromise. I am not talking about opposing one side or the other. Each party has to give up something in order that differences can be settled, and so long as they come around the table with honesty of purpose and in good faith, it is not at all difficult to settle those problems.
In so far as the employer is concerned he naturally takes the position, "Why should I strengthen this union, whose views are diametrically opposed to my views? If they are a strong union, they become vigorous in their bargaining and get a better deal than I would ordinarily want to give them." For that reason he thinks it is in his interest to oppose them as much as he possibly can. On the other hand, the union employee has to protect himself, first against the reactionary employer, he has to protect himself against the non-union employee, and he has also to protect himself against rival unions, company unions-and I could give you a list of those which have been set up from time to time and have been declared illegal.
If there is a lack of union security in the shop, this is what happens, as hon. members well know. The union that is in the shop must not only hold its members but maintain their interest, and one way of doing it is by raising contentious questions and keeping them continually boiling, sometimes initiating disputes which might be otherwise settled, in that way hoping to improve conditions, to show that they are on the job. But in the shops which have union security you will find more often than not that the union is a very constructive and helpful influence. It not only promotes employer-employee relations, but it strives to improve

Ford Motor Plant Strike

efficiency, to increase productivity, to promote the amenities which the men are so anxious to have.
Here are definitions of some terms about which many of us find it difficult to be clear. We talk about a closed shop. A closed shop in the collective agreement means just this: It is an agreement between employer and employee whereby the employer may employ only members of a specified union. He usually does that through the business agent of the union. You see that kind of union, you have lived with that- kind of union for many years in this country without perhaps knowing that you have, because you have that in all craft unions in this country and in all textile unions. If you want a bricklayer or a carpenter you go to the business agent and he is the man who sends the bricklayer or the carpenter, and in the textile industry if you want a cutter or an endmaker you go to the business agent and he produces the man who is able to do the job.
One conception in this country, and I find it everywhere, is that these men are asking for a closed shop. Believe me when I say that the industrial unions have never asked for a closed shop. They do not want a closed shop, and if you gave them one they would not take it. What they are asking for is a union shop, which is altogether different from a closed shop. There is a closed shop in the province of Saskatchewan. There you have the closed shop and the compulsory check-off, . and that is the* ultimate in trade unionism. It is an experiment that is worth watching. It may be unfair to the labour movement generally in this country because it is being put on such a narrow basis. I merely point that out as an example. Perhaps also the narrow basis of the Social Credit experiment may have had something to do with the experiment itself. It may be fair or unfair; it depends on the way you look at it. Now the closed shop may discourage industry from going into Saskatchewan, or on the other hand it may have the effect of encouraging it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend started to give an explanation of the difference between the union shop and the closed shop. Will he continue that?


David Arnold Croll: In a moment.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I think the hon, member has described the Saskatchewan legislation wrongly. What we have out there is a union shop, not a closed shop.


David Arnold Croll: A union shop and check-off?
[Mr. CrolI.J


Percy Ellis Wright: A union shop and checkoff.


David Arnold Croll: I may have made a mistake, but my remarks will be applicable to it.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: The hon. member mentioned Social Credit in connection with Saskatchewan. He made a mistake.


David Arnold Croll: I said the experiment in Alberta. I could not be so wrong. On the other hand, as I said, it may encourage the industry to go there. It is quite possible, and I know very little about Saskatchewan industry, that giving them a union shop and check-off is like giving someone a sleigh in Florida. It does not snow there. So far as I am concerned, I am very hopeful that it will be successful, and I hope it is encouraged. We will watch it.
I gave the definition of closed shop/ Let us tee what an open shop is, and presently we shall get to the union shop. Formerly an open shop was a shop where there was no agreement in effect and no union activities were permitted. To-day the definition has changed somewhat. The definition of open shop to-day is applicable to a shop where collective bargaining agreements do not make membership in a particular union a condition of employment, and it is open to union and non-union members alike. Ford had an open shop. Now a union shop-and may I for a moment bring you back to the difference between the union shop and the closed shop. The Union Shop Agreement permits the employer to hire anyone he wishes, but all employees must be members of the union within a specified time and they must maintain that membership as a condition of employment. There is another sort of -shop, and it is called maintenance of "membership shop, or irrevocable check-off. That is often recommended in this country; that covers all employees who are members of a union. It covers those who later becomp members of the union, and they must remain members of the union, during the life of the agreement, as a condition of employment.
Then of course there is the check-off about which we hear so much. The check-off may be either voluntary or revocable, and all it consists of is the signature of authorization by the employee and presenting it to the pay office, the company then deducts from the monthly earnings of the employee the dues belonging to the union and remits them to the union. The check-off is very important to the union, particularly in its early life, because it ensures stability of income; but it is merely a mechanical process.

Ford Motor Plant Strike
As to the distinction between the closed shop and the union shop, I have tried to give you the kernel of it. The closed shop must hire members of a specified union. The union shop -may hire anyone it likes, but he must in time become a member of the union in the shop. Maintenance of membership covers all who are or become members of the union and permits non-union employees to share in the benefits of work on equal terms in the shop. The check-off is merely an administrative function, and whether it is a closed shop, union shop or maintenance of membership they all need it.
So far as the union shop is concerned, I too read Maclean's as to whether it is democratic or not democratic, and I was not impressed particularly by the people who had the affirmative. I do not think it is a question of fairness or unfairness at all. The real question is whether the injustice involved displaces a greater injustice. You often hear about take-home pay. That is a common term that is used and I suppose everyone knows it means -what the envelope contains when you take it home. Perhaps I can bring it home closer to us. We here receive $4,000 for our very heavy work, and after expenses are paid most of us may have a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars. That is the take-home pay, so the wages are not $4,000, but actually $1,000 or $1,500.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are optimistic.


David Arnold Croll: That is the money that buys the groceries. That is the way the worker understands it. You have also heard a great deal about severance pay. That too is a term that is used a great deal, and I can best explain it to you by giving an example. A corporation president suddenly becomes chairman of the board. Usually he has become ineffectual, and very aged, and usually they have had had to kick him upstairs, for a consideration.
There are certain clauses that are common to all agreements. You will find in every collective agreement a clause dealing with grievance procedure, how complaints should be handled, where the forms are, whether the staff will have time off and who pays for the time. You will find a clause dealing with the authorization of the check-off. You will find a clause dealing with the matter of discrimination by the employer, or coercion by the employee. Other clauses deal with seniority rights, with the rights of men from the armed forces returning to their jobs, or synthetic rights to those who have never had a job in the factory before.
There are various clauses which deal with complaints of employees who claim that they
are not members of the union, in which case there is a procedure laid down whereby the minister appoints a man who is the final arbiter. He decides, in the light of all the evidence, whether a man is or is not a member of the union. Usually there is a clause dealing with how contracts are to be renewed. Those are various things that they must agree on at the conference table.
Disputes arise in various ways. One of the not uncommon disputes is a jurisdictional dispute between two unions, perhaps the A. F. of L. and the C.I.O. union. They have an argument over jurisdiction. Sometimes you will have a dispute arising over recognition of a union; sometimes it will be on the question of conditions and wages, sometimes on the question of procedure, sometimes on the interpretation of a contract, and in the particular case which we have before us, on the question of union shop and check-off. Usually they are settled by negotiation. Where the parties are unable to agree in Ontario the Ontario regional board steps in, either sends a conciliation officer or hears the dispute and gives a decision. If that does not settle the dispute the dominion labour minister can step in and appoint a board, either a three-man board, or, by agreement, a one-man board. But none of the boards can do more than recommend; the employer may accept the recommendation or may not, and the same thing applies to the employee.
In the Ford case a board did sit and it made a recommendation. The majority of the board, two members out of three, recommended in. favour of the check-off. One member of the board recommended maintenance of membership and check-off, and the employers' representative just shook his head to all of them and said: "Nothing doing." If the negotiations fail, then, of course, there is an opportunity for voluntary arbitration. That is exactly what is being tried in this particular case; and if that fails then there is nothing left to do but just to slug it out. I need not say anything further about what should be the position of those people who stand on the side lines.
Our conciliation machinery proceeds upon the theory that one board will hear one dispute and the members of the board may not know anything at all about labour; they may not know anything at all about the question in dispute and they may never have sat on a board. But whatever findings they finally make are merely recommendations. As I said before, either side may refuse to be bound.
There are advantages and disadvantages to that procedure. I suppose it is advantageous to say that these are fresh men with fresh
47696-116;
Ford Motor Plant Strike

viewpoints and that they are unprejudiced. Hon. members who have sat on such boards know that what usually happens is that the employers' representative and the employees' representative both make a plea for the chairman who is about the only unprejudiced man on the board. They are not tied to precedent and consequently travel along the road of trial and error. Therefore in time, by putting many fresh minds on the job, we may arrive at some formula. Of course there are some disadvantages to that too, in that there is no continuous development of union security formula in the various findings. In this house we are bound by precedent. Sometimes, if the precedent favours our idea, we think it is a good one; if it does not, we think it is a bad one. In any event we have something to go by, and if we do not like it we can change it. On the other hand, the conciliation boards are not bound by precedent and decisions vary. Sometimes you get a good decision, sometimes you get a bad decision; sometimes the decision will be merely patchwork, and sometimes it stops the bleeding for the time being.
After those decisions are made and neither party feels bound by it, there are still weapons in the hands of the various people. In soTar as the employees are concerned there is always the threat of a strike; there is always the threat of a slow-down, and, of course, there is always the strike which is the weapon of last resort.
I think the committee' should remember that the decision of the top executives rarely determines whether there should or should not be a strike. The decision is always made by the rank and file. It is an economic decision which men dislike to make. It is more fateful to them and to their future than that which led the members of this house to decide whether they could afford to run at the last June election. It is always a decision that, once taken, is seldom put aside.
The history of strikes is that strikes are seldom broken. If they are, all the employer gets from it is guerrilla warfare. In so far as the employer is concerned, he has some weapons in his hands. He can somehow get rid of the people he thinks are the trouble-makers. On the other hand, he can come to the table, sit around and shake his head, and in time the strike turns out to be a lock-out.
One of the great influences-and both the employer and employees are alive to the situation-is public opinion, because there is always a moral issue involved. In a strike usually the consumer is the sucker, because he needs the product of the business; his bread and

butter depend on it. Well, he sits by and seldom has a word to say. Naturally, we agree that that is morally wrong. But there is public opinion. Speaking broadly, the public never want to see the men beaten; they are always ready to give the men a little more than they had before, perhaps not all they want, but a little more.
I have made some investigation into the history of strikes in this province. The latest figures I have been able to obtain show that in the last fifty-five disputes we have had where there have been boards sitting, thirty-three of them have recommended the checkoff; twelve have recommended the union shop and maintenance of membership. These have all been majority recommendations. I point out these figures to the committee merely to indicate how the wind is blowing.
We often have these questions asked: Why the check-off? Why do they not have the check-off in England where trade unions are cock of the roost? As the committee knows, the union shops are old institutions in England. They are respected and cherished. Their growth has been gradual; they have been there for a very long time, and neither industry nor the employees would have it any other way. It is not fair to compare our new industrial unions with the old established unions of the old country. It is not any fairer to do that than it'is to compare their pub with our beer parlour. When our beer parlours start to prize their licences; when the people learn to drink and not guzzle beer; when beer starts to taste like something, perhaps it will take on a different aspect. But for the present it is hardly a fair comparison.
We must not forget that every day in the life of every employer in this country he carries on a check-off, because he checks off when he deducts taxes for the Minister of Finance. He checks off when he makes deductions for victory bonds sold to his employees. In welfare drives he does it again. All it requires is just another punch on a calculating machine, and handing over a cheque.
The employer who refuses the check-off to his employee is doing it, not in the interest of good employer-employee relations. I said before that the collection of dues was a problem of the highest dimension with the union, because it requires those dues in its very early stages; and it is necessary, no matter what sort of job the men may have. Unions are never satisfied without it-and unions are no different from any other group of people. They have delinquents, and the easiest thing to do is to take the amount off at the source.

Ford Motor Plant Strike
Instead of turning in our income tax returns at the end of the year, and then wondering whether w-e shall have something with which to pay taxes, the Minister of Finance has made the practice of making sure of our contribution by taking it off at the source. The union merely wishes to follow what it thinks is a fair, well established and fine practice. They want to take it off at the source, so that there may be no dunning of union members.
After all, these people are the same as we are. Many of us who belong to the Masons or the Knights of Columbus, the law society or the medical society, know that we have delinquents. If those organizations could collect their dues at the source they would like to do so.
In dealing with delinquents and union members with shortcomings, naturally the officials do not like to throw aw-ay the good will of the members. Of course they can fine a member if he does not pay his dues, but if he cannot pay dues he certainly cannot pay a fine. The only alternative is to expel such a member. At various times I have heard some talk about expelling members and depriving them of their livelihood, but that is-the last thing a union wishes to do. In twenty years of contact with labour unions and labour officials I have never heard of a man's being expelled. It would be a most unhappy experience for the union. In the final analysis, they just forget about it.
I think no one will quarrel with my statement that unions are a powerful force in our community, and not only that, but that they are a powerful democratic force. I do not think anyone will quarrel with me when I say that there are 45.000 industrial union people in Ontario, and that they perform a useful function in society. Usually they are behind victory bond campaigns; they are behind social problems, such as drives for social services. In the opinion of the labouring people, the unions are the only ones that can stand up, not to a benevolent employer but to a reactionary one. All that is asked of members of unions, in return for security, is that they give responsibility. As they become united, naturally they become more responsible. Up to date, the over-all record will show that they have nothing to be ashamed of.
But I point out to the committee something often lost sight of: If the employer would leave these industrial unions alone, and let them go about their business of unionism and the, administration of unions, instead of constantly fighting and harassing them, I think he would draw dividends.
What is happening to-day is that in fighting with the union they are keeping in office all the firebrands, and the union has not time to get down to the work of administration, and the important work for which the union is there to function. If the employers would only see that, they would realize that one of the most serious charges of irresponsibility made against union leaders can be remedied by action of the same employers.
Unions have also been accused of political action-and I do not think they deny it. On the other hand, I think most of us can search our souls and see that we are all somehow- responsible for throwing them into the hands of my hon. friends over there. Mind you, I would like to see them on our side-or at least more of them; but they were desperate. They were looking for friends in this country, and one cannot blame them a bit if they felt that they had friends in one particular camp.
If we are to get a full picture I think we ought to ask ourselves, a few questions, as we approach this problem. We ought to ask ourselves if it is a good thing for Canada to have such great economic power, in the hands of so few people. We must also ask ourselves this question: Is it good for Canada to have an industry which is built up on tariff walls, nurtured by our natural resources, provided with a pool of people, subsidized in times of unemployment by municipalities, the province and the dominion, an industry which, as has been pointed out in the house, has large swollen profits, which enjoys a virtual monopoly in Canada and which manufactures a product essential to the economic life of our country-I wonder whether a company, under those circumstances has a right in bad faith to refuse to bargain collectively, because it has. archaic views, or because of any particular pique.
I think the committee agrees that the w-brkers have no right to violate the civil rights of industry. And then, I ask the committee:	Has industry the right to impose
economic violence upon the workers? Can we afford to give Canadian workers less of the democratic processes and of industrial justice than do United States executives across the boundary line to men who do the same work, under similar conditions, making the same product and for the same company- with the exception that we in this country have the privilege of paying more for the product than they pay for it on the other side of the river?
If that is victory; if that is what we fought for, then V-E day and V-J day become meaningless, and many people in Canada will feel
Ford Motor Plant Strike


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the hon. member not include in that list the name of Mr. Bernard Rose, K.C., a Montrealer who has had wide experience in adjusting labour disputes?


David Arnold Croll: I would point out that the list is inclusive, not exclusive. I am sure there are many more who could be included. These men are familiar 'to me. I am not familiar with the gentleman, but if my hon. friend recommends him he is satisfactory to me.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He has done a very fine job.	[DOT]


David Arnold Croll: I agree entirely. I want to
point out that strikers never want an industry to fold up. No industry ever folded up because it gave its workers good wages and good conditions. All the workers want is a share of the good things in life. If this strike is broken, the Ford company will not have won a victory. All it will mean is that guerrilla warfare will be carried on throughout the whole country until the forces are once more marshalled for a new deployment under different conditions, perhaps under new leaders.
I thought, when the proposition was put forward by the minister, that it would not be accepted. I pointed out to him that in asking the men to go back to work while the matter was arbitrated he was asking a good deal. Men look upon that as being, not only a loss of prestige, but a loss of the strike, no matter what verdict may be given. I do not think the situation is hopeless at all. I think we have been a little too quick on the draw. I should not say "we"; I think the province of Ontario has been too quick on the draw. We must not forget that an offer was made to the company a few days before, the offer was made to the employees. They came back with some suggestions, but we have not as yet heard from the company. If the company accepts I am sure the union will reconsider their view.


Mr. MARTIN:: They turned it down.


David Arnold Croll: The company? When?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Saturday, I think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No publicity was given
to that.


David Arnold Croll: I did not know that. I have read all the press. In any event we have the situation where the union have attached some conditions. It is not too late. I hesitate to say any more than I have said to-day, but I do say this; We have reached the stage where something needs to be done. If the company has turned it down; if the men have turned it down, some, action is required whether we like it or not. In order to be fair both to the company and to the union.

Ford Motor Plant Strike
it is necessary that the government, in view of the lack of machinery, step in. I think it is obvious that, in order to avoid possible bloodshed, the government should step in immediately and put a controller in charge who will take over.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like a little
clarification. I understood the hon. member to say that it was the province of Ontario that had stepped in. I heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), or it may have been the Minister of Labour, state that it was tlv Windsor police commission.


David Arnold Croll: I would point out to the hon. member that the same condition as existed last Wednesday has existed in Windsor for eight solid weeks. As I see it, for eight weeks the police commission let the condition grow worse from day to day. Do not forget that the police commission passed their resolution on Thursday and that the premier of Ontario was here on Monday to make sure that his back was fully protected and that things would be going along well.


Mr. FLEMING:: The hon. member said that the government should step in; I take it that he means the federal government.


David Arnold Croll: That is what should happen at this time. I say that because I have been talking to my home in Windsor. I understand that for many blocks around the plant they have erected barricades made up of cars. I have seen too much of barricades to forget-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think the hon. member heard my question.


David Arnold Croll: I am saying that a controller should be put into the Ford plant immediately.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think the hon. member got my question. He said that the government should step in; I. take it when he says "the government" that he means the dominion government?


David Arnold Croll: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to follow the last speaker in the remarks that he has made. I would just like to point out that there is no need of suggesting that the government should step in. The government is in up to its neck, but in a way which in my opinion, it was not necessary to get in if it had got in a little earlier. I do not believe there is much use in discussing this subject unless we try to find out the causes leading up to this particular strike. It is regrettable that within little less than a month
after V-J day this company and its employees both of whom had such an excellent record of production during the war were fighting with each other. The plant is idle; the employees are out of work, and the manager, as far as I can learn, is sulking.
There should have been some way of bringing these parties together. In my opinion the responsibility for doing that rests upon the federal government, more particularly upon the federal Department of Labour. How did this happen? Some of the reasons were touched upon by the last speaker. In the first place because of the long-standing policy and attitude of Canadian employers generally of refusing to deal with organized labour. Hon. gentlemen who disagree with 'that point of view should read, if they have mot already done so, the May, 1943, report of the national war labour board.
The second reason for this state of affairs follows, in my opinion, from the statements made by the Minister of Labour prior to the election, that as soon as possible controls were going down the drain. Well, if controls go down the drain, something else will not go down the drain, and that is the relations between employers and employees.
The third reason-and I mentioned this when I spoke on another occasion in this house- is the tacit agreement of the government with industrialists to depress wages in this country. Exception was taken to that statement when I made it before, but I think I now have the proof. I have in my hands a report that appeared in the Vancouver Promnce, and, I imagine, in all the papers across Canada, of an interview on October 12 with the deputy minister of labour and director of national selective service, Mr. MacNamara, who is quoted as having said:
After three years of necessary "regimentation" Canadian workers will shortly get back freedom of action.
What sort of freedom of action do the workers get back? I will skip the rest of the interview to the last paragraph:
Mr. MacNamara said to-day that there are indications that high-paid war-time workers are beginning to realize that they cannot hope to command comparable wages at their former p .'ace-time jobs and are becoming reconciled to the situation.
Reconciled to the situation! Reconciled to the freedom of having to accept lower wages! That is the freedom the workers get out of the elimination of controls. He went on:
More and more men are returning to their former jobs. All the government can do just now is to keep workers infornud as to the number and type'of jobs available.
Ford Motor Plant Strike

No wonder, with a condition of that kind facing the workers, that they make protest. Why could we not pay as high wages in ordinary peace time, after we had released perhaps 2,000,000 people from unproductive war work and had them ready for productive work? Why should the workers have to take lower wages? Why should the workers have to become reconciled to lower wages? That sort of talk just does not make sense. The greatest need at the present time not only in Canada but throughout the world is production, and at the very time that we need production we are reducing the rewards of labour and the means by which labour can purchase its increased production. As I said, it does not make sense.
I suggest to the go'vernment that, instead of fostering a policy of lowering wages in order that this country might compete in a mythical world market, they institute a policy of maintaining wages, so that they can put the people to work. The workers need incentives as well as do employers, so that they will be able to buy the products of their labour. That is the crux of the dispute in the Windsor plant.
Let us remember that the Ford plant was one of the last to accept the policy of collective bargaining during the war, and they really never did accept it except in a token sort of way, because when the strike came on September 12 the employees had been negotiating with the company for an agreement for seventeen months. The Department of Labour had sufficient power to take action to keep the employees and the company in negotiation until a working agreement was arrived at.
I have outlined what in my opinion are the basic reasons for this dispute and for other disputes that will come. Having stated the causes, I believe they themselves indicate the remedy. I would suggest that the Department of Labour insist, as it can insist, on the Ford Motor company entering into an agreement with its employees. The minister takes the position that he cannot take sides in this issue. I agree with him that he cannot take sides. But there is one thing which I thinlc the minister overlooked and which was stated by the previous speaker, namely, that there are three parties to every labour dispute: the employer, the employee and the public. The Minister of'Labour, if he cannot take sides, can at least keep the public informed as to who is responsible if a settlement is not made. There is nothing that he cannot do to keep the people of this country well informed as to who is preventing a settlement, the workers or the management. Once that is done, I think the situation will be made easier for the minister himself. So I suggest to the govern-
(Mr. Maclnnis.]
ment that, instead of either tacitly accepting or agreeing with employers for the reduction of wages, they start on a policy of maintaining wages and even raising wages in the lower income levels. Remember that wages were frozen in these levels during the wrar.
I have already referred to the national war labour board's report. In that report the board proposed that workers should be free to negotiate for increased wages where the rates were below fifty cents an hour.
I also suggest to the government that, in whatever way it can be done, whether through conference with the provinces or otherwise, they institute a system of compulsory collective bargaining; that is, making bargaining compulsory on both employers and employees. I am not now suggesting that the acceptance of findings should be compulsory: that matter can be decided later. I agree with the hon. member for Spadina that on these conciliation and arbitration boards we should have at least a chairman that has some understanding of labour-management relations. The hon. member mentioned a number of names. I should like to add another, that of a man who, I am sorry to say, gave up a position as chairman of the national labour board, which he handled very effectively, to enter politics, for which I do not think he was so well fitted. I refer to to Hon. C. P. McTague. I have had occasion to criticize him in this chamber, but never for his decisions in labour disputes. He had an understanding of the underlying philosophy applicable as between worker and management which is possessed by only a few of the judges whom I have seen on conciliation boards; and we need men of his kind.
I believe also that the government, in whatever way it can be done, should make union security compulsory where it is asked for by employees. It is a singular fact that very often Canadian companies which are branches of United States corporations refuse to accept in Canada labour conditions which are' in effect on the other side of the line. In this case what the workers of Windsor are asking for is in effect in Detroit. We had in Vancouver a strike by employees of the American Can company who asked for a union shop, which the company refused, although it was in effect in their plant at Seattle. I am glad to say that that situation has been remedied through an award made by Mr. Justice Richards.
There is one other point to which I should like to draw the attention of the committee. During the war the workers have had a few years of full employment and the economic security which goes with that condition. They


Ford Motor Plant Strike
are going back now to a condition which Mr. MacXamara calls "freedom of action." which means freedom to work for a few weeks or a few- months, and the harder they work, the more they produce, the quicker they will be looking for another job, which usually is not there.
Before we can have industrial peace; before we can attain the state of cooperation in industry which is so much desired, we must do something which will remove that fear of unemployment from the mind of the worker.
It is not going to be easy. Remember that as our means of production improve and as we can produce greater amounts of goods with less labour in less time, more and more labour will be eliminated and permanent unemployment. will become the lot of an ever-increasing number of workers. I saw somewhere that the productive efficiency of industries in the United States increased twenty-five per cent during the war period, and I imagine that there has been the same degree of increase in Canada. If we do not raise wages so that the workers can benefit by this increase in industrial efficiency, we shall in no time be back to the depression of the thirties; a depression, let us never forget, not of scarcity but of abundance. This is the fear that must be removed from the minds of the workers if we expect to get their cooperation and avoid disputes such as we have to-day in the city . of Windsor and which may occur to-morrow in any city in Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: This debate is timely; in fact we should have had it a long time ago. The Ford strike question is one of property and civil rights and, therefore, a provincial responsibility. The provincial authorities of Ontario have argued that the dominion government took over, through the War Measures Act, and propose to retain, through bill No. 15 which is now on the order paper, the power to deal with industrial disputes such as that now raging in Windsor. The Minister of Labour has not clarified the situation. This, I believe, is one of the greatest mistakes he has made. I have high respect for him, but I believe he has cheapened himself and greatly lowered his prestige throughout the country by a vacillating attitude, acting as though he did not dare take a stand in this most important matter. No other member of the federal government has clarified the situation. Consequently the constitutional aspects of the matter are not generally known in the country. I understand that the Ontario government through Mr. Blackwell has declared that the dominion government has the authority which ordinarily the
provincial government would have, this authority being that of the federal government under the War Measures Act. The dominion government has not conceded that fact, so that the whole situation is in a most unsatisfactory light.
Under the War Measures Act, just what is the situation as to the power to act in connection with industrial disputes? Has the federal government the authority and the responsibility to deal with this question, or has the Ontario government that authority?
I think the very first requisite is to clarify that situation. Unquestionably this Ford strike has to do with property and civil rights and it is, therefore, unchallengeably a provincial affair. If the dominion government has taken full responsibility through the War Measures Act and proposes to continue it through bill No. 15, then let everyone know, and we shall know immediately where to pin the responsibility and of whom to demand the results.
Something else that is very vague is . the question, just what is the policy of the dominion government and what is the policy of the Ontario government? Does the dominion government through the federal Minister of Labour favour the principle of union security, or does it not? If the federal government would make a clear-cut statement everyone would know where we stand, but it seems to me that once more the government is vacillating and shifting in an unsatisfactory manner, and by adopting that policy it is contributing to the gravity of the situation confronting Canada to-day.
Where does the Ontario government stand with respect to union security? Nowhere have I been able to find any clear-cut declaration from any official in Ontario as to whether or not it supports the principle of union security. Therefore, throughout the country no one knows where the Ontario government stands, whether it is behind the workers who are seeking the freedom of security or whether it is behind the men who are apparently seeking to destroy that security and break the strike.
This matter should be cleared up at the earliest possible moment, and I warn the people responsible, both in Ottawa and in Toronto, that they are playing with something a little worse than fire. They are playing with fire over dynamite. If this thing once gets going out of control they will be the people who will suffer least, because there will be hundreds of thousands of people in this country, who have no chance at all to play any part directly or indirectly in dealing with the question, who will be the luckless and innocent sufferers.
Ford Motor Plant Strike .

I think we have a right to a clear-cut declaration on the part of each of these governments, and after the declaration is made, then the next thing would be to pass legislation. At the' present time- we must assume that both the federal government and the Ontario government favour union security. If they do, let them pass legislation at once implementing the principles of union security. If they favour only partial union security, let them pass legislation that will go as far as they support it. Then everyone will know where they stand. If it should be that the federal government and the provincial government , pass legislation, even by order in council, clearly implementing the principles of union security, then immediately we should be able to proceed in settling the strike.
Mr. Campbell, 1 believe, has definitely declared, in the statement read this afternoon by the hon. member for Spadina, that if the governments in Canada would pass legislation implementing union security, the plant would fall in line. Can a man do more than that? After all, why should Mr. Campbell have to take the responsibility for passing legislation in the Dominion of Canada to deal with industrial disputes? Surely, if the governments in Canada have any back-bone and leadership at all they are qualified to pass that legislation and will do so.
The matter could be taken care of very easily by order in council by each of the governments-order in council subject to ratification by the legislatures concerned. They could deal with the whole matter as an emergency situation. If, after the statement made by Mr. Campbell that the Ford Motor company would fall into line with legislation passed by those Iiaving authority, the company hesitated or delayed in keeping its promise implied by that statement of Mr. Campbell, then the Ontario government should appoint a provincial commissioner with full authority, power and responsibility to act in order to effect a settlement. That is the constitutional step.
There are too many people in this country who are talking about having the central government assume power. Mr. Dupiessis, in the statement read this afternoon by the hon. member for Spadina, indicated definitely that he does not propose to surrender provincial rights, and there is certainly no reason why he should. There is a right way to go about these matters. Let the Ontario government take the lead by appointing a commissioner, and then let the federal government, acting through its Department of Labour, appoint, a similar commissioner with power to cooperate with the provincial commissioner and with the full authority of this parliament behind him.

This is the procedure to follow and it should not be any longer delayed. The members of the Social Credit 'movement favour having both the provincial and the federal government pass legislation implementing the principle of union security. This will involve everything, practically, as far as I know, that the strikers in Windsor have asked for. They call it union security and we take their term.
The hon. member for Spadina pointed out that no such legislation as I have indicated is on the statute books of the United States. That may be, but Alberta already has legislation implementing the principles of union security and certainly if Alberta can pass such legislation, so can Ontario. I understand that Saskatchewan has similar legislation.
What are the steps that ought to be taken immediately? If it is a fact that Mr. Blackwell, attorney general of Ontario, has acknowledged that the federal government has the authority to deal with this dispute under the War Measures Act, and if it is a fact that he has thereby virtually implied that he is willing that the federal government should use that authority in the case of this dispute, then the Ontario government has in effect invited the federal government to act. If the Minister of Labour will make sure that this was the intention behind the statement made by Mr. Blackwell, thereby obtaining the full consent and permission of Ontario to deal with this problem, then he will have a clear way before him, and he should have an order in council passed immediately by the cabinet of this parliament implementing the policy of union security. Then he should appoint a commissioner with full power and responsibility to act. He should give that commissioner instructions to go to Windsor and settle this dispute without further delay.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, my reason for participating in the discussion of this question to-day is particularly to correct some statements made in the course of the debate this afternoon which, I am sorry to say, are in the teeth of the facts. I listened with great attention to the remarks that fell from the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and I wish to speak briefly about some of them.
I wish in the first place to refer to his castigation of the responsible members of the Ontario government. He used expressions like this: "Mr. Drew is quite prepared to promote civil strife." If I understand the rules of the house, that is an unparliamentary remark. In addition to that, it is a most unwarranted reflection upon a very honourable man. Then, in the face of the sense of responsibility that I think most members of the house entertain

Ford Motor Plant Strike
with regard to this difficult situation at Windsor we had expressions on the same subject which are inflammatory.
In the face of this situation, with all its difficulties, with the rising feeling that is all too evident, it ill becomes any member of the house to indulge in inflammatory remarks of the kind we heard from the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Remarks of that kind cannot do anything except fan the flames. When we heard them, coupled with most unwarranted and baseless remarks with regard to responsible ministers of the crown in the province of Ontario, it is time that at least one of us rose to give the committee the facts of the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about inflammatory
actions?


William Henry Golding: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If we may judge the kind of action that we could expect from our C.C.F. friends, if they had the power, by the kind of speeches we hear from them on such occasions as this, we can be sure we could expect inflammatory action from them.


Mr. IRVINE:: That is dodging the question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The first matter that I wish to raise by way of correction of those remarks has to do with reflections thrown upon the law of the province of Ontario. A suggestion was made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South that this sort of thing, apparently the strike and what has followed, could not happen in any other province than Ontario. There were also suggestions that there is something lacking in the statute law of Ontario. I am sorry that the hon. member for Cape Breton South is hot in his seat at the moment, because I should like to adfd something to his information on the subject which, if one may judge from his remarks this afternoon, it is obvious that the hon. member needs.
The province of Ontario has the best labour legislation of all the provinces of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is more, it apparently is not known to some hon. members on the left that the law which relates to collective bargaining is the same law in the province of Ontario as it is in every other province.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is interesting to find my friends on the left listening intently. I hope I can add something to their sum total of information on this subject.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: You cannot do that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: P.C. 1003 owes more to the government of Ontario than to any other government in this dominion. The principal drive for a national labour code with adequate guarantees of collective bargaining for labour organizations-more of that drive came from the present government of Ontario than from the government of any other province, or the dominion government. I will go farther and say that we would have had a more effective measure, a measure of more general application, if the lead given by the government of Ontario had been followed at the conference between the labour officials of the dominion and the various provinces in the fall of 1943, because the representatives of the government of Ontario pleaded at that conference to make this collective bargaining code general throughout the Dominion of Canada, and also to put it on a permanent foundation. It is not on a permanent foundation to-day.


William Irvine: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


William Henry Golding: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to give my hon.
friends some references on the matter of statute law which I think they can ponder with benefit. I refer particularly to three measures of leading importance introduced by the government of Ontario in the legislature of that province in the first session after the general election of 1943. First of all, we have the . Labour Relations Board Act, the act by which P.C. 1003 was made of general application to all industries and employers throughout Ontario. What was sadly lacking in P.C. 1003 was supplied in Ontario by statute of the legislature. There was set up in Ontario a labour relations board, than which there is no better labour relations board functioning in the Dominion of Canada at the present time. I have had some experience with the board, and I know they are making an extremely valuable contribution to the jurisprudence in labour relations throughout the dominion.
I should also like to refer to two other statutes passed at the same time. Chapter 26 of the Acts of 1944 is known as the Hours of Work and Vacation with Pay Act. Following the lead of the government of the province, the legislature enacted that measure limiting hours of work in the province to eight a day and forty-eight in the week. That measure is being brought into effect. It also guarantees one week's vacation with pay to all workers in the province. In addition we
1S34
Ford Motor Plant Strike

have chapter 54 of the statutes of that year, entitled "The Rights of Labour Act." That is a measure which protects trade unions where protection was lacking under the common law. I pause simply to read section 2 of that statute, which reads:
A trade union and the acts thereof shall not be deemed to be unlawful by reason only that one or more of its objects are in restraint of trade.
When the hon. member for Cape Breton South said this afternoon that this could not happen in any other province than Ontario he either spoke without knowledge of the facts in relation to Ontario, or he should learn to be more careful in what he has to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What have those measures done to help the situation in Windsor?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, before the committee rose I was pointing out how wholly lacking in any effective foundation was the charge made that the legislation in effect in Ontario was not as good as is to be found elsewhere in Canada. I pointed out that under the leadership of the present Ontario government, not only is that legislation the finest of its kind among all the provinces, but that the dominion labour code, represented by P.C. 1003, owes more to the government of Ontario than it does to any other government ' in Canada.	/
I wish to contribute, on one other aspect, a correction of the impression made this afternoon by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. He complained that the attorney general of Ontario, the Hon. Leslie Blackwell, had not acted on an informal request received from the' mayor of Windsor, following what was described in the press as an-informal meeting of the city council at Windsor on Sunday.
For the information of the hon. member may I say that, in Ontario, municipal councils have no jurisdiction over police forces. The administration of law and order in a local community is vested, not in the municipal council, but in the local police commission. The initial responsibility in Windsor rests with the police commission of that city. They are the only body with power to direct the movements of the local,police. The city council has no such power.
TMr. Fleming.]
The request for police assistance which went to the attorney general was a request from the police commission of Windsor, the proper body to make such a request. All the attorney general did was to comply with the request made by the body authorized to make it. When we hear suggestions that the -attorney general should have disregarded that request from the police commission at Windsor, and instead should have acted upon the request from the mayor, such suggestions entirely overlook the proper constitutional relationship, on the one hand of the police commission and on the other hand of the municipal council.


Air. REID:: Who appoints the police
commission?


Donald Methuen Fleming: In all these municipalities police commissions are composed of the county court judge, the senior police magistrate and the mayor. It is well that the administration of police forces in local communities is not in the hands of municipal councils. Since they are in the hands of police commissions we know at least that, so far as the majority of the members of the commissions are concerned, they are removed from local political influence. It is well that that is so.
When I speak of the attorney general of Ontario I am speaking about a man whom, I venture to say, I know better than any, other hon. member in the chamber knows him, and I speak of him as a man of complete sincerity. There is no man in the public life of Canada who is more wholly sincere than the Hon. Leslie Blackwell, the attorney general of Ontario. Not only that, but there is no man who has more enlightened knowledge and a more progressive outlook in regard to labour relations and problems than has the same gentleman.
I do not need to repeat what I said before about the part he played in bringing about the acceptance of P.C. 1003. I must say however, that he led the delegation from the Ontario government at the dominion-provincial labour conference in the fall of 1943. Let us not forget the part he played there; let us not forget either, the part he has played in endeavouring, under,joint dominion and provincial government auspices, to effect by conciliation a settlement of this strike. Let us remember the glowing tribute paid to the Hon. Leslie Blackwell by the Minister of Labour in this house just two weeks ago, at the conclusion of the effort made by the. Minister of Labour and the government of Ontario to bring about a settlement of that strike by conciliation.

Ford Motor Plant Strike
When the Hon. Leslie Blackwell makes a statement such as he made yesterday, it is entitled to be accepted at its face value by all members of the house. The statement he made was to this effect, that police forces had been sent into Windsor, certainly with no thought of interference in the strike, but simply for the purpose of preserving law and order. That is his function and his duty, as the chief law enforcement officer of Ontario. . For the information of those who listened, perhaps with acceptance or approval, to the remarks this afternoon of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I wish to put on Hansard th statement made by the attorney general of Ontario. This is the statement contained in this morning's press respecting the wire he sent to the mayor of Windsor following the receipt from that gentleman of the wire referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. The attorney general's telegram was as follows:
Your telegram of November 3-
And this statement was issued yesterday, Sunday.
-sent me on direction of informal meeting of Windsor city council was received after the close of the parliament buildings on Saturday .and has now reached me at my home. I cannot give instructions to Ontario provincial or other police to refrain from taking proper police action in the city of Windsor. Police action, if taken, will not be taken in relation to the issues between employer and employee in the strike, nor will action be taken to prevent lawful and peaceful picketing.
I hope the hon. member for Cape Breton South will take note of that.


Clarence Gillis: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It continues:
As mayor of Windsor you know that as attorney general-:


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member wishes to
continue-


William Henry Golding: Order.


Clarence Gillis: [DOT]-hurling questions at me, and I am entitled to answer them. I would ask him to define "peaceful picketing".


William Henry Golding: The hon. member who has the floor cannot, be interrupted unless a request is made and consent given. I hope the hon. member will not interrupt.


Clarence Gillis: I just wish to say this, that
when the hon. member in making his speech continually refers to me, I have a right to mention it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The telegram continues.
As mayor of Windsor you know that as attorney general I responded to the request of the police commission of Windsor to supply p lice assistance to restore and maintain law' -and order in Windsor.
Police action is concerned with the fact that the policy committee of C.I.O.-U.A.M. 200 by their decree have set aside the laws of Canada made by the duly elected representatives of the Canadian people and have substituted therefor a decree that by forcible, illegal picketing the fire protection and maintenance personnel may not enter and leave at will the premises of the Ford Motor,Company. As the attorney general of this province it is my duty to see that the laws of Canada prevail and I w'ill carry out my duty. As mayor of Windsor you know that your duty is the same.
May I therefore suggest to you that you use your influence with the union policy committee to have them obey the laws of Canada and instead of further inciting those in the picket lines and elsewhere to oppose laws by force that they issue instructions and use their influence to see that the law' is obeyed. It follows that if continued police action in Windsor is necessary to restore and maintain law' and order it will be those w'ho resist and incite others to resist the police and not myself or the police who w'ill be responsible for any bloodshed which may result.
If you w'ill govern your actions as mayor of Windsor, first, to restore and maintain law and order, it will be extremely beneficial if, as well, you and your colleagues on the council are able to formulate proposals which may form the basis of negotiations resulting in a much hoped f r amicable settlement of the differences between the union and the company.
That is the statement. There is no one here who more sincerely desires a peacable settlement of this difficult situation in Windsor than the attorney general of Ontario, who also is acting as the minister of labour of this province. On this matter of governmental responsibility I think it would be most deplorable if the strike in Windsor, which concerns every member in this chamber, were allowed to become a political football. It is well that the action which was taken in sending, in police was taken jointly by the dominion and provincial governments. As I say, it w'ould be most deplorable if it should be allowed to become a political football between the two gpvernments. I do not think there is any justification for the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Spadina, that the provincial government was too quick on the trigger. This was joint action by the two governments. That is perfectly clear from the statement made to-day by the Acting Prime Minister. It is well it should be so.
Before I leave that subject, I should like to address a word or two to some hon. members who sit under the C.C.F colours. Let me tell
Ford Motor Plant Strike

them that they have no monopoly of concern for the rights of labour in this dominion. It becomes a little tiresome at times to other members in this chamber to see that sort of "holier than thou" attitude adopted by our C.C.F. colleagues when it comes to labour adjustments. I want to put this to them; I want to put it straight to them, that they have no monopoly. Those of us who sit in this part of the chamber are just as much concerned as they are to see that justice is done to labour.


Clarence Gillis: You have been passing legislation for seventy-five years and still you have not any.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not quite that old;
I am living in the year 1945. If the hon. member for Cape Breton South wants to go back and live in the days of seventy-five years ago, he is welcome to do so. I deplore the fact that a member of this house should have made the statement that fell from the lips of the hon. member for Cape Breton South this afternoon concerning members of the Ontario government. They have nothing to learn about being fair to labour or looking after the rights of labour; they have nothing to learn about-trying to bring about a happy and amicable settlement of this difficult strike.
It was no contribution to the facts that was made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South this afternoon; it was a contribution to prejudice; it was an inflammatory contribution. I say that that inflammatory contribution, lacking as it did reference to the facts of the situation in Ontario, contained false accusations against the Premier of Ontario and the attorney-general. I hope that a responsible attitude will be taken by members of the house in their approach to this question. The very least that can be asked of hon. members is that they do not fan the flames of feeling which exist to-day in the city of Windsor. If we have not anything else to contribute, let us at least refrain from fanning those flames.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
direct my remarks to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister, but before I do so I wish to say just a word with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton who has just taken his seat. I am not surprised at his endeavour to express pride in the legislation on the statute books of his own province of Ontario, but I would point out to him that if it is true that Ontario w-anted better war-time labour legislation than is contained in P.C. 1003, that provincial government could have done what Saskatchewan did and passed such better legislation. De-

spite all that he endeavoured to say about the war-time labour legislation which is on the statute books of this province, the fact is that it is within the borders of this province that this dispute has developed to its present serious proportions. Had there been on the statute books of Ontario an act similar to chapter 69 of' the statutes of Saskatchewan, 1944, second session-and I refer in particular to section 25 -this dispute would have been settled long ago. Under that section, which could have oeen on the statute books of Ontario, the anion and the company could have worked out an agreement concerning the matter that is oasically at issue.
As I said when I rose, I should like to address myself to the Acting Prime Minister. I think it would be remiss on my part if I did not say that, although it is only his duty, we appreciate the way in which he has stayed in the committee to-day listening so intently to this debate. Not only has the Acting Prime Minister stayed with us, at the present time there is a much larger attendance of cabinet ministers than perhaps the committee has a right to expect in view of their heavy responsibilities. This emphasizes the fact that members of the cabinet appreciate the deep seriousness of the matter which is now before us.
As has beeD already shown by the debate that has taken place thus far, there is a great deal that can be said by way of history. There is all the room in the world here for the development of a political football and the tossing of it back and forth, and there is plenty' of room for theorizing. But our main concern to-night, and that of the entire country is the serious situation at Windsor, and the question before us is this: What can be done to-night to prevent that situation from becoming worse, and what can be done to settle the dispute which has been in progress there these many weeks?
I wish to say to the Acting Prime Minister that civil strife, bloodshed or difficulty of any kind can be avoided at Windsor very easily. All he has to do is sometime during the evening to leave this chamber and use his power to order the withdrawal of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from Windsor.
I listened closely to the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister on the order for motions this afternoon about the seriousness of the situation there with respect to law1 and order and with respect to property. 1 am afraid I shall have to say to him that to me it was a sob story' on behalf of property, and it really' got under my' skin.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, yes, my friends get very holy in their utterances whenever law and order are discussed, but the fact of the matter is that for many long weeks ten thousand workers and their families-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Socialistic claptrap.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -have been deprived of their normal means of livelihood. We could have been giving sob stories on their behalf. Instead we appealed to reason, but despite all the requests that were made for consideration of their case, the answer that we got time and time again from the government-especially the Minister of Labour, because most of our questions were directed to him-was a flat no. We are not impressed by the readiness with which the government comes to the defence of property rights when it is so slow to come to the defence of the rights-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is there now and you are here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -of the working people of this country. I suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that he has been misled by the government of Ontario and misled by the insurance people in the representations which have been made to him, and he will regret the step that this government took in permitting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to go to Windsor. I wish to say at this point Jhat the government cannot hide behind the contention that there was some sort of commitment which resulted in the police going there automatically. The fact is that the police are under the control of the government, and I say to the minister as strongly as I can that the way to avoid undesirable consequences of this serious situation is to withdraw the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from Windsor.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Minister of
Labour is on the job now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Something was said by the last speaker about inflammatory remarks, and I threw in an interjection which neither the last speaker nor his colleagues cared to deal with when I said: What about inflammatory actions? I suggest that the action of sending police to Windsor is just that, and that it is the cause of the spreading of the strike and the worsening of the situation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not helping very much.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No matter how much one might talk about property and law and order, the fact is that when the Ontario provincial police and more particularly-I say this
because we are a federal parliament-the Royal Canadian Mounted Police go to Windsor, they are there in the name of the people of Canada, and that readily creates the impression that there is a war between the people of Canada and the workers at the Ford plant. That is not the case. The people of Canada are not at war with the Ford strikers; they are with them in their desire to achieve some measure of the industrial democracy and better standard of living which they believe this war was fought for. Therefore, I plead with the Acting Prime Minister to consider seriously whether he and his government have not made a mistake in permitting the police to go to Windsor and to consider seriously withdrawing the police from that city to-night. I address my plea not only to the Acting Prime Minister but to every minister of the government, for all of them are showing how deeply they appreciate the situation by their presence here throughout this debate. I address my appeal particularly to the Secretary of State because of the interest he must very naturally take in this situation, obtaining as it does in vis own city.
There was a day not so very long ago when very simple measures would have settled the strike. We made such proposals from time to time from this part of the house and have had some support from some other quarters. But the situation has been allowed to drift, and inflammatory action has been taken that has made it worse, so that now it cannot be settled by one simple stroke. What I want to say now is this, withdrawing the police will obviate undesirable consequences, but that in itself will not be sufficient to settle the strike. A further step will have, to be taken, but I emphasize that withdrawal of the police is the first step.
Alter that is done, I suggest to the Acting Prime Minister and to the other members of the government that there is a further step which must be taken if the dispute itself between the Ford Motor company and its employees is to be settled. It has been said a number of times to-day that- the first thing to do is to put a government controller in, take over the plant and start it functioning once again. But even that does not go io the root of the matter. The root of the matter is the whole question of union security; and if the government really wants not only to obviate undesirable consequences by with' drawing the police but to settle the dispute itself, its other step is to convene a meeting
Ford Motor Plant Strike

of the cabinet council and to pass an order in council amending P.C. 1003 to provide for union security as a provision in collective agreements when such security is desired by the union which is properly certified according to the order in council.
This request, the plea that provision be made for union security, has not only come from some of us in this house but has been made repeatedly to 'the government directly by the representatives of organized labour. I remind 'the government specifically that last spring when the Canadian Congress of Labour met with a committee of the cabinet to lay before 'the government its recommendations, one of them had to do with union security. Let me read to the government the actual terms of that recommendation:
We therefore recommend to the council that it should urge that suitable provision be introduced in the regulations-
The reference is to the regulations under P.C. 1003.
-to give authority to the labour relations board in much the same way as now provided frn grievance procedure, to decide and establish in any specific case, that the collective agreement negotiated or to be negotiated, is to include, or be deemed to include, such provision in relation to union security whether for union shop, maintenance of membership and/or deduction for union dues, as the board decides is proper. Failure to comply with any such order or direction of the board should constitute an unfair labour practice. It should also be provided that the board shall have no authority to order any provisions of union security inferior to those prevailing in the existing agreement or in any agreement which expired automatically before the application.
I have given that quotation for various reasons; first, to make it clear that what we . are asking for is not merely some idea that we have cooked up. It is the specific request of organized labour, which organized labour has made to the government. I have also read it to show that organized labour has thought the matter through and has made a specific suggestion which fits into the labour machinery now in effect in this country, namely, P.C. 1003.
I go on and remind the government that that request for an amendment to P.C. 1003 has been made not only by the Canadian Congress of Labour but by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. I hold in my hand a copy of the memorandum presented to the dominion government by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada on Monday, April 23, 1945. One paragraph of their memorandum, dealing with P.C. 1003, reads as follows:
We also request that section 20. paragraph 1, be amended by adding the words "whereby all

the employees of the employer or organization of employers shall be required to be members of a specified organization of employees".
/ shall not take the time to read section 20, paragraph 1 of P.C. 1003, to which these words are sought to be added. The government can do so if it is interested in finding the machinery and finding a way in which this matter can be solved.
In addition to that request which was made when the executive of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada met the government last spring, a further letter was sent to the government by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada over the signatures of president Bengough and secretary-treasurer Sullivan under date of -August 20, 1945, and one para- . graph of that letter reads:
We desire to call to your attention the need for required changes in order in council P.C. 1003 in order to have an effective dominion labour code, based, at least, on the best provincial legislation dealing with the right of the workers to organize and bargain collectively.
Hon. members will find in that a reference back to the required legislation which the trades and labour congress drew to the attention of the government last spring, and if they need a reference to the best labour legislation in Canada-I shall not indulge in any political arguments at this time-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you can find better legislation in some other province all right, but at least look at the Trades Union Act, chapter 69 of the statutes of Saskatchewan, 1944, second session.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Look at Alberta's legislation of 1936. That is away ahead of Saskatchewan's.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was a Liberal government in Saskatchewan in 1936.
Another set of representations to the government which I have in my hand is that made by the Winnipeg and district trades and labour council from my own city, with which the trade union to which I happen to belong is affiliated. They urged that provision be made that if a majority of employees demand a union shop it should be granted. A further section of the Winnipeg proposals was as follows:
Amend section 19, paragraph (c) of P.C. 1003 to protect the rights of employers and employees to enter into and maintain collective agreements providing for a union shop, by adding the following: "provided that nothing in these regulations shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labour union (not established, maintained or assisted by any action defined in these regulations as an unlawful

Ford Motor Plant Strike
practice) to require as a condition of the employment, membership therein, if such labour union is the representative of the employees as provided by these regulations, as the appropriate bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made."
I could go on; 1 have abundant material on this in my files. What I have been endeavouring to do by these quotations is to point out to the government that organized labour has been thinking this thing through for a great many months, and has come to the government, not just with an idea up in the clouds, but brought down to earth in terms of the actual amendments which might be made to the government's own order in council.
I have before me a copy of the United States statutes-at-large, 74th congress, 193536, which contains what is known as the Wagner act, or, more properly, the National Labour Relations Act; and I hope the day will come when, instead of the mediocre wording we have in P.C. 1003, we shall have the stronger wording w'hich is contained in such legislation as the Wagner act. But that is too much to expect to-night. To-night we have a serious situation in Windsor which requires, not only that the police be withdrawn so that we shall have no undesirable con- ' sequences there, but that a basis be found right away for a settlement of the_ dispute. That can be done by adopting any one of the several suggestions which I have laid before the Acting Prime Minister and the government to-night. If the suggestions which I have made leave any questions in the mind of the Acting Prime Minister, I would suggest to him that he call in the president of either of the major labour congresses in this country, or he can call both of them in, and they will be glad to assist him in drafting the kind of amendment to P.C. 1003 which would provide union security where it is wanted by a union duly certified under these regulations.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I ask a question: does the Wagner act provide for compulsory insertion into agreements of so-called union security clauses?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, and I am glad the minister has asked that question, and I may say further that even the Saskatchewan legislation of which we are boasting so much-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute; treat this thing with a little seriousness. Even that Saskatchewan legislation does not include a compulsory provision so far as union shop is concerned. The Saskatchewan act compels maintenance of membership. But under this
kind of legislation in the United States the rights of employees have been sufficiently protected through other sections that define unfair labour practices, and unions have gained sufficient strength, so that it has become, shall I say, impossible for a company like Ford over there to practice against employees the things which that company did in Canada; and it was on the basis of that greater union strength, achieved through legislative protection, that they voluntarily agreed to the union shop which the employees there were asking.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is on a voluntary basis there, though.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to the checkoff and a union shop along the lines as defined this afternoon by the hon. member for Spadina, that is not required by the Wagner act. What it does is one step less, but it so protects employees against unfair practices of employers and thus strengthens the position of the unions, so that there is .no point to employers trying to break up the organization. That is basically what you have in .the situation at Windsor, as the government knows.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, well-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Ford company in
Canada has used every loophole there was in the legislation to seek the disintegration of the union. The union in the United States in its organization is thoroughly protected by the terms of the Wagner act, and that protection gives it a strength which has enabled it to bargain on a much more equal basis than you can ever bargain on under the terms of the legislation which is contained in P.C. 1003. I point out to the minister that any requests made in the proposals of the Canadian Congress of Labour and the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada do not go to the extent of the compulsion he asked me about a moment ago.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is my point. The hon. gentleman is going to that length when he is asking us to pass an order in council to-night compelling the insertion of a clause providing for so-called union security if this union wants it in' this dispute and if any union wants it in any dispute. He is asking that there be an order in council compelling the insertion of that clause in the agreement between employer and employee, and I am asking him if that is not going much farther than has been gone in any legislation anywhere.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It goes farther than the legislation in the United States; and the United States legislation goes farther than the legislation in England. And yet the practice in England is more advanced than it is in
1S40
Ford Motor Plant.Strike

the United States. What you have to deal with is the situation as it exists. Our situation in Canada requires more advanced legislation to achieve even as much as they have in the United States, let alone England.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why? Because our governments have allowed labour relations to drift into the kind of situation that confronts us to-night at Windsor.
Perhaps there is not much more I should . say at this point, because if I talk much longer I may do the kind of thing I do not want to do; that is, to start making comparisons and throwing political footballs around. What I am mainly concerned with is that the government, consider the risks involved in letting the situation stand as it is in Windsor to-night, consider withdrawing the police, and go on to take the further step of passing the necessary order in council which will provide for union security, so that the dispute at Windsor can be properly settled vithojit any further delay.


Mr. SINNOTT:: Will the hon. member state that all the fault lies with the company?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose there have been human errors on the part of some of the men, but the basic fault underlying the situation at Windsor lies definitely with the company, and in the main lies with one man, Wallace Campbell. True as that is, it is water under the bridge. To-night we have a dangerous situation. Without saying that anyone is necessarily responsible for what has brought about the situation, I suggest that this government is responsible for taking the steps to solve the problem as it now stands.


Mr. ROSE:: To-night we have the second
debate on the Ford strike. That is all to the good, because we have the responsibility of deciding what will be the pattern of post-war labour relations. Will it be police, or will it be legislation? What the great majority of the people want is legislation.
Our first debate took place a few days before the conference in Toronto, the conference which was attended by the Minister of Labour, representatives from the union and from the company. That conference failed, because the minister did not come to the conference prepared to offer a solution of the problem. Conferences are all very well; they never do any harm; but there must also be concrete proposals, and the proposals which were made by the Minister of Labour offered less than what was proposed by Mr. Justice Richards before the strike. It was obvious that the workers, who have been out on strike for quite a few
FMr. Knowles. 1
weeks, were not going to accept less than what they were offered before the strike. Mr. Campbell would not even listen to those proposals. He told some people outside the conference that he would starve the workers into submission, and he has quite a bit of money to do it with-millions upon millions of reserve funds.
After the conference broke up, nothing happened. This government failed to give a lead; they failed to take the next step. There was one proposal for an arbitrator. But, as has already been explained by one member to-day, it was very hard for workers out on strike for about seven weeks to say, "All right, we will go back to work now and see what is going to happen," and this after seventeen months of boards and hearings. The workers wanted something more substantial than merely a word from the minister to go back; the company did not reply for quite a while; and when it did reply, as we were told to-day. it rejected the proposal for an arbitrator. The result of the government's inactivity is the extension of the strike.
Who is to blame? The workers have been quite reasonable. When the proposal for an arbitrator came down they called a meeting. All the strikers came together and the proposal was put before them. They rejected it. I understand, however, they came back with additional proposals that would have led to some understanding, but the employer merely said, "We will have nothing to do with any of your proposals." Again I ask, who is to blame? Campbell and no one else.
After that failed, then came the police, and I assure hon. members that the coming of police into a city, their presence in that city, is an interference on behalf of the employer, no matter what reason they may offer. That is the way the workers feel about it, and generally the presence of police aggravates a strike situation. I have been in such situations. It creates an altogether new situation and anything is liable to happen. Paid pro-vocators have been known in the past to bring about the calling of police into a strike. Paid provocators have been known in the past to lead to bloodshed and all sorts of consequences in order to break a strike. Paid provocators have been known to organized workers for years. Books and pamphlets have been written on the subject.	,
The police have never settled a strike. What can settle a strike and what must settle the strike is government intervention. I am not interested in any political football. I am not interested in knowing who was responsible for the police going in. The responsibility is

Ford Motor Plant Strike
provincial and federal. They are both responsible. Instead, they should be working together to settle the strike. I have before me a report of the meeting that took place in Toronto at that conference about which I spoke earlier. At that conference Mr. Blackwell said that he was quite willing to cooperate with the federal government in amending order in council 1003. At that conference, too, Mr. Campbell said that., if the federal government thought union security was a good thing they should put it on the statute books and he would be willing to go along. That was a basis for settling the strike.
A few weeks ago I asked two questions of the minister as to what had happened at the conference, and I suggested that Messrs. Blackwell and Campbell made such proposals. He told me I had the wrong pipeline. I think we should get more serious replies from our ministers when we ask questions, because we want to find out what is happening in these matters.
Do we need compulsory ' legislation for union security? I say that we do. Why? Because in Canada-I do not know what it is like elsewhere-we have people of the type of Campbell. That is why it is necessary. If we had more enlightened employers who would go in for collective security without compulsory legislation it would be fine, but seemingly we need it over here; and if we need it, it is not necessary for us to base our actions on what is done in any other country. We live in Canada, ours is a different sort of country, and our legislation should be based upon Canadian needs and not on those of the United States or anywhere else.
The sending in of the police has served only one purpose, to encourage the Ford company and nothing else. The sending in of police, no matter what any hon. member says, means that the government has allied itself with the employers. That is what it means to the workers. That is what the people in Montreal feel. I was in Montreal over the week-end, and the workers there are greatly disturbed over wrhat is happening in Windsor.
Last week the organized workers in Montreal contributed nearly five thousand dollars toward the Ford strikers, an excellent example of unity between the English and the French-Canadian people in Canada. At a meeting in my constituency nearly $1,100 was contributed to the Ford strike.
That is the way the people feel, and unless Mr. Blackwell and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) or rather the Minister of Labour and Mr. Drew, find a quick solution
we are going to have strikes throughout the country. And no one will have to organize them. They will come because the people feel insecure and do not like this police pattern at the present time. That is not what our. boys fought for. The workers will not take police- rule lying down.
There are now 700,000 organized workers in Canada. This is not the Canada of 1919, 1920, and 1921 or of the crisis years. We have hundreds of thousands of young men who fought and theirs is a different sort of determination. They will not stand for intimidation by the police. They want initiative shown by this government and the creation of a different pattern for labour-employer relations.
To-day a conference opened in Washington addressed by President Truman. It was a conference on management and labour. The conference was composed of representatives from the chamber of commerce, the manufacturers' association and a number of big firms in the United States and leaders of trade unions. The United States Minister of Labour, Mr. Schwellenbach, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Wallace, represented the government. They are trying to work out a pattern for peace in industry in the United States. Can this government say that we have done the same thing in Canada? Can this government say that we have tried the same thing in Canada? No. In preparation for this conference Mr. Truman spoke last week to a number of labour leaders to pave the way for a peaceful solution. A few days earlier he announced that it would now be possible to increase sub-standard wages. That is a much bolder way of meeting the situation than we have in Canada at the present time. We need similar action. The type of action we need to-day is (1) union security. That is what the workers want as a minimum. (2) The right of workers to bargain on wages that are below fifty cents; (3) immediate withdrawal of the police, and a rapid settlement of the strike with the government appointing a controller. If we do that we shall be creating much better post-war industrial relations than we are creating at the present time with the police. The police will not solve anything; we need legislation. This government has the power to act. I do not care whether it is the provincial government or the federal government; let them come to an understanding and they can give us that legislation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that every member of this committee will appreciate that if there is anyone who has a right and a duty to say something on this matter it is myself, not only because I am a member of the
Ford Motor Plant Strike

government, blit because I represent one of the constituencies where the scene of the circumstances under discussion exists.
I had urged upon my good friend, the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who I think perhaps would agree without any reservation that no one in this house has at heart to any greater extent than I have the cause and the welfare of labour, that it might be advisable, in view of the actual situation and of the dispatch to Windsor to-day of the Minister of Labour, that whatever we say here to-day be tempered with the utmost of responsibility. I do not quarrel, however, with his taking the position that in his judgment the matter should be discussed. Since the matter has been discussed, I have been the recipient of telephone calls and almost extraordinary number of telegrams, which causes me to 'believe that if every member of this committee were- aware of the nature of some of them, and the source of them-and their source is not by any means entirely in the employer group-they would appreciate that what we must not forget at this moment, above all else, is that the man on whose shoulders rests the immediate responsibility as Minister of Labour of the Dominion of Canada has left this chamber to go to Windsor. That circumstance must not be *forgotten in the discussion before this committee.
I do not propose to say anything that is going to add to the difficulty of his task, and to the tremendous and important consequences of it. What the result will be I do not know, but I do know this; having come from AVindsor only over the week-end, and having conferred with all sorts of people, I do know how the people of my city feel. And if I rise in my place to-night in this forum of the nation it is largely to say things that will perhaps serve to place upon the judgment of the people whom I represent in this house the right kind of temper so that they will not be misjudged.
The people of Windsor are law-abiding, as good citizens as one will find in any community of this country. They are people who, when the situation is placed before them in proper perspective, will have as deep a respect for the agencies of authority and of law as any other community in Canada. But I would not be doing my duty if I did not say first of all that no one yet, largely because they do not live in the community, has touched upon, except the member for Spadina in some particulars, the provocations and the historical situations that have led to the present difficulty. I have said that my constituents are a law-abiding people; they are. They belong to a union community. That does not make them less lawful or less respectful of the agencies of authority; but the vast majority
PMr. Martin.]
of them work in an industry whose labour relations policy I could not refrain from saying has not been an enlightened one over the years. They work in an industry where men do not live in that kind of city can have no full appreciation of the social consequences, an industry where it is said they are well paid-well paid by the day. But, as I said here a month ago, when one analyses the annual wage output, it is wholly inadequate, as every person in that community knows. During the war these men, many of whom have served overseas and have come back to work in that plant, many of them the fathers of men who have served in the armed forces, and some of whom have died, have worked during the war doing important war work on an efficient basis.
In reviewing Canada's war effort in terms of war production not so long ago, the Minister of Munitions and Supply said in this house that the contribution of the automobile industry in Canada in terms of the production of vehicles was one of the epics on the home front of this country. In saying that, he was thereby saying that the men who worked on the assembly line, in the foundry of that plant and of other plants of that kind, had done a great job during the war. The reason I mention that is that when tempers are hot. when the emotions of the people are stirred, they are apt to pass judgment on a community when they are not fully aware of all the implications.
This government-and I say this to the hon. member for Vancouver East with all the sincerity that I iiave-has not set out on a policy of depressing wages. I ask him to believe that.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I will believe that when you bring in the evidence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All right; I am prepared to deal with that. I ask the hon. member, does he honestly think that anyone would deliberately set out on a policy of depressing wages? I can tell him that with regard to this particular industry the plans of this administration are altogether otherwise, as I shall endeavour to show. But what I wish to point out is this-and it has to be said, in view of what the hon. member for Spadina said to-day-as I suggested earlier, and not without reason, there were some sections of industry who by their own professions, some of whom have since criticized what I have said in the house, have written to me beforehand clearly indicating their intentions with regard to trade union integrity and union existence.
This much must be borne in mind: You cannot, by any act of anyone destroy the existence of trade union organizations in this

Ford Motor Plant Strike
or any other country. Those institutions are .here to stay, and I think they are a good (hing to have stay here. I think we should be satisfied with our labour leaders, on the whole. The heads of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the heads of the Canadian Congress of Labour and of all the other national organizations are well intentioned men who have no other purpose than that of furthering the interests of the workers along responsible lines.
What I have said about them I say about many of the trade union leaders and trade union men in my own community. Who are these men who, because of the temper of this particular circumstance, will be misjudged? They are just ordinary men and women. One of my own family who has lived in this country for generations, working in that plant, was firmly convinced of the power and desirability of trade union movements. That for the most part represents the character of the people in this particular trade union organization.
I do not say that there are not at work influences which maliciously will use some of these people. But I do not think that to say more than that at this time under the circumstances will help. But when I do say it, the hon. member for Cape Breton South will know what I have reference to.
In this dispute I would not be fair to myself if I did not say here-and this is the first chance I have had really to say it-that I have not sat by as one of the members for that district, nor has my colleague the hon. member for Essex West sat by, and done nothing. I would not be true if I did not say that there has not been a night when, through this fantastic experience, I have not been greatly concerned about it. Perhaps I knew more about what was happening than many did.
I wish to say that at the time this dispute broke out, almost from the very hour I was in conference in this city with the Minister of Labour, and with one of the leading men in the organization, trying to head off a situation which seemed to be almost inevitable. From that moment on, there has not been a day, there has not been an hour since I have been in the house that in some way or another tliis matter has not received my full attention. I say that because to-night, when there are thousands of men and women who perhaps sometimes have no conception of what is involved, or what it is all about, I want them to know-and I have a right to say this-that when I made professions to them at various times as a public man I meant everything I said, that I have not forgotten
their situation and their problem at this time, nor did I forget it in the last few months. I think hon. members in all parts of the house will believe me when I say-whether it has been adequate enough or not-that I have done everything that I could possibly do to try to resolve this matter in a manner which would be just to the parties concerned, in a manner which would see that the integrity of the trade union moyement in that particular community was maintained, and to see that they are returned to work under the most favourable circumstances.
If at this time it appears that thus far we have not succeeded, it is not because there has not been an effort or because there has been a betrayal of convictions. The situation is a difficult one.
Speaking on behalf of the government, the Acting Prime Minister said that there would be no effort-and if there was I Could not support it-by compulsion on the part of police powers to break the strike. That is elementary. He has stated that, and that is the situation.
What has happened since three o'clock, I do not know. But I do know that the municipal government of the city of Windsor to-day, meeting as we are, and as deeply concerned about the whole situation, did urge upon both parties that an independent opportunity be given to determine the nature of any situation in connection with the power plant, without the operation of which in the event of settlement of the dispute there can be no return to work.
What that investigation will show, I do not know. But I understand from the latest information I have had that that proposal is under way. I do not know the full particulars; they have not yet come to me. When that does come about, I have not a"ny doubt that if the situation is placed properly before the men, as to what they are doing, the result will be satisfactory. But this situation must be placed before them. The Minister of Finance to-day, in rising in his place and explaining the insurance situation, was not actuated by any desire to preserve proprietary interests also. And I say this, that the country knows that, because of the kind of man he is primarily. The Minister of Finance is not capable of having any other interests than the welfare of the people of this country at heart; for in bringing out the picture from the underwriters' point of view he had only one concern, and that was to see that when this dispute is settled-and, please God let it be settled quickly-it will be settled in such a way that the men can return to their work with a minimum of lost time.
Strike at Ford Mdtor Plant

Ford Motor Plant Strike
Although there have been provocations,.and particularly to-night, I do not want to say [DOT] anything by way of criticism of what has been said. But I do feel that what the Minister of Finance said to-day in this connection did not justify the comment that was made about it.
We cannot touch the basic issues here tonight. The Minister of Labour has gone to Windsor. I have been in touch with him within the last hour or hour and a half. In the light of what I know he is attempting -whether he will succeed or not I do not know-
I do not propose to say anything by way of final suggestion until I know that his efforts have been exhausted. And that is what I respectfully suggest, with all the force and sincerity I can muster, should be the situation.
But I can say this, that employers in that area well know that at the basis of this problem is not the metaphysical debate that has taken place here to-day and this evening about certain modes of settling disputes. Basic in this problem is what Mr. Attlee said the other day with regard to the dockworkers -no formula will succeed in industrial or in any other relations unless there is good faith on all sides. There has not been good faith on -all sides. The Minister of Labour has sent into this particular plant-I hesitate to say a word of complaint about my own community, which is at the moment perhaps the most troublesome in industrial relations in the country-no less than three different boards headed by three different men who were disposed toward trying to bring about a solution that was in the interests of both parties. The conduct on some occasions, for instance toward Mr. Justice Richards, not by the men but by certain of the employers in that plant, indicated-that there was an inadequate expression of good faith.
Mr. Burt, the regional director of the UAW-CIO-whatever may be said about him and I know lots of things will be said about him;
I have been in contact with him now for two months not without a day passing, at times not without two or three hours passing

has made every effort, fighting loyally for his men, to try to effect an amicable settlement. He said, "If we once get this problem on a basis where we can sit down across the table as men without hate engendering on both sides; if we can accomplish that, then we shall have solved the basic difficulty of this dispute."
That is what we have to try to do. These other matters involving jurisdiction between provinces and the dominion are important over a long period, but basic in it is the recognition on the part of the employer and on the part
[Mr. MartinJ
of the worker that each has a responsibility as well as an Obligation, and that if each approaches the problem in the same spirit of understanding and cooperation, the problem can be solved. That does not exist. Since we are meeting ijor the moment to deal with the current situation, not as to what the ultimate law shall be-on these things I have elsewhere expressed myself-in terms of the immediate problem that faces this county to-night, I think the first thing we must do is to impress on both sides the necessity, despite the suspicions and hate and enmity that exist, of sitting down at the earliest possible moment to deal with one another, each with rights, each with privileges and each with obligations.
That may to some seem simply parabolic. It will be said that all I have done is to preach. If I have done nothing else, I hope I have done that much, for, in the words of Mr. Attlee, who said only on Friday last, there is a stage in government when no matter what the differences be, whether they be between nations or whether they be between peoples in a country; no matter what may be the solution for the problems of a nation, unless there is understanding these cannot even be approached. That is the issue which I think faces us.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply has tried to deal with these. Some will say by way of criticism that it was not done effectively, but there are explanations. Last May in this very building I sat in at a conference between the united automobile workers, the Minister of Munitions and Supply and some of his officials, when there was a full disclosure of the reconversion situation which existed at that time. I think that was a model conference. The Minister of Munitions and Supply, who is abused so often without any justification because his point of view is not always fully understood or appreciated, said, "What I want to try to do is to establish in this industry and in other industries as close a thing as I can to democracy in industry and government; I want to get on a firm basis whereby the employers and workers, sitting in with government on a friendly basis can discuss, not only the rights of labour but the rights and the obligations and the difficulties of industry, to let labour see these so that they can share in and know them."	.
Here comes the industrial council idea, which first came to this country from his lips. It may not have succeeded. We have not gone as far with it as one would like, but I say there are reasons. You cannot force those things down anyone's throat. It is all very well to say you can do this, but you cannot force men to understand, one another. It is regrettable

Ford Motor Plant Strike
that in this particular industry it has not been possible to do that, but that is no reason why it should not be attempted.
The hon. member for Spadina, speaking in this house a month ago, said that there may have to be changed faces. Whatever that means, I do not think there is much point in my explaining it at this moment. Let us hope, if that does take place, that there will be a complete reorientation. These things are done. I think all of us in this country, without trying to pause for the purposes of political advantage, can perhaps make suggestions. All of us are interested in labour; all of us are trying to get a solution of this problem. We can as a government, we can as a parliament take those general steps by which understanding between labour and management may be pursued.
Viewing the. "situation in my own city tonight, and disturbed by the news from all sides, I say that I have no doubt that the vast majority of the men and women in that community do not want disorder. I have every belief that if there can be, as I hope there will be, a maintenance of cool-headedness, and a recognition on the part of all that this government has always recognized the rights of labour to organize and has taken steps to maintain the gains and strength of labour, this problem going through its difficult stage will not go without solution.
I can only say, speaking in my capacity as the member for Essex East, that I sincere!}' hope that God's help will go to those who at this moment-the Minister of Labour from this government and others-are working for a satisfactory solution of this problem, one that will not result in the destruction of the union but will result in its continued existence on a basis of cooperation and a basis of rational and civilized relationship with the employer. Can I say anything else at this stage that will help or that will prove where my convictions lie?


William Henry Golding: We have had quite a lengthy discussion on this serious problem, and I was wondering if hon. members of the committee would be ready to proceed with the estimates we have before us?


Mr. MERRITT:: I know that everyone in the house has listened with close attention to the moving speech that has just been made by the Secretary of State. I do not think there is any member who would doubt his sincere concern over this very difficult situation. After the months of work and thought and effort that he must have devoted to endeavours to settle this dispute, I am sure
that every member of the house will have every sympathy for him. But it needs to be said at the conclusion of his very moving speech that he has offered no solution of the Ford strike. I go farther and say that the government has not offered us any solution of the Ford strike. This debate has been going on since about four o'clock this afternoon, and no one can blame you, Mr. Chairman, for having suggested that it might now come to an end because, although this concerns a matter of the very gravest importance to Canada and affects every part of our country, not only the city of Windsor but all Canada, I do not think I have ever listened to a debate so inconclusive since I entered the house.
What have we had? From the speakers to my left of the C.C.F. party who raised this question it was not until after the dinner interval that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre got down to the question of union security.


Angus MacInnis: That is not correct. I mentioned it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Hon. members of the C.C.F. to my left have said1 first of all that they are against law and' order being upheld by the police going in, and they want the police removed.


Angus MacInnis: I must take exception to that and ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw it.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor and I know that if he has offended any member he will withdraw his statement.


Angus MacInnis: He has offended.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If the hon. member for Vancouver East is offended by my remarks I state that I mean no offense to him whatever. I was saying that the hon. member and his colleagues have said that the police should be withdrawn from Windsor, and I state that in making that request they are not upholding law and order. That is one thing they have suggested.
The next thing they suggested was a controller, and the hon. member for Cape Breton South in the course of his remarks said that if a controller were appointed he thought the parties to the dispute could be got around the conference table. If that really is the case; if on the appointment of a controller the Ford Company and the union could sit around the conference table and come to an agreement on the issue of union security, then I for one would be in favour of the appointment of a controller to-night.

Ford Motor Plant Strike
But there is more than that. We have had from the hon. member for Vancouver East the suggestion that union security or the compulsory union shop should be passed in the form of an order in council to-night. I suggest that the hon. members of the C.C.F. party who have spoken in this debate have first of all shown that they were indifferent as to whether illegal action was carried on-


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman says that we are indifferent as to whether things should be done legally or not. That is completely untrue and should be withdrawn.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion it is a legitimate argument. I do not think the point of order is well taken, nor could any question of privilege be well raised in that regard. If a member of this house wishes to argue that the C.C.F. members speaking one after another took no exception to illegal action and that by so doing they show themselves to be indifferent to illegality it would seem to me a legitimate argument for any member to make.


Major James William Coldwell: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, no one can point to any stage of this debate where we have supported illegal action. On the contrary, the government is provoking illegal action.


Mr. TUCKER:: That is absolutely wrong. You have no right to say that.


Major James William Coldwell: Do not get excited, hon. member for Rosthem.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member (Mr. Coldwell) a moment ago was asking that a statement be withdrawn. Now he has made a statetnent which in my opinion is worse than the one he complained of the member for Vancouver-Bur-rard making.


Major James William Coldwell: We will deal with that in a moment.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I do not wish to cause any offence to my hon. friends to the left. I was simply drawing an inference which I thought was a fair one from their arguments, and if they will allow me to state my case I think they will find that they do not come off too badly.
The point I wished to make when I was, in my view, Mr. Chairman, very rudely interrupted, was simply that the C.C.F. members who have raised this question have spoken on it as inconclusively as have the government, have shown an indifference to the real issue, and have suggested to the government

no solution of the dispute which could possibly be accepted in this country. The reason why hon. members to the left will never be able to form a government in this country is that they are so far to the left that they will seize one side of a case and press it before this house as if the interests and rights and the duties of the other party to a dispute such as this were of no concern at all.
The C.C.F. members have suggested, first of all, that a controller be appointed, and, second, that P.C. 1003 be amended by writing into the statute book a law compelling all Canadians to join a union without any safeguard of the rights of the individual so forced to join a union. They simply call for a compulsory union shop for every worker, and- * again I use this_ word because I can think of no other-they seem to be indifferent whether that worker whom they would force to join a union wishes to abide by all the rules and objects of the union. They do not offer him any protection once he so joins. That is my objection to the argument advanced by the C.C.F. Let me repeat, however, that, if I really believed that this strike could be settled in the way that the hon. member for Cape Breton South has suggested, by the appointment of a controller and the bringing about of a private agreement between the two parties, I would be entirely behind his suggestion. But it is not my belief that this issue of union security can be settled by private parties around a conference table.
Some weeks ago I went to Windsor and there saw all the parties to the dispute-the company, the union, the men on the picket lines, and private citizens in Windsor, and talked to many people. I was there for only twelve hours, and1 therefore the impressions I gained must be judged in the light of that short visit. But I did gain some vividi impressions which I wish to express to the committee this evening. I can do so best in one short sentence; I came to the conclusion that the company was wrong, that the union was wrong, and that the men were right.
I will elaborate that a little. I say that the company was wrong for the same reason that the Secretary of State said so, and that is, this question of the low annual wage. Over a long period of years that has been the sore which has festered in the workers in that company. After all, over a long period of years the management of that company has failed to satisfy its workers so that they worked in harmony with the management. For that reason I say that the company was wrong.

Ford Motor Plant Strike
Then I say that the union was wrong; and here, perhaps, is where my hon. friends on my left and I get at loggerheads. I say that the union is clearly wrong, no matter what the provocation, when it breaks the law of this land, and it broke the law when it engaged in other than peaceful picketing. When once a citizen breaks the law the proper authority has no recourse but to step in and uphold the law, and that is what the government of Ontario has done.
I do not blame a great deal either the company or the union; it always happens in strikes that there is some excess on one side or the other. I said that the men are right. All they really want is, not the union security which is now demanded, but a reasonable annual wage, and surely they are entitled to that and ought to get it. They want, of course, the right to negotiate on a fair basis in order to obtain that reasonable annual wage and fair working conditions, and that is why this issue of union security is before the committee now, because the union believes and the workers believe that, without what they term union security, they cannot bargain on equal terms with management.
The other impression I got when I was at Windsor was that there was bad blood between the parties. We all know that. It has been caused by years of strife instead of years of cooperation, and particularly by recent incidents,- such as the pulling out of the power plant workers which annoyed the company terrifically, and continual indecision and delay over bargaining, which lasted for eighteen months and annoyed the union considerably. The result is that it has come down to a trial of strength, and both parties are thinking more of the most recent incident which arouses their ire against the other than of the fundamental issues. For that reason a settlement between the parties is made very difficult.
But there is another party to this argument and this trouble which has not come into this discussion as often as it should. That other body is this parliament. This parliament has left this nettle to be grasped by a private business	concern-the	company-and the
union. We of this parliament have not grasped it ourselves. I am speaking to-night because I think that until this parliament grasps the nettle, faces up to the issue of union security, and decides whether union security is good for the people of Canada or bad for them, this problem will never be settled in this country and it will bedevil our industrial 47696-117
relations and the whole process of reconversion from war to peace, no matter what may happen to the present Ford strike.
The parties to this dispute have no common ground. In my view there is no midway point between union security and no union security. Other matters are involved, such as maintenance of membership and the voluntary or compulsory check-off wdthout maintenance of membership; but these are comparatively nebulous things; when you get right down to business it is union security or no union security which is the root of the problem.
I wish to review for a moment the state of this matter as it affects parliament. I was surprised-and I do not want to have another rough and tumble with hon. members on my left-


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Don't let that wony you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We enjoy it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -when the hon. member for Cape Breton South criticized the Ontario provincial government in this matter, because he was only assisting hon. gentlemen opposite when he said that.


Clarence Gillis: I want to be fair about these things and place the blame where it rests.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The responsibility for police protection Tested on the provincial government, but the responsibility of union security or not rests on this parliament and particularly on this government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Why does the hon. gentleman say that? I hope he will go on and explain his reasons for saying it.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I will, indeed. I was just coming to that.
Much has been said about the constitutional issue involved in this problem. It is said that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I would merely point out that under the War Measures Act this parliament has the power to deal with this issue. Even if the government had no such power under the War Measures Act, which of course they have, in a few days they are going to introduce an emergency powers bill, which, if passed in its present form, will put beyond peradventure of doubt the question of where the power lies. And I say to the committee that where the power lies, there lies the responsibility. This, therefore, is not a matter for the provincial government. I want, however, to say this, that there are many of us, as hon. members opposite well know, who do not agree that the present federal government should have the great powers which they are claiming in that bill. But our disagreement would be that

Ford Motor Plant Strike

much stronger, that much more forceful were we to learn that they were going to take these powers and then refrain from exercising them and prevent the provincial government from exercising them.
So that this matter lies squarely at the door of this government. Further, I say that it lies squarely at the door of this parliament. The present legislation with regard to these disputes goes as far as compulsory collective bargaining and conciliation procedure, and that compulsory collective bargaining and conciliation procedure, under P.C. 1003, is very good legislation and handles these two particular matters very well. But the difficulty we are up against is that, once collective bargaining and conciliation procedures stop, the law of the jungle takes their place in industrial relations. There is no law governing this Ford strike dispute, and therefore it comes down to a straight trial of strength between the two parties.
This is a dispute of personalities, of principles and of ideologies. It is not a bargaining on wages or hours of work or anything like that. There are fundamental principles involved in it and they are not suited to be settled between private parties. They are not suited to be settled on the basis of who is the stronger. They are suited to be settled only by the calm deliberation of an assembly such as this. That is the great point I want to make in this house. In other words, they must be settled by legislation.
I say that these strikes on union security must not be allowed to rend this country any more, and if they do so the responsibility lies upon us in this chamber-and I do not leave it only on hon. gentlemen opposite; I include all of us. Canada does not want these strikes on the issue of union security any more; Canada cannot afford to have them any more. We have a duty not only to the Ford company, not only to the Ford workers, not only to the Ford union, but to the general public of this country, the producers and consumers and those engaged in secondary industry, all of whom are immediately and personally affected by strikes such as this and by issues such as the one before us.
Canada wants peace, industrial and internal as well as international, and she wants full employment. We cannot have full employment unless we maintain the purchasing power of this country; and every industrial dispute, no matter how caused or whatever else it may do, affects the purchasing power of the country and endangers our chance of full employment.
I wish to deal more closely with the question of union security. I am in favour of strong

trades unions, very strong trades unions; and when I say strong trades unions I mean trades unions which are strong enough to sit down and bargain on equal terms with employers. When you are sitting down and bargaining on equal terms with a great limited company you have to be pretty strong, and I would remind hon. members of what the hon. member for Calgary West said in the house some time ago: What is the good of talking about collective bargaining on a fair basis if one party is sitting down without any money and the other party is sitting down with all the money? That is what I mean by strong trades unions.
I believe that in order that trades unions may grow to equal strength with the companies they must not only be recognized by this parliament, as they are under the collective bargaining procedure; they must be more than recognized. They must be approved by this parliament, so that they can occupy an honoured and respected place in our society. Many of them do that at the present time. For instance, the railway unions are probably among our most respected and beneficial institutions. But there are many unions still in this country that are not so honoured and respected; they are objects of suspicion and mistrust. They may not earn that suspicion and mistrust; I do not say that they do. But throughout this country there are many people, perhaps not directly concerned with labour disputes, who do distrust some of these unions and are suspicious of their aims. They wonder whether those aims are really aims in favour of the workers.
I say again that I do not know the right and wrong of that; I simply state what is the case. I go farther and say that there are also in the industrial ranks, among workers in plants, men who are suspicious of or mistrust perhaps even the particular union in the plant in which they are working. That is a thing that we in this parliament must remove.
We must go sponsor for those trades unions which are worthy of our sponsorship and lift them up so that nobody can cast suspicion or mistrust upon them. That is one of the duties of this parliament. Above all else, parliament has a duty to lead in bringing about that state of affairs which the Secretary of State mentioned so properly to-night-that cooperation and spirit of mutual trust between the parties to industrial relations. It is not enough for us to sit and hope and pray that the day will come when they will sit down together as mutual friends. This parliament has a duty to lead them to that spirit of trust of which the hon. member spoke.
In making a concrete proposal on the issue of union security to-night, I am not doing so

Ford Motor Plant Strike
only because of the Ford dispute. I would hold these views as much if the Ford strike did not exist. I believe that if the Ford strike is * settled without the issue of union security being decided, we shall have another strike in another plant on another day over the same issue, and then another and1 still another until finally we are prepared' to grasp the nettle and settle the question once for all by legislation.
What I am proposing to-day is only a first step in a series of considered steps which this parliament can take in order to bring about industrial peace in this country. There are many good things ahead of us in industrial relations if we can only reach out and grasp them. There is no need for my enumerating them to the committee to-night, because in between those good things and where we stand now there are a large number of barriers. Instead of thinking of those good things ahead of us, I am going to do what I suggest has not been done in this chamber in this debate; I am going to attack directly the first great barrier, the problem of union security. What is meant by union security? We had a very good explanation of the term this afternoon from the hon. member for Spadina. So that there will be no doubt of what I mean by union security I shall give my explanation. By union security is meant, I believe, the compulsory union shop and the compulsory check-off. That is pretty blunt, and a lot of us might not like to face up to it, but I think we had better.	.
Before making my specific propostion, I wish to draw a parallel between what happened in this country in the years before the war and the present day. In the years before the war this country suffered from a series of strikes over the issue of collective bargaining, the right of a union to organize and to become the bargaining agent for the -workers in a plant. That issue iwas then known as the issue of union recognition. After a lot of strikes and a lot of trouble, that was settled on a legislative basis. We now have the right to compulsory 'collective bargaining in the statutes, and it is -working out very well indeed.
I call the attention of the committee to a significant point. We do not have any more strikes on the issue of union recognition. I say to the committee that the time has come for us to face up to the issue of union security. Let us decide fairly, after mature deliberation, one way or the other, or upon some compromise which we feel meets the issue. Let us put it on the statute books and remove from our industrial relations one more great cause of industrial conflict and strikes. As we go along in the way we have been taught to 47696-1174
follow, the way of evolution, which it is the British political genius to follow and to make to work, we shall find that one by one we are able to remove by legislation the next barrier from our path, and then the next, and finally we shall open the door to these good things which exist in industrial relation in the future. But something is required of us, and it is not very much. All that is required is that this sovereign parliament, which has the power and the duty, shall face up to its responsibility and legislate on this issue.
I wish to deal for one moment with the union shop outside of legislation. There are many union shops in this country, union shops brought about by private negotiation between the parties. To those who argue in Macleans or in any other newspaper or magazine that a union shop is undemocratic, I say that you have an undemocratic thing existing in your midst by private arrangement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In fact, we have many
closed shops in this country.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: As the hon. member has
said, we have many closed shops in this country. The typographical union is a closed shop. In England there are many closed shops. There are many union shops in the United States. If we can have something by private agreement between parties which i3 undemocratic, surely it is not something we should not discuss in this house.
But there is another angle to this issue in the present strike. Here is a private employer who does not wish to grant a union shop of his own accord, and he may be quite right, because this question of bargaining between the union and the management is one of bargaining equally. If the employer thinks that if he grants the union shop the union will get too strong it is within his rights to say: "No, I cannot do that, because then I would not be bargaining equally with you. If I am stronger than you now you will be stronger than me after the agreement." Therefore it is not a thing that the company can easily give if it does not wish. Likewise it is not possible for the union to withdraw, because they do not feel that they are up to their proper strength until they have union security. Therefore it is a question of balance of power. There is only one authority which can break the deadlock, namely this sovereign parliament. It can act to enable these parties to get over this barrier, to enable them to raise themselves over the hump they have reached, so that they can go on amicably toward the future.
Ford Motor Plant Strike

I wish to make a specific proposition to the committee. I wish to suggest first of all that this government face the issue, argue it out as the two people did in Macleans, and then bring in legislation settling for all time whether or not we are to have unioh shops or upon what basis, if at all, we can have compulsory union shops in this country. If the government are not prepared to take that responsibility and to bring in their conception of what that legislation should be, I suggest that the matter be forthwith referred to the industrial relations committee of this house with instructions to proceed at once to hear evidence from all parties, not only from the parties to whom the C.C.F. listens, namely the labour unions, but to hear evidence from management; to hear evidence from the workers themselves; to hear evidence perhaps from some of the conscientious objectors to joining unions; to hear evidence from producers and) consumers and other people vitally affected by those strikes; and to hear evidence from the general public because the issue of individual freedom is inevitably bound up in this problem. Further, that the industrial relations committee be instructed to report back their recommendations, and that this parliament put on the . statute books the considered judgment of the people of Canada on this issue of union security.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would not such legislation be limited in its validity at most to the period of the emergency?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, as Minister of Reconstruction I think I should say a few words on this subject. The strike at Windsor is, of course, a tragedy, so far as the work of reconstruction is concerned. I think that of all the reconversion problems which have

Ford Motor Plant Strike
been studied by the department in the last eighteen months, more time and effort was put into planning the reconversion of the automobile industry than into any other, and that for the very good reason that the employees in that industry probably outnumber those of every other industry in Canada.
After a great deal of discussion with the company and with the men-because we discussed the plans with both-a plan was worked out which would have permitted the conversion of the industry with a maximum dislocation of fifteen per cent of employees for a maximum period of two months which, considering all the ramifications of the automobile industiy, with its main contractors and its parts manufacturers, would constitute a pretty fair job of reconversion.
The Ford strike has upset that plan. Not only has it upset the plan for the Ford company, but it has worked back through the parts manufacturers; and now the other main contractors are finding themselves in the same position as Ford.
I must discuss this problem with the firm conviction that nothing should be said here to-night that will add difficulty to the work which confronts the Minister of Labour in his efforts at Windsor. The Minister of Labour is a man of great experience in trade union matters, and he is, I believe, the ablest Minister, of Labour this country has seen for a good many years. He has made continued efforts to settle this dispute, and he has now gone to Windsor to put forth a last effort. I would be the last member in this house to say anything which would in any way jeopardize the work he is undertaking.
The Ford situation has been a tragedy of bad relations between management and labour. This is not the first strike in the Ford plant during the war period. We all know that one serious strike occurred lasting for a long, time. We know, too, that there have been, frequent work stoppages in that plant. We also know that in the remainder of the automobile industry there have been no labour interruptions. The same union has been operating throughout the industry. Therefore I think we must conclude that a great deal of the fault lies within the Ford plant itself. I think that the management can be very severely criticized for permitting these relations to continue. A great company such as the Ford company, one with a world-wide reputation, a company which is a great factor in the industrial life of Canada is, I think, to be severely condemned for not having created better union-management relations in its plant.
Perhaps we can say that the local of the union that controls the Ford plant has not been too well managed. I know that complaints are frequent that agreements solemnly made between union and management are not carried out. We know that there is constant friction-and usually friction is not generated from one side. Usually both sides contribute to that continued friction. It has been suggested here to-night that the cause of the friction is low wages, but I think that will hardly stand up. As a matter of fact the average wage paid in the Ford plant for the last five years is the highest that has been paid in any plant in Canada.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Did that apply for the
five years before the war?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What have the five years
before the war to do with the situation to-night? There was in prospect no cut in wages or no cut in the take-home pay. There were a certain number of men to be laid off temporarily because of the conversion from war work to peace-time work. This would have involved a lay-off of about fifteen per cent of the personnel for a period not exceeding two months, had the conversion plan gone through smoothly. However, for the eighty-five per cent there was no loss of take-home pay, no forseeable danger that work in the plant would not be on a twelve months basis.
As a matter of fact no dispute involving wages is paramount in the discussion. The discussion that I have heard leads me to believe that the issue is so-called union security. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard defined union security as he understood it; that is, a union shop with a check-off. I may say that "union security" is a fairly recent term in the lexicon of labour disputes: I think it dates back not more than two years.
I have had some experience with labour, and I am prejudiced in favour of labour unions. I have been associated with the construction industry for a great many years. Directly and indirectly, I have dealt with labour unions over that period. The construction industry is a closed shop. If I were going back into the construction industry, I would no more think of working in that industry without always dealing with labour unions than I would think of setting out deliberately on the road to bankruptcy. The relationship between the building industry and the labour unions has been a constructive relationship. The labour unions have performed a service for the builders which the builders recognize. The builders are glad indeed to work with the labour unions. While
Ford Motor Plant Strike

Other countries have had disputes in the construction industry, Canada has been singularly free from them.
In my own work I have never had a serious dispute with organized labour, nor have t.he contractors who worked under me as engineers. I think the reason for that is that the unions were wisely led. The employers have felt that they had value from the unions for any agreement that they signed. I believe that is true union security. In discussing the present dispute, I think we had better look at real union security rather than the so-called union security which has been defined here to-night.
I had some experience with the railroads during the period I was minister in charge of the railroads in Canada. There, again, I [DOT] think you will find true union security. I think the railroad brotherhoods have more union security than almost any other labour union in Canada. Within the railroad brotherhoods there is no closed shop and there is no check-off. The railroad brotherhoods have dealt with the railroad management for a great number of years. I think tlie railroad management value the guidance of the brotherhoods just as much as the brotherhoods value their association with the management.
I have sat in on several arguments and disputes between railway labour and management, and I have been told by both sides that, once an agreement is signed, that' agreement will never be disturbed, either by labour or by management, until its full term has expired. I think that is union security of a paramount kind. Let us consider the kind of union security that has been described here to-night. We have been told that we should pass a law immediately stating that the policy of this country in labour matters will be the union shop and the check-off. We are told that we should either make it a law-


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: It was not suggested by me that you should pass a law immediately to make the union shop compulsory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was suggested by me; where it is asked for by the union duly teTtified.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand we were to pass a law.
An horn. MEMBER: Under certain conditions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us discuss the situation for a moment. I was interested in the dockers' strike in the United Kingdom. There we had a newly elected Labour government, made up of men wise in labour leadership. I
["Mr. How?.]
think if we had been looking for the best people to council us as to the proper relations between labour and government we would have looked to some of the men who form the government of the United Kingdom to-day. The dockers' strike was a serious one, a good many more men being involved than are involved in the Ford dispute. The stoppage of work was a greater danger to the securtiy of the government of the United Kingdom than is the 'Ford strike to the security of the government of Canada. I was interested to see whether that Labour government would pass a law, and I was interested to find that they did not pass a law.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May I interject?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just a minute.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The case is not analogous.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Labour government said to the dockers, "We will be very glad to discuss your case after you have returned to work." I think that was a sound position to take and the only view that any government could take. If a government must form its legislation in the face of a strike, it is going to have very bad legislation indeed.
The labour legislation of Canada is advanced legislation. It has been well tried. We have machinery in this country to meet any situation. A great many crititical situations have been solved by the use of the labour legislation of this country. I think it is largely on account of that legislation that we have had fewer interruptions of labour in Canada than any other country on the side of the allies has had. Our difficulty is not lack of legislation; it is the unwillingness of the parties to a dispute to allow the labour legislation to operate. That is, the case in the Ford strike. The blame lies not on the one side or on the other; it lies on both sides to the dispute. We have found that both sides to the dispute have not cooperated with the government in allowing the machinery governing labour disputes to operate.
A great many lion, members have suggested that there is an easy way out of this situation; that is, to appoint a controller. Apparently that is the magic formula to solve any difficulty and remove any obstacle. I think I can claim to have invented the appointment of a controller to settle a labour dispute. I think the first appointment of the kind was made in the case of the National Steel Car strike in April, 1941. The National Steel-Car company was making 25-pounder shells,

Ford Motor Plant Strike
which were urgently needed at the front. It was one of the few munitions plants that Canada had in full production at that time. A series of labour disputes developed in the plant and resulted in one work stoppage, followed by a return to work and) a threatened further work stoppage. To straighten out the situation the government appointed a controller for that plant, quite an innovation at that time and one that was not at all welcomed either by labour or by the management.
Let me explain what appointing a controller means. The government in effect expropriates the property. We appointed that controller in the case of National Steel Car, knowing what we were doing and prepared to go through with it. We thought that the necessities of the case and the public interest involved warranted the government in taking that action and, if necessary, owning that property and paying the owners for it through the exchequer court. That possibility is always involved when the government steps in and takes over a business through the appointment of a controller. If the legislation has not sufficient teeth in it for that purpose, it is not an effective controllership. I do not think a government can bluff. If it appoints a controller it must be prepared to follow through to the logical outcome if that becomes necessary.
Subsequently to the National Steel Car situation we have appointed other controllers, but always when an issue of national interest was involved. We have appointed controllers in several war plants, always when there was a vital need for the output of the plant, and when the government felt that if the worst came to the worst it would be prepared to take over and operate the plant as a government property.
Recently controllers have been appointed in the packing industry. There, again, a great national issue was involved. The issue was, whether we were to carry out our commitments to Europe and especially to Great Britain, and as well assure our own people a proper supply of food. That was an issue of national interest which in my opinion warranted the appointment of a controller. If the result had been the ownership by the government of the packing house industry- and we were well aware that that might be the outcome-I still think the government was quite warranted in the step it took, even had that been the result.
It is proposed by some hon. gentlemen that we appoint a controller in the Ford dispute', which means in effect that we expropriate the Ford plant. I doubt very much that the government is in a position to operate a plant
manufacturing automobiles in a competitive market. I doubt whether there would1 be public support for a step of that kind. A good many may say: Well, you could take over the plant and make a few changes, and then the company will be glad to take it back again. I do not know whether they would be or. not. The company have not shown themselves inclined to act logically up to date, and I would not be a bit surprised if they would say: You have the plant, keep it and give us our 150,000,000 and you operate the plant.


Major James William Coldwell: You could say: Wait for the $50,000,000 for a while.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a suggestion, but not very helpful. I can give my hou. friend an example of the appointment of a controller that should be interesting to him; I am speaking of a province which is the rnly province and the only government in the world that has legislation which provides by law the so-called union security that has been discussed. here to-night. I refer to Saskatchewan. There was a box factory in Prince Albert. This is a recent case, within the last two or three weeks. The factory employed some forty-five men. There was a dispute between management and employees, and the management was summoned to Regina under the drastic legislation of that province and ordered to set a certain schedule of wages. Management said that it could not operate on those wages. The province then threatened to appoint a controller. I do not know whether a controller was appointed, but I do know that in the course of a few days there were not any men working in that plant, and that the plant was closed. That can result under the most drastic legislation, and therefore I suggest that the answer is not to be found-


An hon. MEMBER:: The government of
Saskatchewan has taken over that plant.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps they will know how
to make and sell boxes in competition. We will watch with interest. That is the logical outcome of a controllership, exactly what I have been saying. If we had drastic legislation here of a similar sort we might be taking over the Ford motor plant and be paying for it, because in a British country we never take property over without proper compensation. I do not think they will do otherwise in Saskatchewan.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Again I ask: Is it a wise and prudent transaction for any government to undertake on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada? Perhaps no one is just as sure of the action that should be taken in this dispute
Ford Motor Plant Strike

as might appear from the speeches that we have heardl to-night. If I knew of any action that would end this dispute and not create more chaos in the labour situation than we have at this moment, I would certainly counsel my colleagues to adopt that course. Failing such knowledge, I think every effort must be made to resolve the dispute with the legislation that we have at this time. I do not think new legislation of any kind will help the situation. I think anything that can be done will be done in the next two or three days by the Minister of Labour on the spot in Windsor, and I can only ask hon. members in all sections of the house to refrain from making any statement or taking any action that will interfere with his efforts to that end.


Mr. BROWN:: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Mr. Chairman, I have been on my feet several times. I was attacked by a member of this house and I have a right to reply. I have risen more than once, and I protest against anything in the nature of discrimination.


William Henry Golding: I would say to the hon. member that I have the names here of members who have patiently been waiting for a chance to speak. The hon. member for Essex West and the hon. member for Winnipeg North have been waiting-for quite some time, and if the hon. member will permit the hon. member for Essex West to speak now, then so far as I am concerned he may have the floor.


Major James William Coldwell: I was unaware that
there was a list when I spoke, or I might not have made the remark I just made. But, having been attacked, I think the list should be set aside in order that one might reply. That is the usual procedure in parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is discrimination.


William Henry Golding: I may say to the leader of the C.C.F. that if his colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North is willing to withdraw-this affects the bon. member for Essex West>-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I will yield my place to the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar.


Donald Ferguson Brown: As the representative of the constituency of Essex West I think I should say a few words, particularly since the dispute under discussion has as its location the city of Windsor, which comprises a chief part of my riding. I believe it is the duty of hon. members as Canadian statesmen to reconcile

the parties and heal the hurt of our people, not by the application of thorns and vinegar as evidenced in the comments of some who have taken part in the debate; for I sincerely believe that most parties represented in the house have a sincere desire to see that the present conditions are corrected.
I speak to-night on behalf of women and children as well as those men who are working in factories in the city of Windsor, people who have come from all parts of Canada and who by their initiative, their industry and their sincerity have built up the population of Windsor to approximately 130,000 in a comparatively few years. Those people, as their feelings are expressed in the telegram I hold in my hand, are in fear to-night. I believe that that fear is not well founded, for I am certain that I speak for all parties in saying that we desire to see that they are protected.
I am not going to discuss the issues involved in this dispute, because they have already been debated pro and con. The urgent matter, it seems to me, is the sending of force into the city of Windsor in the form of a certain number of dominion and provincial police. But at the outset I would like to say that I do not believe the use of force will cure the situation; it will not provide for us a lasting peace.	.
We have heard somewhat of social security. Social security is the coming together by common will of two individuals, one having confidence in the other, as we have had confidence in our own mothers and fathers. Until that condition is attained there will be no social security for it is a mental condition.
It has been represented that, because of the season of the year and imminent cold weather conditions, there may be some destruction of part of the plant of the Ford Motor company. Some machines which contain a certain amount of water might. be destroyed, and, if so, that plant will be closed for a year. I am not thinking of the company, but I am much concerned for our women and children, and for those workmen whose sole desire it is to provide for themselves and their families and to live in peace and contentment, who wish not to destroy but to produce. On behalf of these people I believe it our duty to do what we can to ensure that, their means of livelihood is protected. That it is at present endangered has been represented to me, and whether it is a fact or not I leave it to engineers to say. I have been informed that numbers of machines in this plant use a soda solution or a soap solution; that all these machines will have to be dismantled, reconditioned, and put together

Ford Motor Plant Strike
again, and that this process will take several weeks. Besides that, it has been represented to me that scores of electric motors will need to be reconditioned because they are now submerged in water. I do not know whether these statements are correct, but they have come to me from sources which I consider reliable. If these be the facts, we must do something to protect the livelihood of thousands of dependent men, women and children throughout the city.
It has been suggested that, in order to promote a settlement and get the plant in operation, the union permit the opening of the power plant and the return to work of members of the maintenance staff and persons engaged in the protective force. The strike could be allowed to continue, but at the same time there would be a voluntary arbitration, whereby the parties would consent to the appointment of an umpire. This would be done under the guidance of an umpire appointed by the government, whose decision would be final, and would be continued for a period of at least ten days, to a point which would permit the men to go back to work. If the union so requested, a commission might then be appointed to look into the question of annual wages with vacations. These proposals were submitted; I do not believe that they have been accepted.
If there are persons whose sole purpose it is to destroy, I am wholeheartedly opposed to them. If they want to destroy I am not with them. They are not the average workman; they are not the average citizen of the city of Windsor, because the citizen of Windsor is industrious. He wants to produce, but he is afraid and to-night he believes that the government, by the use of this force, is cooperating with the company in an attempt to break the strike. For that reason they are determined to fight. May I assure them that not only this government and the supporters of this government but, I feel sure, all members of this house will support me when I say that we are earnestly and sincerely trying to effect a settlement which will be to the benefit of these workers, that they need have no fear whatsoever, and that by reason of the facts which I have just stated it is essential that we protect the plant. I feel sure that with the means that have been taken even this day we can come to a reasonable settlement; for, after all, reasonable persons can come to harmonious and reasonable conclusions. I would say to the people of Windsor and environment that they need have no fear of any action of this government. I feel sure there will be no force used, because we are all determined, all mem-47696-118
bers of this house, to see that we get some solution of the problem which will heal the hurt of our people.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I think everyone will agree with the hon. member for Essex West that the people who suffer most in the strike are usually the wives and children of the workers and the workers themselves. After all, a great corporation can hold out almost indefinitely; all that is disturbing is that the plant is idle and may deteriorate in some respects. But the women and children, the wives of the workers and the workers themselves have to provide a place in which to live and to try to live decently. They have to eat. Consequently anyone who has a semblance of humanitarianism in him is anxious to see the settlement of a dispute of this description.
I am interested in this strike because it is the first of the great post-war strikes that we may encounter unless we have either provincial or federal machinery-or both-to deal with them. The Minister of Reconstruction made a constructive speech this evening. He pointed out the long experience he has had with labour himself and the success he has had in dealing with unions, and he went on to speak of the union situation in Great Britain, where conditions are not comparable with those in this country. In Great Britain for the last fifty years the unions have been well established. The unions have gained that recognition which enlightened employers like the Minister of Reconstruction have accorded them in this country. But unfortunately in Canada we have had a different situation. The unions in Canada have been fought tooth and nail by corporations like the Ford Company and others of the same stamp.
One of the interesting features of this debate to-night is that nobody has dared to rise in his place and say a single word on behalf of Henry Ford or the Ford corporation. I have listened, and not one individual member of this house has dared to rise in his place and say a solitary single word in defence of Ford or his corporation. That in itself is a striking condemnation on the part of parliament of the Ford way of doing business.


Mr. LOW:: It is not a question of daring to.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I will put it in another way. It is not a question of daring to, the hon. member says. Well, no one has found any reason to rise in this house and say one word in favour of Ford, and if my hon. friend has a reason I suggest that he tell the committee what his reason is for having respect for Ford or his corporation.

Ford Motor Plant Strike


Solon Earl Low: It would not be because I do not dare.


Major James William Coldwell: That is all right. I suggest that if the hon. member has a reason he should state it and not hide it under his bushel.


Solon Earl Low: Do not accuse members of this house of not daring.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister said that eighty-five per cent of' the workers of the Ford plant would be employed if this strike had not occurred. Then what is it that has brought about the strike? Fear-fear of the ultimate loss of employment; fear of the loss of even that semblance of union security, if I may use the term, which the workers of that company and of other companies have won during this war. Fear is at the base of the present labour situation in this country as it is in connection with this company.
The hon. member for Yancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt), when he reads his speech tomorrow, will be surprised at some of the things he said. He began by arguing against compulsory membership in unions, compulsory unions and compulsory check-off, attacking us because we had suggested that in our speeches to-day; and he wound up by trying to contend that the compulsory check-off, compulsory union and enforcement by legislation was the policy he was suggesting. When he reads his speech to-morrow morning-


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Mr. Chairman,-


Major James William Coldwell: I am not attacking the hon. member as he attacked us.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The hon. member did not listen to my speech.


Major James William Coldwell: I listened to the speech;
I believe I have average intelligence to interpret it, and if the hon. member ^ill use the same intelligence to-morrow morning when he reads it he will reach the conclusion I have just reached.
When he says that we have made no constructive suggestions, I would point out that for many years, because of the industrial situation in this country, we have advocated the establishment of a national labour code. We have urged that provincial-dominion conferences should be held in order that agreement might be reached with the provinces, so that we might know where the power lies, with a view to adopting a proper labour code in Canada. During this war we have urged that when, under the emergency power, the govern-
ment passes an order in council dealing with labour matters it should deal not only' with the workers' obligations but, in the same manner should compel industry or the employers to institute collective bargaining.
The weakness of P.C. 1003, as everyone knows, is that it expresses a pious hope and says that something should be done, but it does not provide the means of making sure that it shall be done. We have suggested three things: 1. That a controller should be put into this plant pending a negotiated settlement. 2. That the police should be withdrawm. 3. That there should be legislation to bring about satisfactory union conditions for the workers. These three things we have suggested; they have been suggested in other parts of the house, sometimes separately, sometimes collectively, and sometimes the persons suggesting them were not awTare that they were making such proposals. I say to the Acting Prime Minister that when he says that we are supporting illegality he knows that cannot be substantiated by facts. Throughout the whole of our existence we have stood for law and order; but there are times when disorder has been provoked by government action.
My hon. friend the member for Vancouver-Burrard sits to-day wearing the political stripe of a party which has one of the worst labour records of any political party in the British commonwealth of nations. I am not forgetting that after the last war the former leader of this group, my predecessor, was arrested in Winnipeg; his colleagues were arrested in Winnipeg, and the leader of the Conservative party at that time wired to Winnipeg, when it was pointed out to him that the arrests and what was proposed to be done with those arrested were illegal, and said: "Carry out my instructions; I will legalize them afterwards."


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame!


Major James William Coldwell: We do not want a repetition of that kind of thing in this country. Let me say this, too, nor do we want a repetition of the kind of thing that happened in the depression. I remember Regina in 1935 and Mr. Bennett's iron heel. I remember how the mounted police there provoked disorder by throwing tear gas bombs into a citizens' meeting, not a meeting solely of the trekkers who were in the city at the time, and thus brought about a condition whereby they could drive those young men out of the city and prevent their march to Ottawa. I may say to my hon. friends opposite, the same kind of thing happened in 1938, under their administration, in the Vancouver post office. We do not

Ford Motor Plant Strike
want to see a repetition of that kind of thing.
When you talk about supporting illegality, who provokes it? That is the point. Who provokes it? I say that this situation which we have in Windsor to-night is due to the inaction of the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Provoked by inaction.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard talks about referring this matter to the industrial relations committee of this house. All I can say is, the best thing he can do is to read the evidence that was given before the national war labour board in regard to these matters, and then read its report of 1943, and he will find therein a complete and full investigation of everything that he proposes to investigate anew.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I doubt that.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The hon. gentleman
may doubt it, but I would suggest that he read it first and then express any doubts that he may have after he has read the report. That is the time to express doubt about it. Therefore I say that if this strike is to be settled you will have to remove the cause of the strike, and the cause of the strike, as everybody who has spoken to-day has, by implication at least, admitted, is the management of the Ford company at Windsor. There is a different management at Detroit and there are different conditions. The very things that the men are fighting for in Windsor have been granted across the river in Detroit. Why? Because the Canadian management of the Ford company is at fault. It is all very well for members to rise in this house and say that we must not take sides. There are occasions when by not taking sides you are taking a side. I make no apologies for taking a side.	I am on the side of the men,
definitely, because I believe the fault over the years lies with the .company. I know, as I am sure the members who represent Windsor and the Essex county seats in this house know, the whole story of the long years of antiunionism of the management of the Canadian Ford company. The same thing applied in Detroit, the only difference being that in Detroit they got rid of it a little earlier and the United States has a labour code.
On our side of the line the story - is writ large in the misery of a good many men who tried to work for their fellowmen in the Ford corporation throughout the years. As has been said, this dates back not one month, two months, seventeen months, but years. The time has come when, if I may use the same expression as the hon. member for Vancouver-
Burrard used, we should grasp the nettle and grasp it tightly. But the nettle you have to grasp is the management of the Ford corporation in Canada. The only way that you can deal with the corporation at the moment is to show that you mean business. To put in a controller does not mean that you are to socialize the plant immediately. It does not mean that you are taking it out of the ownership of those who own it to-day, but you are taking it out of the control of those who now exercise it: Mr. Campbell and the group of Ford owners whom he represents; that is all.
May I say this, too, I believe that with a controller in the plant and the men going back into the plant, the workers who are in the managerial positions in the plant would be happier men; for no man, whether he was a humble worker on the assembly line or a man who does an important, job at the managerial end, can be happy under the conditions that have existed and continue to exist in the Ford plant.
This is a test for the government, or if you will, it is a test for this house because, if you take the situation at Windsor which we are emphasizing and look a little farther afield, you will see what I mean. Look at the situation around Guelph and learn something about the sinister figures who are responsible for the conditions there and then see where they are going to lead us in a little while, if they are allowed to continue. I do not want to divert attention from Windsor to Guelph, but one of these days soon some inquiry will have to be made regarding the situation at Guelph, and in the meantime some understanding should be attempted as to what is behind the situation there.
Let me come back to the Ford situation again. We suggest at this time .that there is one thing that the government can do, and one thing only, namely, to appoint a controller, to withdraw provocation in the form of the police. Let me say that I have received a protest to-day, not from any strikers, not from people who I thought sympathized with the men on strike in the Ford plant, against the Royal Canadian Air Force planes being used to transport the police to Windsor. But I see it is eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
47696-118J
Private Bills

Tuesday, November 6, 1945.