1963-10-11

Mr. Lucien Lamoureux (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In yesterday's edition of the Ottawa Journal, Mr. Richard Jackson wrote that I did not take part in two votes of the house since September 30.
Anyone who reads Hansard for October 1 will understand quite readily why I abstained from voting at that time, even though I was in the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted, before you call the motion standing in my name, to say a brief word about the business of the house. It might be that we would not necessarily deal with the motion after I have said this.
I think all hon. members are aware that the motion was put on the order paper because of the difficult situation in which the country finds itself at the present time. The government realizes that it is an inconvenience with as short notice as this to ask hon. members to sit on Saturday, but I would like to be allowed to remind hon. members that we are in a rather difficult position, particularly with respect to supply. Perhaps it is not altogether realized in the house that ten days of this session will have to be taken up- unless they are foregone and there is no suggestion they should be-with supply motions; and in view of the fact that only one department has been disposed of and another not completely disposed of, I do not think, bearing in mind past practice, that we could reasonably anticipate much less than 20 days on estimates, which makes 30 sitting days.
If we are to get this session finished by the end of the year, which I am sure all hon. members would like to do, this is a fact of life, in addition to which there is some
difficult and contentious legislation and some legislation that may not be contentious but still is important and deserves to be seriously debated. This is a problem not just for the government; this is a problem for the whole house.
It had been my thought that perhaps the most satisfactory way of dealing with it would be to have a motion adopted which would give us the power to sit on Saturdays whenever it seemed necessary in order to make progress on the estimates, but I am not going to ask the house to do that without proper notice. We have a very important bill before us which the government and all hon. members have indicated they feel should be disposed of, and we have two other matters that are important in the sense that the elections in the Northwest Territories will be governed by them. But I am wondering whether it might be possible to avoid putting this motion at all provided there was some other way by which hon. members thought adequate progress could be made today. Since I have not had the opportunity for the usual consultations I thought I might put the matter to the house and see whether we might be able to resolve it without the necessity of my moving the motion.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the difficulties that face the house with regard to the organization of business are pretty well known to hon. members, and what the Secretary of State has said with regard to the estimates is quite correct. We have quite a problem to deal with the estimates. In a year when an election is held it is just inevitable that in that calendar year there is a restricted time for estimates. I made a survey last year and compared four election years. That survey showed clearly that the house either has to shorten the period for the study of estimates or not pass the estimates completely at all.
We are now in that position in this calendar year. The house has to make a decision whether we will telescope the time for estimates or whether we will drift on and not pass them all. I am not going to stir up any political discussion as to what was done last year or anything of that nature, but this is the situation that faces the House of Commons in a year in which an election is held.
I suggest that this particular motion stand so that we will have a little time to consult together and propose various plans for the

Business of the House allocation of time during the balance of the calendar year. It may be that we can work out something that will be satisfactory.
In so far as today is concerned, if the debate on the bill which is to be the first item of business to come before us is not prolonged, I presume it would then be possible to go on with the other two bills that have been mentioned. I have not had time to consult with the members of our party, but my own preference would be to sit a bit longer today rather than to sit on Saturday. Second, even if we feel that Saturday sittings are necessary I would prefer that consideration of this matter be postponed and that Saturday sittings, if we have to have them, come later in this calendar year.
In conclusion may I just say that I think it would be agreeable to us to sit longer hours today if necessary, rather than reassembling tomorrow.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the problem that faces the house at the present time, and are quite prepared to co-operate in every reasonable effort to get the business of the house through. We know it is absolutely necessary that adequate time be given to the departmental estimates because this gives individual members an opportunity to deal with their respective problems. We have not had an opportunity of discussing this in our party either, but I believe the suggestion that has been made, that we sit tonight even up to ten o'clock if necessary, will be satisfactory; and it might be preferable in the circumstances rather than sitting tomorrow.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State is to be be commended for his suggestion that we not proceed with his motion at the moment but that we be given time to consider the points he has raised. We are all aware of the problem facing us with respect to getting the estimates through, and I think we would all admit that we have to find some way in which we can do this in the amount of time there is left in the calendar year before another session starts.
I would suggest that the question of whether we sit tonight or tomorrow for the purpose of getting the trusteeship legislation through, as well as the whole question of what to do about our sittings, be discussed through what are sometimes referred to as the usual channels but which seem to have broken down a bit of late. I am suggesting to the Secretary of State that he resume the very commendable practice he carried on in the early part of the session, of calling in the house leaders of the various parties to discuss these matters. I know the problem this raises, but I suggest


that common sense dictates that if we are going to deal with the business of the house, a representative of every group in the house, by whatever name it is called, should meet with the Secretary of State to work this out.
I think if we do have such a meeting today we can can come up with some solution to the problem. I urge that nothing be done at this point, but that the representatives of the various groups have a chance to discuss the matter with the members of their parties and that the Secretary of State call a meeting of the party representatives later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the house that as a matter of courtesy, and shall we say fair play, certainly without prejudice to any statement made by me, we do hear this morning from the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is important, in order to speed up the business of the house, to have the opinion of a political party which includes 13 members.
It would be easier to co-ordinate the business if our group of 13 members is consulted than otherwise. As far as we are concerned, we think it is normal that these things be discussed among the parliamentary leaders in order to reach a solution, so that the business of the house be accelerated as much as possible.
From what I understood of the statement made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickers-gill), he is anxious to see the trusteeship bill pass today or tomorrow and we have no objection to that. On the other hand, as far as Bills C-83 and C-84 are concerned, even if there are agreements between the parliamentary leaders of the various parties, we wish to point out that we would not want to put a blockade on the passing of those bills but that we think we are dealing with very important legislation, particularly the bill respecting the delimitation of the Nunassiaq territory and that we could not accept, at least under the present circumstances, a speedy consideration of that bill in as much as it is lacking in precision and clearness and it does not contain the full information we would like to have. Besides, we just pointed out that fact to the leader of the house and that, without any intention of filibustering. But those questions are very important to us and we want to consider them. Therefore, and as was done in the past, we suggest a meeting between the parliamentary leaders of the various political parties including ours, to discuss the situation of the business of the house at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to deal first of all with one point raised by the hon. member for Lapointe. Let me say at once that this government has no intention of seeking to put through any piece of legislation without allowing hon. members who want to debate any point of principle to do so. There is no thought whatever of suggesting that if there is any intention of debating the substance of this bill, that will be a condition of anything else; because that is what parliament is for, to debate these matters. There will be no attempt on the part of the government to push this bill through until hon. members are satisfied that they have had their say before the matter is brought to a vote. I am referring to the bill in connection with the territory the name of which, because of my poor knowledge of Eskimo, I cannot pronounce.
As to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think it would be satisfactory to the government if we could reach an agreement now that it would be possible at five o'clock to revert to motions to settle this question for the rest of the week. Speaking as house leader and also for the government, we in other words, do not want to be denied the right which we now have to move our motion; but if it could be agreed now that, in the event of our not being able to find any satisfactory solution, we could revert to motions at five o'clock and have freedom to deal with the matter, I think it would be very helpful; and it would save the time of the house if we could have discussions through the usual channels about this matter.
I should like to say at the same time that I appreciate very much indeed the co-operative and understanding way in which this matter has been approached by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and indeed by all those who have spoken. If we could have this understanding that the house would permit us to revert to motions to adopt whatever procedure may be agreed upon or, in the event of no agreement, that the government may go ahead, should it still feel it is necessary to do so, with the motion, I think this matter could be postponed for the time being.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are quite happy to give unanimous consent to the suggestion that the government be permitted to revert to motions at five o'clock and then take up this motion, if necessary. However, I think it would be desirable between now and five o'clock that the Secretary of State consult with representatives of all parties on this side so that we may know what is intended when we reach five o'clock.
Wheat Marketing Policy


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to arrange an appropriate meeting as soon as I can.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the suggestion of the Secretary of State?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Then it is agreed.



WHEAT-STATEMENT BY MINISTER RESPECTING MARKETING POLICY

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that yesterday I endeavoured to make a rather lengthy reply to some questions which were put to me about Canadian-United States wheat marketing policies, and it was suggested that I might instead make the statement today on motions, which I am very happy to do.
I said in the course of my reply to an hon. member that Canada and the United States are competitors in world wheat markets, friendly competitors but very keen competitors. I said that we were each interested in getting as large a share of world markets as we could, and also that we had a very great interest in stability. That is why we are both members of the international wheat agreement, and it is why we have had from time to time consultations about our respective wheat policies. I recalled that when the joint committee on trade and economic affairs was established some years ago a subcommittee was established at the official level just for the purpose of discussing our respective wheat policies, and in particular at that time surplus disposal, which has been carried on in the United States over the years on a very large scale. I also said there were many times when our two governments have not always seen eye to eye, when we have made representations the one to the other.
This is natural and normal, since we remain competitors, even though, like wheat importing and exporting countries generally, we have an interest as members of the international wheat agreement in the stabilization of the world wheat market.
The wheat marketing systems of Canada and the United States are, of course, very different. In Canada the Canadian wheat board is the sole marketing agency for western wheat. The wheat board sells the wheat at home and abroad and distributes the proceeds to the farmers. No one stands between the farmer and the export market.
In the United States, on the other hand, the domestic market price has been above the price of wheat being offered by competitive sellers like Canada, Australia and

Wheat Marketing Policy the Argentine. In order to meet this competition the United States government has had to pay a subsidy fixed from time to time. In addition, as hon. members know, the United States government has moved very large quantities of wheat under the provisions of public law 480.
The Canadian wheat board, being the sole marketing agency for western wheat, determines its selling prices from day to day, and may enter into contracts of any size and for forward delivery. This it did recently for
500,000	tons to mainland China and nearly six million tons of wheat and flour to the Soviet union.
After the conclusion of the Russian contract the board indicated its willingness to enter into forward contracts also with certain of its regular customers, including Japanese buyers. It seems to me this was a sensible and forward looking policy, since the board is desirous of retaining the business and the good will of its regular customers.
The United States administration has taken exception to this policy and has let its views be known to the press, as well as to the Canadian wheat board and to the government. All I can say is that I believe the wheat board has been acting in the long term interests of the western farmer, and in a way designed to promote stability in world wheat markets. If, over the years and recently, it had followed a less far seeing policy, I do not believe those in need of wheat would have turned as they did to Canada in the first instance for such a large portion of their requirements.
I am sure all hon. members on all sides of the house will agree that it is of the utmost importance that the wheat board should take the long view. Even with these large sales Canada will still have a large carryover at the end of the current crop year. We intend to remain competitive, to retain our regular customers and their confidence in our marketing system, and to build new markets.
I trust we shall also continue to have the co-operation of the United States administration in doing what can be done to stabilize world wheat markets.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I hope the house has followed with interest and deep attention the remarks which have been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What the hon. gentleman has said about the marketing of grain was accurate and succinct. It was not altogether complete, of course, and the suggestions I am about to make will, I trust, add weight to what has been said.
We have been operating in Canada, through the Canadian wheat board, a type of marketing which I think ranks with the best in any


country in the world. Because of lack of knowledge on the part of many people in Canada, some of them in high places, about the way in which the wheat board operates, attacks are occasionally made on the board for which there can be no justifiable foundation.
The matters which are now under discussion were, of course, considered at the time we set the policy in connection with the China wheat agreement. In connection with this long term agreement we held to the view that we could set a fixed price for the period of each contract. This fixed price basis has been followed by the board as a regular policy, without any objection being raised until the present time. The minister was correct when he pointed out that this was the established practice of the wheat board, with the full knowledge of our competitors.
The second point I wish to make is that we have established what I call a rule of law in the sale of grain on world markets. We have set an example to nations which produce surpluses of other types as to the way in which they can bring a rule of law into the marketing of their products. Until the last two or three weeks I was very proud of the co-operation which existed among the leading exporting nations of the world in dealing with their customers, passing information back and forth and maintaining the confidence of each.
During the last two weeks it looked as if we were reaching the breaking point in the confidence that we must have if our Canadian wheat board officials are to divulge all our Canadian information to our competitors as they divulge their information to us. I would hope that the minister, at his level, would bring to the attention of his United States counterpart the fact that we want to maintain this friendly co-operation and rule of law in connection with the handling of grain in the world through this international wheat agreement. We would hope that he would restrain his officials, and if necessary himself, from making statements which are harmful to the interests of one of the countries co-operating in this group. I do not believe we should allow our officials to stand alone on this question. I think if you do it over the telephone you can make it very clear to the secretary of agriculture that these are views which, as Canadians, we all support, and that we support the Canadian wheat board.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that we would like to support him in his determination to maintain the selling procedures that the Canadian wheat board has followed in the past. I should like to say to him also that we feel it is both right and desirable that the wheat board

ditions and terms equally favourable as they gave in the special sales to mainland China and the Soviet union. If these forward pricing arrangements had been carried on in the past, and the minister tells us they had, then we support him in his contention that they should be continued in spite of objection from the United States.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the events of the past few years in relation to the marketing of wheat have fully vindicated the establishment of the Canadian wheat board as the sole marketing agency of wheat and certain coarse grains in this country. The huge surpluses which had been built up would have resulted, under an open market situation, in very depressed prices for the farmers. Now the shortage of wheat in certain areas of the world would have resulted in a very rapid increase in the world price which would have benefited not the farmers who grew the wheat but the speculators on the various wheat exchanges. Therefore the organization of a national wheat marketing policy has been fully vindicated by the present situation, in that the farmer is going to get the full return from whatever wheat is sold and the purchasers of wheat, who are important, are not going to feel that they have been exploited because of an unfortunate famine situation.
This does not mean, of course, that we think the Canadian wheat board should drop its price in order to get orders. It was for this reason I was concerned when the report came from Washington that the Canadian wheat board had dropped its price 6 cents a bushel in order to get a contract with mainland China. However, I believe we have to leave it to the good judgment of the Canadian wheat board to get the best price they can.
I was relieved yesterday when the minister denied the statement which was made by a United States agriculture spokesman to the effect that on September 20 a representative from Canada had assured the United States representative that no more fixed price agreements would be entered into following the agreement with the Soviet union. I am glad the minister has assured the house and the country that such fixed price agreements will be continued, because they are in the interests of the farmer on the one hand, and fully demonstrate to importers of wheat that we are not anxious to allow speculators to take advantage of the unfortunate situation which has made it necessary for them tc import large quantities of wheat.
I think the house generally will support the minister in the position which he has
Wheat Marketing Policy taken, and will let the Canadian wheat board know that we stand behind the policy they have been pursuing.


Mr. Caouette:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The house will appreciate, of course, the difficult position in which the Chair is pending the receipt of instructions from the house. However, I suggest to the house that pending those instructions, as a matter of courtesy and without prejudice to those instructions from the house the hon. member for Villeneuve be allowed to comment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your courtesy to me and to our group.
The Canadian wheat board should not try to minimize the value nor to reduce the price of our wheat because, after hearing experts both in Canada and throughout the world assert that Canadian wheat is of a better quality than any other in the world, we consider that we should not in any circumstance speculate on prices or reduce them. We can meet the competition of all other countries.
The action taken this morning by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) is all to the credit of western farmers and is likely to prove the value of our wheat to our farmers as well as the countries interested in buying our wheat and to promote good trade relations, while maintaining as always a high quality of wheat and taking progressive measures for the development of our foreign trade.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of urgency for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the light of what has happened in the United States and the criticism about the Canadian wheat board's method of selling grain, would the minister consider having the Canadian wheat board and also the board of grain commissioners appear before the standing committee on agriculture as soon as possible?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I gave some assurance to members on the other side that I would be very happy to see the wheat board appear before the agriculture committee as soon as it is ready to hear them.

Sale of Butter Surplus AGRICULTURE



BUTTER-STATEMENT ON SALE OF SURPLUS STOCKS

Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,	since I	have	hadmany inquiries in connection with the butter situation	I thought I	should review	thesituation	at this time	for the	benefit of
hon. members.
As one of the supports provided to the dairy industry under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, butter has been supported by an offer to purchase. In 1957 the level of support	was increased	from 58	cents	per
pound to 64 cents per pound. Until that time production and consumption of butter in Canada had remained reasonably in balance. In 1958, with the increase in the support level and concurrent anti-fat publicity, the per capita consumption dropped sharply while production continued to rise. By May 1, 1962 the agricultural stabilization board's stocks of butter either as butter or in the form of butter oil had risen to 168 million pounds. Of this over 70 million pounds had been accumulated during the 1961-62 support year.
On May 1, 1962 a consumption incentive program of 12 cents per pound was instituted, and during that year approximately 50 million pounds more butter was moved into domestic disappearance channels than was the case the previous year. Nevertheless, production for the dairy year 1962-63 exceeded consumption by approximately 25 million pounds. At the start of this dairy year certain changes were made in the support program, including a modest incentive to the production of Cheddar cheese, a product that finds ready acceptance in the export market. As a consequence of this and the continuation of the 12 cent consumption subsidy it appears that this year for the first time since 1957 supply and demand of dairy products will be approximately in balance.
In order to reduce storage costs and to conserve quality, older stocks of butter from time to time have been converted to butter oil. While Canada to date has refrained from offering surplus butter on the world market at concessional prices, the fact that the current program now would appear to have the surplus problem under control would indicate that it is appropriate to dispose of at least a portion of the holdings of surplus butter and butter oil. Crop conditions throughout parts of Europe and Asia have been unsatisfactory this year, which would indicate an over-all shortage of dairy products. Accordingly after consultation with major dairy exporting countries the government decided to offer for 
export the agricultural stabilization board's holdings of butter oil.
Early this week word was received that Great Britain needed supplies of butter to meet imminent shortages which could not be covered because of distance, supply conditions and seasonal factors by Great Britain's normal suppliers. Accordingly the British board of trade asked British importers to submit applications for the import, from any source, of 5,000 tons of butter for delivery prior to November 15. The agricultural stabilization board quoted 1961 and 1962 butter at competitive prices to Canadian exporters who had received inquiries from British importers. To date it is understood that approximately one half of the import licences are being issued to cover butter from Canadian sources.
It is not considered to be in the interests of the competitive position of Canadian exporters to release the price at which the agricultural stabilization board has quoted this butter at this time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make any lengthy comments on the details of the statement just given to us today because I think an opportunity will occur later in the sittings of the house to deal with it in more detail. However, I would like to make one observation; that I do hope the government has not forsaken the efforts that were under way to try and get the 20 odd butter surplus nations of the world to co-operate in some form of international commodity agreement that would bring some rule of law into the dairy surplus situation, as we did many years ago in looking after wheat.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the statements made yesterday by United States secretary of labour Wirtz, which apparently reflect the opinions of the Kennedy administration on the measure before the Canadian parliament to set up a maritime unions trusteeship.
Has the Prime Minister, either on the hot line between Washington and Ottawa or through the ordinary facilities, advised President Kennedy personally of the indignation of Canadians at the unwarranted affront to the parliament of Canada and the people of Canada by the observations of a man holding

the responsible post that Mr. Wirtz does, regarding measures before our parliament and while they are being discussed here?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the right hon. gentleman's statement and question at some length and crave the indulgence of the house for that purpose, but I might say at the beginning that I have not communicated directly with President Kennedy on this particular matter, as the full account of the statements that were made in Washington yesterday were received only this morning. I refer to the statements made by the secretary of labour and the president of the American federation of labour, statements that were carried in yesterday's press reports.
The Minister of Labour and other hon. members of the house have already expressed their deep concern over both the content and the timing of these statements. The concern that I am sure members of the house and Canadians generally have felt about these statements arises in large part from the apparent failure of both the secretary of labour of the United States government and the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. to appreciate fully the fact that the dispute on the great lakes is essentially a Canadian dispute, although of course it has international ramifications and could cause international repercussions.
In all the efforts that have been made to develop an effective solution to this problem on a private basis the failure on the part of the United States labour leaders to recognize this basic fact, that this was basically a Canadian dispute, has been a chief stumbling block. For instance, the insistence of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. negotiators that there should be no provision in any private trusteeship arrangement to ensure that the majority of the trustees be Canadian was indeed a major issue on which private negotiations broke down. The government let the Canadian Labour Congress spokesmen know from the beginning of the negotiations that it strongly supported the stand taken by the congress on this matter, and that the government could accept no private arrangement that did not ensure a Canadian majority of trustees. Any other course would have been unthinkable, and it is surprising that the United States government and labour officials did not realize this.
Another basic fact that has not been recognized in the Washington statements is the failure once again on their part to understand that this dispute-and I have already referred to this-centres around the progressive destruction of free trade unionism and the failure of the president of the seafarers international union of Canada to arrest this progressive destruction of democratic unioninquiries of the Ministry ism. The objective of the government, and I am sure of the parliament of Canada, of the Canadian Labour Congress and of the Canadian people, is to restore free and democratic unionism in the maritime industry in Canada, and complete freedom of shipping on the great lakes. That is the essence of our position and explains the reason that the Canadian parliament is being asked to do what the S.I.U. itself should have done long ago.
I would hope especially that the statement made by Mr. Meany, rightly described by my friend the Minister of Labour as shocking, is not to be interpreted as an invitation to violence on the part of members of unions. The Canadian government and the Canadian people will not, I can assure Mr. Meany if he needs the assurance, be intimidated let alone impressed by any such statements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But, Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to all concerned in both the United States and Canada to act in this matter in a responsible way, so that we can bring to an end as quickly as possible the serious difficulties that have persisted for much too long in the Canadian maritime industry.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Prime Minister was a very lengthy one, and understandably so. We in the opposition share the views of the Prime Minister in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The statement by Mr. Wirtz was made at a time when he must have believed it would have a maximum effect on Canada's parliament. However, I come back, having said what I have said, and agreeing with the references that have been made to Mr. Meany's quite gratuitous and improper observations, to ask the Prime Minister does he intend to let President Kennedy know how Canadians feel about the action of Mr. Wirtz? One might also say, having regard to the earlier statement made by Mr. Wirtz when he butted in on Canadian affairs, that he is getting "wirtz and wirtz".


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, now that we have received the reports of these statements I will not hesitate to let the President of the United States know exactly how the government and parliament feel about the statements made by a member of the United States cabinet and the head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of his earlier

Inquiries of the Ministry statement that he would let President Kennedy know about the government's disapproval of the interference by secretary of labour Wirtz in a Canadian matter, and also because of the rapidly developing crisis in relations between the two countries, is the Prime Minister considering an early meeting with the President to discuss this and other subjects?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no such immediate meeting in contemplation, but I am glad to be able to state that I have access to the President whenever I wish to speak to him.



LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Labour. I am sure all members of the house and Canadians at large are relieved that there is some new hope of a settlement on the waterfront. Can the Minister of Labour pass on any further information he may have received from Judge Lippe or otherwise that would inform the house as to how the negotiations are developing at the present time?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, members of the house will be pleased to learn that the dispute is showing signs of settlement. A settlement has not been reached, but there are signs of a settlement in the situation. As a result of meetings convened yesterday by Judge Lippe and which lasted until 3.30 this morning the parties came to a meeting of minds.
I understand that the representatives of the longshoremen's union at a meeting to be held at eight o'clock tomorrow morning will seek authority from members of the union in accordance with the understanding reached this morning with the federal mediator. If that proposed meeting of the membership goes through, the federal mediator will then meet with the parties at noon tomorrow. I think we can have at least some hope we are on the road to a settlement, although I have no ironclad guarantee or anything close to it that a settlement will take place.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Minister of Labour this question. He has more inside information, I presume, than most members as to the negotiations that have been going on between the longshoremen's union and the shipping federation. Has a single shred of evidence been produced to show that there is any connection between the longshoremen's union and the
S.I.U., or that there is any relationship be-

tween the strike which has been going on in the St. Lawrence ports and the fact that this parliament is discussing legislation to set up a trusteeship over the maritime unions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have received no evidence whatsoever.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is now in a position to answer the question I asked him the day before yesterday, as to how long ships now in the St. Lawrence will wait there for grain cargoes.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member asked me the question I made some inquiries, and I find that only the ship owners can give this answer. There is no information that I am in a position to give.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do I understand that the minister was not able to obtain any information from the ship owners in regard to this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: The ship owners will have to make their own decision, and they will not even give a forecast as to how long they will remain.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I should like to remind the Prime Minister of his recent statement that he would tell the mayor of the city of Guelph what the government's decision is on the question of designated areas in the Grand valley district. Would the Prime Minister kindly inform me of his decision at this time, as promised?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I had a few words with the mayor of Guelph on this matter the other day. I told the mayor then that I hoped to be in a position to communicate with him before the end of the week. On my return to Ottawa I got in touch with the Minister of Industry. We have had some conversations on the matter brought up by the mayor of Guelph, and I still hope to be able to communicate with him before the end of the week.


Oscar William Weichel: I believe the promise was made that an answer would be given today. Was it?



TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scolt (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday the minister, in replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood, said he wanted to discuss with the Prime Minister the question of the extension of the winter works program in Toronto. I know he has many very difficult matters on his mind, but I wonder whether the minister has yet had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the Prime Minister; and if so, can he give us any indication of the government's intentions in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could be permitted to answer this question in view of the fact that I had an opportunity yesterday for a short talk with the mayor of Toronto and other municipal officials. I have reported that talk to the Minister of Labour. We are discussing the matter, and I hope the minister or I will be able to make a statement on Monday or Tuesday next. I am afraid I will not be able to do it before then.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
LOCATION OF U.S. NUCLEAR STORAGE IN LABRADOR [Translation]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether or not the American nuclear arms which will be stored in Labrador, will be located on territory that the province of Quebec claims as its own?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the nuclear arms in question will be stored in leased bases in Newfoundland, and I do not believe that either of these leased bases is in territory claimed by the province of Quebec.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the great dissatisfaction which exists and has existed for some time among employees of the postal
Inquiries of the Ministry department, and the great concern of the general public with regard to the efficient operation of that department, will the Postmaster General undertake to arrange for the referral of the Post Office Department estimates to the appropriate committee of the house?


Hon. Azellus Denis (Posimaster General):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot answer the hon. member's question because it is inaccurate.


Frank Howard: What is inaccurate?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, how can a question be inaccurate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Most of them are.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
During a recent trip between Ottawa and Montreal, aboard a C.N.R. train, I noticed that the conductor and his assistant spoke one language only. Moreover, and at that time there were six members aboard that train, including the hon. members for Iles-de-la-Madeleine and Richmond-Wolfe (Messrs. Sauve and Asselin), I noticed also that the occupational titles of employees, that is conductor and trainman, appear in English only on their caps. Would it be possible to have those titles appear in French also on the caps of C.N.R. employees?


Mr. Habel:: On the back of the cap?


David Réal Caouette: At the front of the cap. You are the ones who have it on the back.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have travelled the route between Montreal and Ottawa a great many times, and I find that great numbers of the personnel are bilingual. However, I would be very glad to draw the question raised by the hon. member to the attention of the management of the C.N.R.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

Inquiries of the Ministry , Prime Minister. A press report from Washington announces that the United States government has stopped approving export licences for commercial arms shipments to South Africa as a first step to halting the flow of arms to that country. Is similar action going to be taken by the Canadian government and, if so, how soon will the government put it into effect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of this question. It is a question which at the moment is under consideration by the government. Indeed, it was considered yesterday and will be considered in the early part of next week. As soon as I am in a position to make a statement about the matter I will be glad to do so in the house.


REQUEST FOR EXPORT ASSISTANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce relative to the Canadian nickel export position, which has affected Falconbridge Mines. Would the minister tell the house whether he foresees any action by himself or the government which would assist this problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Trade and Commerce and other departments of the government are aware of the problem that has arisen at Falconbridge Mines and is studying this matter. I am not in a position to say at the moment what specific action can be taken, but I want to assure the hon. member that the matter is under very carefu) consideration.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cole (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I am not in the habit of bombarding him with questions.
Has the Prime Minister sent or does he intend to send congratulations to his new colleague, Dr. Linus Carl Pauling, who has just won the Nobel Prize for Peace owing to his vigorous action in favour of nuclear disarmament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this does not seem to me to be a matter that comes within the purview of the government or the house.


MARITIME TRANSPORTATION UNIONS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: the second reading of Bill No. C-102, to provide for the placing of the maritime transportation unions of Canada under the management and control of trustees.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this bill I point out that it is clear to hon. members that the principle of the bill is to place the maritime transportation unions in Canada under the management and control of trustees. The bill is now before hon. members of the house, and my purpose at this stage is to comment on the bill in more detail than was possible at the resolution stage.
Members of the house, in considering the bill, should be reminded that the trusteeship will cover five maritime labour organizations. These organizations are set forth in schedule B on the last page of the bill. The membership of these unions is as follows: first, the Canadian maritime union, consisting of one local with 500 members; second, the seafarers international union of Canada, with two divisions and consisting of 17,400 members; third, the national association of marine engineers of Canada, with seven locals and 150 members; fourth, the Canadian merchant service guild, with two divisions and 2,480 members; and finally the Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers, consisting of 13 locals with a membership of 2,297 persons.
Members of the house are also aware that each of the five organizations has its own constitution and a number of collective labour agreements. For that reason it is abundantly clear that none of us should be thinking of trusteeship legislation as applying solely to one organization.
I would like to emphasize that the normal principles of free and democratic labour organizations and the normal employer-employee relationship through collective labour agreements are emphasized in the legislation. It should be clear that the trustees are asked in and empowered by the legislation to manage and control each of the maritime unions; but they are also asked to do all things necessary or advisable for the return of the management and control of each of the maritime unions to duly elected and responsible officers of such unions at the earliest date consistent with the national and public interest of Canada.
In making that statement, Mr. Speaker, I want to underline my view that certainly all the locals and all the unions that are placed under this trusteeship are not being placed in the same category as the particular union

which gave rise to this legislation. I want to make it clear that the officers of certain unions have agreed to come under this trusteeship willingly in the interests of cleaning up the situation on the great lakes, and their inclusion in this legislation is certainly not intended to imply that the strictures contained in the Norris commission report which apply to the seafarers international union of Canada apply in any way whatsoever to the other unions involved. I think it ought to be made clear that the inclusion has been voluntarily on the part of these unions in the interests of unionism and in the national interest.
The trustees are to carry out this principle of restoring the management and control of the maritime unions to duly elected and responsible officers. The trustees will be empowered to establish advisory councils, to recommend changes in the constitution or bylaws of the unions, to supervise and tender advice to bargaining committees in the negotiating of collective labour agreements, and to carry out the normal management and control of union affairs. The intention of the legislation, and it has been prepared with this intention in mind, is that the trustees will, in so far as it is possible, administer the operations of the unions referred to as nearly as possible in accord with properly and democratically operated labour organizations.
Having said that, it is also clear that the trustees will be asked to undertake a very heavy responsibility, and they will be asked to resolve a very serious and critical situation. For that reason they will have power and authority to deal with any situation that may arise and with which they may be confronted. This power and authority is provided in the legislation. This authority of the trustees is further strengthened by penalty provisions against any obstruction of the trustees or any withholding of documents and information that may be required by them. It is a natural course of events that as well as supervising the employer-employee relationship, the investments of union members in their respective organizations must be protected. This is also provided for in the legislation. Members of the house will have noticed that reference is made to a building corporation, and provision is made for the trustees to exercise management and control of this corporation.
Hon. members will appreciate that it is difficult to know fully what may have transpired within any union since the date of the report of Mr. Justice Norris. For this reason there is provision in the bill for a preserving status. There is provision empowering the trustees to apply for a court
Maritime Transportation Unions
order to declare void any transaction entered into on or after the 6th day of July, 1963, pursuant to certain provisions which are spelled out in the legislation. Similar authority is given to the trustees in another part of the bill. In other words it is desirable that a status quo should have prevailed since the receipt of the report of Mr. Justice Norris. In addition, provision is made that an annual report is to be made to the Minister of Labour by the trustees, and that report shall be laid before parliament.
Naturally members of the house will want to examine carefully each detail of the legislation so as to ensure that the purposes of the trustees will be carried out, that the legislation will be effective, and that the trustees will be able to operate effectively. There has been some question about why this legislation continues for a period of five years. Naturally it is hoped that it will not continue for this period of time. I assure hon. members that consideration was given to providing for a shorter period. As hon. members will notice from the legislation, every possible provision is included to permit the removal of any maritime union from the trusteeship at an earlier date. It may be quite possible that all the trustees named in the legislation will have been removed from the trusteeship before December 31, 1968.
Having made that comment, I should like to say that we are undertaking a very serious task. We ought it seems to me, to avoid two extremes. One is to make the period of trusteeship so short that it may encourage a restoration of conditions which prevail at the present time in any of the unions; that it may encourage any person to wait out this trusteeship in an effort to once again wrest control over any union for his own purposes. On the other hand, there is a natural reluctance on the part of members of parliament to give these powers to trustees for a day longer than is absolutely necessary.
I have not a closed mind on this point, and neither has the government. All I am concerned with is that the trusteeship be effective. I hope there will be very careful consideration given to maintaining the effectiveness of the trusteeship, and I would not want it to become ineffective in its purposes through having too short a period available to enable the trusteeship to work properly.
In conclusion, both on second reading of the bill and when we go into committee I will consider any further views on this matter, and I hope it will be possible in committee to reach a meeting of minds on this very important point.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this question at the resolution stage was featured by a certain

Maritime Transportation Unions amount of recrimination, but the fact is that almost anyone can share some of the blame for the existence of the situation created by Mr. Banks. Certainly it is easy to point the finger at a former government-I say government, not governments-and at trade union leaders in Canada. There are some very deep questions to be asked about the behaviour of the management of certain companies in all these dealings, and in this sense I do not think anyone can take a great deal of pride in the efforts we are now making to clean up the situation. I do not want to go into recriminations again; I just want to speak for my party and not for anyone else, but I presume that along tha way other people will speak as Canadian nationalists with regard to this whole matter.
I have had some dealings with the S.I.U., since it happens to have a branch in my constituency. Members of my party organization belong to the S.I.U., and I have had quite a bit of contact with them. I know that this measure may cause trouble in my own area owing to the fact that the port council, which consists of a number of unions, do associate with the S.I.U., and the longshoremen are likely to take some steps. The repercussions at the local level are obvious to me and other members who have to deal with the S.I.U. Already we have had evidence today of the repercussions at the international level. It seems to me that we need a fundamental unity in our approach to this matter, which I suggest should be an approach based on Canadian nationalism.
When I say that I do not mean that we should contradict any of the arguments put forth by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about the value of international unionism. I happen to be a member of an international union, and this union to which I belong would be most ineffective in Canada were it not for its international associations. That is a fact. What I mean by the term "Canadian nationalism" is that we should see that the autonomy, not only of the Canadian sections of our unions but also of our legislation, of Canadian law, Canadian control and Canadian rules and regulations pertaining to the freedom of Canadian business, is respected.
It is very apparent to anybody looking at this question that despite what I thought was a certain amount of humour and needling with regard to the Prime Minister meeting President Kennedy on this matter, we have to look at the reality of the United States political associations and at the associations which encircle President Kennedy. If we do that I think we will all see the point that it may be very necessary for the Prime Minister to go directly to Washington, and not to

go there cap in hand. I think we have to recognize that the President is surrounded by a very powerful group of people who, in effect, are not within the congressional framework. One of the bases of the Democratic party's power in the United States and that of President Kennedy, is the very close association he has with some trade union leaders. It is obvious that this is why secretary Wirtz has made the statement he has. It is obvious why there has been all the difficulty in the negotiations; that these labour leaders with whom Mr. Hall is associated are very important to the success or to the power of President Kennedy.
To say this is not to stick one's neck into an American situation, but just to recognize a reality. It seems to me that our Prime Minister has to approach the president and the American people from this point of view. If we are to be sacrificed in terms of interference on the basis of President Kennedy keeping a united front in his political support, then we are in terrible trouble in our association with the United States.
One of the factors which was instrumental last winter, when we had another example of the state department's interference in Canadian affairs, was a sort of follow-up which was reflected in our political campaign, a tremendous fear that maybe we might alienate the Americans. Editorials were written across the country expressing great fears about how we must get along with the Americans and saving that our economies are so interrelated that it would be terrible if we lost their confidence in our dealings with them. It has become very much a partisan political issue. I think the Prime Minister has to realize that it has been recognized, and he can be criticized for the fact, that he took the stand that he has a particular personal association or, if you want to put it, comradeship with the chief executive who governs the United States at this time; that is, in contrast with the previous prime minister of this country.
This, it seems to me, underlies the responsibility he faces at this time in his relationship with the Kennedy administration. Let us not make any mistake about it by assuming we can approach this difficulty as between labour union and labour union and the Minister of Labour and the secretary of labour. The Americans do not operate in this way. Everything focuses upon the top. We tend to hide this fact in our organization, but the Americans never do. I think one thing that is necessary in this particular dispute involving Canadian nationals is a direct approach to President Kennedy to make sure that the consequences of this measure will not be destroyed by the kind of United States

interference of which we have already seen a suggestion. There will be difficulties enough here in Canada in implementing this trusteeship without having to put up with that. One of the reasons we would hope there is fundamental unity in this house about getting the legislation through is just to let the Prime Minister know that he has absolute support in this regard.
One matter which was not touched on by members speaking on the resolution stage is this; I want to mention it here, and I do so because I have had a close relationship with the S.I.U. hiring hall and with members of the union. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George referred to an aspect of it last night when he said there is no doubt that at the present time Banks still has control of the membership of the S.I.U. At least that is what I gathered from what he said. This control, I should like to point out, is not only a bureaucratic control which dictatorial methods have enabled him to deepen. It is a control based on a tremendous respect on the part of members of the S.I.U. I had one conversation with them when I was trying to point out to them that an attack with baseball bats on a man in Fort William in his own home was a kind of action that could not be understood. But these men were justifying it. They were saying well, the guy-I will not go into the obscenities which were used-the guy was a bad character. They could not see that this was not an approach which should be used on anyone who came into conflict with Mr. Banks.
I asked them what it was about Banks they liked. They liked him because he was tough. They told me stories about Banks himself moving in with his fists. You must realize that the kind of person who works on the lakes, the man whose work has so little permanence-a situation which in so many cases is actually fostered by Mr. Banks-has the kind of background and education which gives him great respect for the tough guy.
I asked them whether it did not bother them when they heard the details of Banks living in luxury in Montreal and the fact that he had these Cadillacs and mistresses and things like that. Quite the reverse. Many of them seemed to enjoy a vicarious satisfaction that their guy was doing as well as or better than anyone else in the country. One of them put it "I like to think that our man is doing as well as the guy who owns Canada Steamship Lines". These are the kind of people who are members of the S.I.U. and who give Banks his support.
One of the things we must do, and you cannot do this now, but later, ties up with the newspaper which Banks has used for his
Maritime Transportation Unions own purposes. One of the most important things the trustees will have to do is take control of that newspaper and begin, not with any vindictiveness, to use another approach to convince the members that they can develop some kind of democracy within their union.
In this regard there is something else which appears to me to be of importance, particularly as expressed by the hon. member for Cape Breton South; and this is the inability of some people, it seems to me, to recognize the difference between a corporate structure and the trade union structure as it exists. We expect and demand some kind of democracy from the unions, yet it is very difficult for them to retain democracy; and one of the main difficulties is the attitude of the people who control corporate structures. I have had too many senior executives of companies tell me they like to sit down and deal with one man, a tough character, and hammer out a firm agreement with him. I recall, a few years ago, an executive saying "We don't want to fool around with all these crummy locals where you get involved in wildcats. We want to sit down and talk tough with one guy who has responsibility."
This is why Mr. McLagan refers to Banks as the best paid union leader in Canada. This is why he has such a respect among corporate people. We have to realize that the union structure and the corporate structure have very few similarities, and that the manager or leader of a corporate structure does not give a hoot about the democratic situation in a company or a union; he wants to deal with responsible leaders. And of course Banks can offer the head of a corporation, in his union dealings, a bunch of followers who do exactly what he says.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre was quoting the directors of Canada Steamship Lines. I happen to know one of them personally as well as in a business way, Mr. Ambridge, who I understand is a friend of Mr. McLagan. Mr. Ambridge has had excellent relations in his own company in Abitibi. He has gone out of his way, in a sense, to encourage union democracy, and the very fact that he is on the board of directors points up the pressure in a corporate structure when it comes to its attitude toward a democratic union. Here is obviously a case, it seems to me, where the directors of Canada Steamship Lines have ignored the implications of what is involved in dealing in this cosy, face to face situation with a man who has dictatorial control over a union.
I should like to emphasize that this attitude is very much in a way an importation from

Maritime Transportation Unions
the American business scene and the American union scene. A few years ago, not long after I was elected, a knock came on my door one evening. I answered it, and there were about 20 men there, workers on the pipe line. They were all raising cain about conditions. I said to them, "Why don't you go to see your union stewards?" "What union stewards? We don't belong to any union." I said "Well, you do belong to a union if you are working for the pipe line contractor," and I was able to prove it to them. They had belonged to a union for about three months and they had been paying to this union, but they did not know it. The union did not get around to setting up any kind of organization for them. The details had been worked out with the union before the contract had been settled. Some hon. members may wonder why some of us are still bitter about Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, and that is one of the reasons.
When I went to speak to the pipe line contractors they put it down, as they said, in cold turkey. They said "Why should we get involved in all the organizational grievances that develop on the site? When the union comes along we sign a contract and let them deal with the matter. We have dealt with these people all through the United States. The union comes in and sets things up and we never have to worry." This, Mr. Speaker, is the businessman's attitude, the executive attitude. This is the explanation for the fact that, aside from the one shipping company, we have had such a disgraceful response throughout this whole matter from the shipping magnates. I believe this fact needs to be emphasized because somehow people seem to believe, largely as a result of anti-union propaganda, that there must be some kind of democracy in a union, but they tend to apply some different principles of morality to business executives. It is the business executive who, in many ways, is so wrong.
One thing about this legislation that is not very clear, and perhaps it cannot be spelled out, is that the trustees cannot be put at arm's length in their dealings with the membership. I know the hiring hall at Fort William, and it is a well kept, clean place which offers social amenities to the seamen. Unless the trustees are able to have the same kind of contact with the men, the same kind of dealings with the membership and with the men who run that kind of set-up, then the chance of insurrection, of wildcat strikes on the basis of one ship, are likely to multiply. This will make the trusteeship a ridiculous thing. For that reason we would like to emphasize that the trusteeship, and the personnel who man it, must be prepared to not be, in a sense, administrators at arm's


length. We hope they take the attitude that they have the same responsibility that Hal Banks has had, only with a much different moral and ethical approach to their duties.
Initially they have to start with somewhat the same authority Mr. Banks has when he departs, at least I would hope that would be the case. Then they will have to begin the long job of creating and developing some kind of spirit within these men. I would emphasize again that a reasoned, intellectual or academic argument will not have much appeal for the men who work on the lake boats. Since the crucial point in any labour relationship really revolves around the negotiations in settling a contract, the trustees need to be very much aware that it will be in the negotiation of the new contract, as militant representatives of the men dealing with the company, that they will really have to carry the load. If they do not carry it, then the folk memory amongst men like this and their respect for Hal Banks is going to carry on and, in a sense, destroy the trusteeship.
I would hope, too, that in this whole matter, as the trusteeship moves toward what will be their crisis situation, the negotiation of a new contract, the government will try to insure that at the first sign of irresponsibility on the part of the corporation there will be some kind of face to face discussion between government representatives and these companies. I do not want the suggestion to be turned around and have people say that at the next contract negotiations the companies have to cave in, although I do not know that that would be so bad in the light of the way they caved in to Mr. Banks during the last four or five years.
There is on question upon which I should like to hear from the minister. I can see nothing in the bill that refers specifically to this new procedure the S.I.U. adopted in a belated effort to deal with its reputation, that is the setting up of this ex-naval officer as a one man board to hear grievances. I realize that I cannot refer to the bill specifically at this stage, but I should like to suggest it might be wise to retain this office. I do not know anything about the personality of the man, but one of the things that might be very useful in this period of trusteeship is the continuance of that particular office as it relates to the
S.I.U. Perhaps there should even be an expansion of it into a three man board so there may be a possibility for a continuing grievance procedure, particularly in relation to the abuses of the "do not ship" list and things like that. I would carry that into the future in order to give some kind of continuity to the grievance procedure.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we are anxious that this bill go through, with the qualifications which were expressed last night as to its timing. We will support the bill and the purposes of the bill. We will support the Prime Minister and the government so long as it shows that it is prepared to make this a very definite issue on which there is no backing down, no caving in, to the kind of pressures we have had revealed already.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kooienay Easi):: Mr. Speaker, so many of my colleagues in the house, that is learned counsel and some former ministers, have prefaced their speeches with a reference to their long association with the trade union movement that I should like to preface my short interjection by saying that I am also part of the trade union movement. I have been a part of it for a number of years. As a matter of fact this past year, because of the many and varied elections, I have been unable to get back underground to continue my work in the mine. I have certainly been closely associated with unions and realize the feeling of the trade unions when they are told that a Canadian government trusteeship must be imposed upon a section of the labour movement.
While it is true that this procedure appears to be necessary, there seems to be a unanimous feeling that what we are doing is in essence wrong. However, no other alternative seems to be available, and we must impose this trusteeship. Like the hon. member for Timiskaming, I have opposed communists in the trade union movement, that is the political influence of communists and even socialists, and in that connection I have often heard this statement which I thought was attributed to Karl Marx: "The end, after all, justifies the means." I thought this was describing communist philosophy, but just the other day I learned it dated back to a philosopher around the time of the birth of Christ, and it has never been actually established since that the end does justify the means. But somehow or other we have arrived at a situation where, because of the disturbances, rioting and racketeering on the great lakes, this legislation is necessary, and we have to accept the fact that the end in this bill does justify the means.
I know something of the history of Banks and how he came into Canada. As a matter of fact I knew some of the officers of the former Canadian seamen's union, and I understand one or two of them were supposed to be communists or were influenced by Moscow. "Let us rid the unions of communists" became the great battle cry at that time, but now it has been proven there are even worse characters in trade unions than communists.
Maritime Transportation Unions Racketeers of this nature are certainly worse than communists. After all, communism is a political philosophy, while a racketeer operates entirely for his own ends. This should serve to remind us that in what we do today in other fields of organized labour, we cannot be too sure that we will not leave a greater mess-pardon the expression-than the mess we are seeking to clean up.
The hon. member for Port Arthur has suggested that big unions tend to support the government of the United States. I believe all of us feel this is true, but I would draw to his attention that this might also apply in Canada should big unions become the major supporters of any political party. In fact I would warn against either big labour or big business becoming the main supporter of a political party.
I was a bit disturbed yesterday afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition, who after all was the author of the much heralded bill of rights, suggested without apparently a shred of evidence that the officers of the I.L.A. were carrying on the strike on the St. Lawrence in sympathy with Mr. Banks and the S.I.U., and in order to prevent the passage of this bill. This is not guilt by association but rather guilt by coincidence. It just so happens that the members of the I.L.A., after long and protracted negotiations in an attempt to lift themselves out of rather deplorable conditions which have been described by some hon. members of the New Democratic party, found it necessary to resort to strike action. Certainly those conditions which were described are not in tune with the times. It was pointed out that a labourer or stevedore may be called out to work in the morning and then sent home without receiving any pay whatsoever, and certainly time and a half on Saturdays is not out of place in this day and age.
The workers had a justified complaint, and I believe they have gone a long way toward meeting the suggestions of the shipping federation. These men are not of the type described by Mr. Justice Norris. They are not of the type of the Capones, the Hoffas, and that type of racketeer. That description does not apply to them, and I think it was quite improper for the Leader of the Opposition to make that suggestion simply because their strike coincided with efforts to settle the great lakes dispute.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour have expressed their concern about the statements made by Mr. Wirtz and Mr. Meany with respect to the legislation now before this house. In my opinion the best answer we in this house can make to those statements is for each and every one of us to stand up before one o'clock and be counted unanimously in favour of this legislation.

Maritime Transportation Unions


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it will be possible for the members of the house to stand up and be counted on this legislation before one o'clock, because it was the Minister of Labour himself who suggested, when he introduced the resolution preceding the bill the other day, that there might be those in the house keenly interested in this unprecedented action who would wish to withhold what they had to say until they had the actual legislation in front of them. He also gave the assurance that once the bill was before us we could speak on second reading on matters which we might otherwise have covered on the resolution stage.
I was one of those members who accepted the suggestion and the commitment of the minister, and that is why I am speaking on second reading, having read the bill now before us. I of course have no desire to hold it up, but there are certain matters regarding trade unionism, the record of trade unionism, and parliamentary legislation to deal with internal affairs of the trade union movement that should be discussed in principle.
So far as I am concerned it is rather imperative that I do so, because I have been a member of an international trade union since 1924. From 1924, at which time due to the existing constitution of the union I could not be a full member because I had to come under the apprenticeship clause. Until 1933 I can say I was an active member of that trade union. From 1933 to 1963 I have not been what may be called in the normal sense an active member of a trade union. If I may put it this way, from 1924 to 1933 I was a member of a trade union because of my occupation, and from 1933 to 1963 I have been by profession an elected member of parliamentary bodies, provincial and federal. But I still maintain my interest in the trade union movement. From 1924 to 1933 I was active in a trade union, but from 1933 to 1963 I have acquired a greater experience and understanding of the trade union movement because in that period of time I had the privilege and opportunity of meeting not only the rank and file members but those in the trade union movement holding official positions. I have also been a member of arbitration boards more than once on behalf of trade unions, and have also attended trade union conventions.
I thought it necessary to outline this background to explain why I felt impelled to speak on second reading of the bill. The trade union movement is one of the most marvellous organizations of democracy that the world

has ever known. It operates not only in the economic field but recognizes the democracy of parliament. The trade union movement only asks the democracy of parliament, be it the House of Commons or a provincial legislature, for the protection of its inherent democratic rights. Beyond that, however, the trade union movement-I will not say "opposed"-has always been fearful of parliamentary action to interfere with what are basically trade union principles and the internal operations and privileges of the trade union movement.
That is understandable, Mr. Speaker, because if you look at the interference of parliamentary authority as evidenced by certain legislation in British Columbia and Newfoundland you can understand the fear of the trade union movement as to the possibility of their internal rights and privileges being interfered with by law if there happens to be a government or governments which are anti-labour.
With that background I now come to the situation which we in the House of Commons face at the present time. As a member of the trade union movement since 1924, and still paying my dues, I want to say that the situation we now face is not only disturbing to the members of the House of Commons, who I feel do not want to interfere, but is most disturbing to the trade union movement itself. As was pointed out by the federal leader of the New Democratic party and emphasized by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we face extraordinary legislation because of an extraordinary situation. If there is one thing that the trade union movement does not want and will try to avoid it is parliamentary decision on a trade union matter.
To me as a member of an international trade union since 1924 there is nothing we hate to see more than that, but we in this group are prepared to face up to the issue. In so doing however, we want recognition of why this situation has been brought about, and recognition that the trusteeship must be removed as speedily as possible. Although I was prepared a day ago to go along with the decision of this group, I must say that I did so with a feeling of regret; but after what has been made evident in statements by the government of the United States and by the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. I now go along with this legislation enthusiastically, and I hope to explain my reasons a little later.
May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much that hon. members allowed me some eight minutes this morning to give the background with regard to why I felt it imperative I should speak on second reading of the most important bill now before us. Just prior to the luncheon adjournment I said that after the recess I would explain why until yesterday it was with some reluctance I felt I had to support the bill and why, in view of the developments in the past 24 hours, I now have no reluctance and will support it wholeheartedly.
May I add to some of the statements I made this morning before I give those reasons. Over the years in Canada our trade union movement has had what is known as national unions and international unions. In the past few years particularly reactionary politicians, reactionary editorial writers and a great many employers have been attacking international unions in Canada on the ground that they are controlled outside of Canada. Some years ago there may have been-I say "may have been"-some basis for that argument, but not for many years now.
In my 30 years as an elected member and 39 years as a trade unionist I have come into contact with hundreds of locals throughout Canada and many local, provincial, national and international trade union leaders. I can say without fear of honest contradiction that by far the greater majority of Canadian trade unions are autonomous, so much so that over the past few years international union constitutions have been changed at international conventions to make it clear that Canadian unions of an international nature have complete autonomy, and even some unions that have not done so by international constitutional change have arrived at an understanding that international trade unions in Canada have complete autonomy.
That is why the extraordinary statement made by Mr. Meany less than 24 hours ago is the greatest betrayal of the international trade movement that that movement has known in the history of North America because by his statement, made without knowledge, understanding or authority, he gives support to the lie that the trade union movement in Canada, in which I include myself because I am a member of a union, does not have complete autonomy.
I said before the luncheon adjournment that I would outline why I am giving complete support to the bill. First, we have the situation where an imported United States trade union gangster, racketeer and goon squad leader has brought about a reign of 28902-5-220
Maritime Transportation Unions terror, intimidation, beatings, shootings and bombings in one of our major industries, and no responsible trade unionist or member of the House of Commons can allow that to continue. Second, despite all the efforts of the trade union movement and in particular the Canadian Labour Congress over the years they have been unable to resolve the problem on the basis of its being one of internal trade union administration. Third, every effort by the Canadian Labour Congress and the government of Canada to find a solution has been made impossible by certain United States government authorities' interference in consultation, if not in conspiracy, with reactionary trade union leaders, Mr. Meany and Mr. Paul Hall.
And fourth, that the Canadian trade union movement and the parliament of Canada cannot and will not accept outside domination of our jurisdiction and sovereignty, whether it be in the trade union or in the parliamentary field.
Never in my 30 years of parliamentary life and my 39 years of trade union life would I have thought it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to speak in this way; but this is a matter which has to be faced by all men who take on responsibility. As I have said, I have been a member of an international union for 39 years, and with that background I say it must be made clear by this House of Commons, as it has also been made clear by Claude Jodoin and the C.L.C. executive, to the governmental authorities of the United States and such trade union authorities as Mr. Meany and Paul Hall, that they must keep their sticky fingers out of our Canadian business-and I mean sticky fingers. May I say through you, Mr. Speaker-I doubt whether what I say means anything in the United States but I will say it anyway-that Mr. Meany should be told that he has set back the trade union movement in Canada perhaps 20 years by his interference in our trade union affairs, without any knowledge or understanding of them or basis of responsibility. He has played into the hands of our reactionary editorial writers and politicians and has made it more difficult for those of us who know the truth to insist on the autonomy of the Canadian trade union movement.
Others more capable than I at the resolution stage, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) to the leaders of parties and others, have pointed out what we in this House of Commons, which is the sovereign body of Canada, are doing today, and perhaps tomorrow and Monday, might bring about serious consequences. That may be so, but I want to say with all the emphasis of which I am capable that if the

Maritime Transportation Unions government of the United States through its labour department, and the reactionary leadership of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. through Mr. Meany, want to challenge the trade union sovereignty of Canada as well as the parliamentary sovereignty of Canada by taking any action in the United States, trade unionwise, conti-nentalwise, nationalwise or parliamentarywise, to deny and to defy our rights, then God help Canada if we do not accept that challenge.
I also say that both the government of the United States and the trade union movement in the United States as expressed by Mr. Meany should realize this, that if they challenge our exports and our ships because we utilize our sovereign power, they may find it hurts them more than it hurts us, because we are the biggest importer of goods from the United States. To the best of my knowledge, for the first time in the history of this country we have had this extraordinary conspiracy by reactionary trade union leaders and labour representatives in the United States trying to interfere-not only trying but succeeding in their attempt to negate the trade union authority of Canada and the sovereignty of our parliament. I want to express the hope that the government will stand firm on the maintenance of our sovereignty and parliamentary system and tradition. I want to pay my heartfelt respects to Mr. Claude Jodoin and the executive of the C.L.C. for insisting on maintaining a position which will solve our own problems in Canada within the trade union movement, without outside influence or domination.
I cannot sit down, Mr. Speaker, without expressing what I think all of us feel in our hearts, and that is the terrific respect we have for the trade unions of Canada which have been found completely innocent by Mr. Justice Norris of any wrongdoing. We have the finest commendation from Mr. Justice Norris of the way they work as trade unionists. Our trade unions of Canada have agreed, much as they dislike it, to come under a trusteeship, the creation of which is unprecedented and is an interference in trade union affairs, if this means peace in our sea ports and on the great lakes. This is a matter which should not be forgotten, sir; it is the one found guilty which refuses, while those found innocent are prepared to go along with the wishes of the people of Canada, as expressed through their elected representatives to the House of Commons.
I do not think I need say more, Mr. Speaker. As I say, I dislike this legislation; we all dislike it; but in view of all the circumstances and the extraordinary situation which has developed in our country, and in

view of the challenge to the trade unions and parliament of Canada in the form of domination by a foreign power, we have no other alternative to take, and I hope we will all be unanimous in supporting the bill before us. However, I sincerely hope the government will recognize that they can "sell" this legislation, both psychologically and by public relations, a lot better if they make the one specific change I have referred to, namely, change the limit to two years, which period can be extended if required. I think that that one change will help bring a greater understanding to the people of the country, and particularly to our trade unionists, of the fact that this is only a temporary measure for two years instead of five.
In closing, may I say I appreciate the courtesy of this house in allowing me to speak for this length of time.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I intend to speak only briefly, but after a careful perusal of the terms of the bill I rise to express my opposition to it on the following grounds: first, because in my opinion it is wrong in principle, period. In my opinion it violates the spirit and purpose of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Second, I oppose it because I think it transgresses established trade union principles which have been recognized throughout Canada to date.
I oppose it also because I believe that in order for it to be effective it must have the support of the great majority of the rank and file of the trade union movement in Canada. As a result of discussions I have had, and as a result of correspondence and telegrams I have received, I am convinced that there is massive opposition to this bill among the rank and file of the trade union movement in this country, and that this opposition is growing daily.
I also believe that if this bill is to be effective it must have the support of the United States government. It is apparent from recent statements made by the secretary of labour, Mr. Wirtz, that we cannot expect any cooperation in the administration of this legislation from that direction. I am sure that as Canadians we all resent this attitude on the part of the United States secretary of labour. I am one who resents it very much indeed. Unfortunately, however, we have to face facts, and when it comes to the administration of this legislation it cannot be effective unless we receive the co-operation of the government of the United States. This must be so because of the very nature of the industry involved.
I oppose this measure also because I believe that in order to be effective it must receive the co-operation of the trade union movement in the United States for the very same reason

as I have just given, namely the nature of this industry. It all presents a most difficult problem indeed in the absence of this cooperation. It is obvious from the statement yesterday by Mr. Meany that we cannot expect the co-operation of at least the leaders of essential sections of the trade union movement in the United States in the administration of this legislation; yet, as I say this cooperation is essential if the present measure is to be effective. Once again, like the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) I resent this attempt at interference on the part of Mr. Meany and the attitude taken toward this important problem by the head of an important trade union organization in the United States. Nevertheless, once again we have to face the facts and I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) will admit that this legislation cannot be administered successfully without the co-operation of the United States government and of those sections of the labour movement in the United States which are directly concerned.
Another reason for my opposition to this bill is that it completely overlooks-has cast aside, as it were-the common sense and democratic strength of the trade union movement in Canada. The rank and file of the trade union movement here have never been presented with this challenge-and I admit it is a challenge-in union affairs to correct the situation which has arisen within their own house. It has been demonstrated that this type of situation can be met by trade unions. It has been done on the Pacific coast. Some hon. members may recall the unpleasant Northland incident. They will also note that there has been very little violence, very few difficulties, in the shipping industry on that coast. In fact we have seen little of the violence which was foreshadowed at one time. Why? It is because the trade union movement in Vancouver would not stand for that nonsense. When the S.I.U. threatened violence and undemocratic practices, its leaders had to pull in their horns because of the action of other trade unionists in the city of Vancouver who accepted their responsibility as Canadians. A good example of this is the Northland affair in which the unions united against the S.I.U. At that time there were hints in the press about violence and all the danger surrounding this situation. These forecasts were not realized because a good number of the unions, supported by the rank and file of their membership, kept a constant vigil on the Northland situation by picketing 24 hours a day. These members of trade unions volunteered their services without thought of remuneration in defence of trade union democratic principles and practice 28902-5-220J
Maritime Transportation Unions established in this country. They were successful in their efforts, and the S.I.U. gangsters, if there were any around at that time, stayed in their holes and did not appear. Thus, a serious situation in Vancouver was corrected because the trade unions met the challenge themselves and dealt with it from within their own ranks. I think the government has lost an opportunity to present this challenge to the trade union movement. I believe we are underestimating the democratic strength of that movement in Canada and its understanding of the working of free institutions, whether in the union movement or here in parliament. I reach this view after conversations I have had with a number of trade unionists-good, honest people who are firm supporters of the trade union movement and who are strongly opposed to this legislation while, at the same time recognizing the responsibility which the trade unions face today to do something about the present situation.
I urge the government to reconsider this legislation and provide an opportunity for the trade unions in this country to mobilize the tremendous reservoir of democratic understanding, ability and native common sense they possess so that they themselves may have an opportunity to correct this situation in defence of democratic trade union principles and our Canadian way of life. Once again, I urge the government to reconsider the passage of this bill. I ask it to trust the working people of Canada to correct this situation, which they will, if given an opportunity.


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether, before recognizing the hon. member who is to follow, I might have an opportunity of passing on to hon. members a piece of information which I have received and in which the house might be interested?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member would have to revert to motions.


George James McIlraith: It is very short, Mr. Speaker, and it is germane to the subject.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order that I raised yesterday, and I intend to raise it on every opportunity that is presented to me by the government. It is that when a speaker rises, no matter what side of the house he is on or what position he occupies, he must first be recognized by Your Honour before he is given the opportunity to speak. I would ask Your Honour to consider this before the minister makes his remarks. I will yield the floor to the minister, but I want to see the rules followed.

Maritime Transportation Unions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is, of course, readily recognized by the Chair. I am sure the hon. member will recognize that when two or three hon. members rise at the same time a decision has to be made within a few seconds. In this particular instance the Chair proposes to recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis). However,
I understood the minister was rising on some question which I wanted to ascertain before making a ruling as to who should be recognized.


Malcolm MacInnis: I appreciate that very much, Mr. Speaker, with all courtesy to you. I fully intend to yield the floor, but I want to draw to your attention that before the minister, or whoever it is, can make his remarks he must first receive recognition from Your Honour, and not just rise and suggest that somebody should yield the floor. I am perfectly willing to yield the floor to the minister, but he must first be recognized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the minister wish to make a statement?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order raised, before I am interrupted. I had some information that is properly part of this matter. Under the rules this information can properly be given at this time because the subject matter of the statement is directly related to the longshoremen's strike. I thought the house would be interested in it. The statement is very short. If hon. members wish to hear it, all right. If they do not, I am not making any special request. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member who was going to have the floor, I was not claiming a right to make a speech or anything of that sort. I am one who is most meticulous about the rules, and I thought I was being very courteous to all hon. members when I asked whether I could make this statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I now appreciate what the minister wants to do, and that is to speak in connection with the bill that is before the house. The minister prefaced his remarks by saying his statement would be very short. In those circumstances my inclination would be to recognize the minister, on the understanding that the hon. member for Cape Breton South, whom I was ready to recognize, is prepared to yield the floor to the minister.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have already done that, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection whatever to any statement the minister may wish to make

with respect to the longshoremen's strike. But no one has been a greater stickler for the rules than the minister in the past, and all I suggested was that we revert to motions, let the minister make his statement, and the house would give unanimous consent for that purpose. If it relates to the bill itself, that is a different matter, because then he is entitled to speak, the same as any other hon. member.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: That is so. I understand it is not a statement usually made by reverting to motions, but essentially a contribution to the debate in connection with the bill now before the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the information that I thought would be of interest to hon. members is this. We have today advised Mr. N. R. Crump, chairman and president of Canadian Pacific Railway Company, that the liner Empress of Canada, which had been standing off Quebec harbour, could disembark her passengers this afternoon at the passenger terminal at Wolfe's cove in Quebec harbour. Arrangements for the handling of the ship were worked out with representatives of the international longshoremen's association at Quebec.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks I would call the attention of the house to the fact that this statement was in no way associated with the bill that is before us. I do not wish to prolong the matter that is before the house. That should bring a cheer. I would, however, ask, as did the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), that every consideration be given to this question before the government pushes it any further. An appeal was made in this house last night by several hon. members that we keep cool heads about this. I thought at the time this perhaps implied that I was rather excited about it. But I would ask each and every hon. member in this house whether they have given every consideration to the repercussions that may develop should Mr. Meany and Mr. Wirtz have their way and if the statements they have made receive the backing of the unions throughout the United States. Have hon. members considered the repercussions; and if so, why the haste?
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr Winch), I think it was, made a statement to the effect that Mr. Meany's remarks of last evening have set the trade union movement back 20 years. There must be some doubt in that particular hon. member's mind, because as I see it, if this trusteeship were to be successful it would be a step forward

for the trade union movement. I can only see Mr. Meany's statement setting the trade union movement back 20 years if the trusteeship fails. I agree that we should keep cool heads about this and should give every consideration to the repercussions that could develop from a failure of the trusteeship.
It has also been pointed out on several occasions that five unions are going to come under the trusteeship, four of them voluntarily. Knowing something of the workings of trade unions and trade union leaders, I think I can speak with some authority on this question. I referred last night to the trouble within the trade unions these days being that there are too many professionals in them. By professionals I mean men who have reached the top in particular trade unions and who at no time were ever associated with the particular work involved in that union. In other words, they have gone in as professional organizers and have reached the upper echelons of the executives of different unions, and they do not have a complete understanding of the rank and file members under them. It has been said that four unions have voluntarily or willingly agreed to come under this trusteeship. And why not? In the case of these four unions their doing this provides them with the very thing they have been struggling to get for a number of years; that is, rid themselves of Mr. Hal Banks and his union. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose by accepting this voluntarily. It is not for individuals in this house to set themselves up as judges with regard to what the rank and file members of trade unions in this country may think. But I think it is the duty of every hon. member in this house to express his feelings about trade unions and this particular trusteeship.
I would further ask the government to give consideration to the particular spot in which they have placed these trustees. In view of the actions of Mr. Banks and his goons in the last few years I believe these men will be placed in a very precarious position. There is no doubt that Mr. Banks and his goon squads have gone about this country attacking people in their own homes. I think they have even gone so far as to beat up pregnant women. What is to stop them intimidating and possibly doing bodily harm to the trustees who will be appointed by this government? What is to stop Mr. Banks from spreading his goon tactics?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The laws of Canada.


Malcolm MacInnis: Apparently the laws of Canada have not been able to deal with Mr. Banks so far. This raises the point that this government should have acted long ago in this matter. Last night, for obvious reasons,
Maritime Transportation Unions I could not refer to the Norris commission report, but I would call the government's attention to the recommendations on page 311 under the heading "Prosecutions". I think if these had been put into effect previously Mr. Banks would today be in the position he should be in, namely behind bars, where he could do no harm to anyone. The deportation of Mr. Banks or dealing with Mr. Banks in any other way than putting him behind bars will not erase the fact that he will be able to operate in the same way that he has operated in the past, from any location to which he may go in the future. If he is deported he can go across to Buffalo, or to some other area, and carry on his goon tactics just as well from that side of the border as he has from this side. There is only one remedy for Mr. Banks, and that is to put him in a place where he can do no harm. I believe that if this government had taken the initiative and acted on the Norris commission report which recommended prosecution of Mr. Banks, rather than adopting the recommendation to set up a trusteeship, it is quite possible that the trade union movement would not have been faced with this trusteeship. I deplore the continued reference to the free trade union movement, in view of the fact that this trusteeship is now going to be imposed.
Why were those recommendations of Mr. Justice Norris not followed out? Why were the prosecutions not instituted? As I have said before, if this trusteeship is set up, and apparently it is going to be, then members of this house will look to the minister for a report on how this trusteeship is working. We will have the minister rising day after day, as ministers do in connection with so many other agencies in this country, and tell us that he is awaiting a report. As soon as he receives it, he will give it to the house. Then, the following week there will be similar questions and a similar answer will be given. The members of this house will be unable to receive answers to questions about this trusteeship and how it is working. If initiative had been taken on the first recommendation and Mr. Banks had been prosecuted, it is quite possible that today the future would hold brighter prospects than it does when we consider the imposition of trusteeship on the trade unions of this country.
Now, a request has been made by the leader of the Canadian Labour Congress that the trusteeship be restricted to the maritime unions. Well, there is nothing wrong with that request. However, let no one say this is not a precedent. We are going to have a hard time making that statement stick. Let any trade union become involved in a dispute in the future, and someone will come to the

Maritime Transportation Unions government and ask for the imposition of a similar trusteeship. Reference can be made to this as a precedent. No amount of talk can get around the fact that you are, for the first time in any English speaking country, imposing trusteeship upon the free trade unions. The precedent will be established, and you can look for trouble in this field in the future. In fact, if such a trusteeship had been in effect a couple of years ago, something could have developed in the Sudbury area where there were charges flung back and forth between two unions in connection with raiding. This is much the same type of situation.
Again, I say hon. members are not too sure about this. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) said a few minutes ago that he was in full support of this trusteeship, but he is not too sure that it is going to work. I am not too sure about it, either. I hope I am proven wrong. There is nothing I would hope for more than that this trusteeship would be successful. As I have said, especially following the statements by Mr. Wirtz and Mr. Meany, I cannot believe this is going to prove successful in any way, shape or form. I repeat what I said last night, that in order to make this trusteeship work, full agreement and co-operation between the gov-enment of the United States and the government of Canada will be required. Without this full co-operation, no trusteeship is going to work.
As I have said, hon. members who support this measure are not too sure that it is going to be successful, but they are willing to support it. I refer to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. He said that the statement by Mr. Meany had set the Canadian labour movement back 20 years. This is only true in part, because I see this as a great forward step if it proves to be successful. If it does not prove to be successful, then the hon. member is correct and this labour movement is set back 20 years. Most hon. members who have supported this trusteeship have, at the same time, expressed doubt that it will ever work. In going along with these other members, I would sincerely ask the government to give consideration to the repercussions that will follow if the trusteeship does not work. The chances of its working now are only 50-50. I think that a concentrated effort should be made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the President of the United States to assure that, if this trusteeship is necessary, then the necessary protection and service will be given to Canadian ships visiting United States ports.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in this debate. During the past few days we have

listened to statements to the effect that Mr. Banks is a criminal, yet we find that Mr. Banks is still free in this country. If he is a bandit or a criminal, why in the world are we tolerating that man in our country? The government has decided to introduce legislation to impose trusteeship on the unions. I feel this trusteeship will not settle anything, if our syndicates as well as our workingmen are still at the mercy of some United States union leaders who, in my opinion, may have given orders which would cause Canada trouble in trying to deliver goods that have been sold to other countries in the world. If this is so, then I think it is time the government took strong action against these outsiders, who are trying to tell us in Canada what to do.

Mr. Speaker, we give our support to union members everywhere in Canada, but we are strongly opposed to certain union leaders who, instead of showing some respect for workers, are exploiting them shamelessly, as is the case within the union we are discussing at the present time.
Certain union leaders, as everybody knows, are paid more than the President of the United States and seem to have things pretty much their own way in labour-management relations. It is time we found out whether those individuals are organizing or disorganizing labour.
Our Canadian workers are not revolutionaries, but some union leaders are. The case of Hal Banks shows quite clearly that we must remain continually on the alert in our relations with such people.
Mr. Speaker, the government should take the necessary steps to encourage in every way possible those unions which are essentially Canadian.
We must stop, in labour unions and elsewhere, taking orders from foreigners who know nothing about our needs concerning labour, production, planning and the economy.
I feel the government would be giving substantial assistance to labour unions if it recognized only worthy representatives and essentially Canadian unions which would be contributing to the development of our national economy.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Deputy Speaker@: Order. I should bring to the attention of the house that if the minister speaks now he closes the debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank hon. members for their remarks and contributions on second reading of the bill. I will not detain the house for any great period of time, except to make a few comments with respect to a number of points made in the debate.
As is evident in the preamble to the bill, and as is evident from the Norris inquiry upon which the bill in a sense is based, the purpose of this action is not to put free trade unions under trusteeship. The purpose of this action is to restore freedom and democratic practices in the principal trade union that will be affected by this trusteeship.
The additional four trade unions which will be under this trusteeship have willingly accepted, without any pressure or coercion, their inclusion within the trusteeship in the interests of cleaning up this situation. Surely the leaders of these four unions realize what free trade unionism means? Surely they understand the established trade union principles that have been mentioned by hon. members? Yet, notwithstanding these considerations they have of their own volition accepted what might be called this sacrifice in the interests of restoring democracy and freedom to the seamen who are presently denied these practices. That is the purpose of the legislation.
It is also a fact that after careful study and soul-searching the executive committee of the Canadian Labour Congress, and later the executive council of the congress, accepted the necessity of this action and agreed to co-operate with the purposes of the trusteeship. Surely these men understand free trade unionism and established free trade union principles, yet they have said that this is a necessary act to be taken.
Hon. gentlemen have expressed reluctance about the action now proposed, but there is no one more reluctant, or has been more reluctant, to undertake this action than I, because it is unprecedented and extraordinary. But it is done because of the extraordinary difficulties that existed and because no effective alternative had been presented. We did search vigorously for an effective alternative, an inter-union arrangement, but I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that it was right and proper for the government and the Canadian Labour Congress to refuse an inter-union agreement with the arrangements that had been proposed.
We were willing to pay a price for a private arrangement, in the sense that it would depend upon the consent of many elements in the trade union situation whom we would expect to act in good faith. We were willing to assume good faith, and ready to accept an
Maritime Transportation Unions inter-union arrangement; but surely it was wrong to ask that a Canadian problem should not be determined by Canadians in the final analysis. That was the basic ground for this refusal, combined with the fact that there was no clear provision that the trusteeship could act effectively in given situations when the third person and his nationality were undetermined.
No one who contributed to this debate has proposed an alternative to this action. No one has proposed an alternative that would deal with the situation. That is a fact; and when the Norris commission report came out and the trustee recommendation was under consideration we always came back to the question, what is the alternative to a public trusteeship? No alternative has proved possible, and that is why the government is taking this action.
It is a fact that the trustees can deal with the situation in Canada. What happens in the United States is a matter for the United States government and union leaders in the United States, who are themselves committed to the proposition of civil rights for all trade unionists. In this situation we must rely on and expect co-operation in the United States in order that this trusteeship be made fully effective.
Today the Prime Minister made a statement on behalf of the government with respect to statements made yesterday in Washington. I do not intend to add to that statement, except I think it would be wrong to conclude, as did one speaker this afternoon, that the government of the United States will not co-operate in this situation.
The final paragraph of the statement issued by Mr. Wirtz reads as follows:
It remains a matter of utmost importance that there still be found a way of resolving these difficulties which will result in strengthening the ties of common interest which link Canada and the United States, particularly in our common use of the waters which we both border. I have expressed through formal channels the continuing willingness of the United States government to seek an accord which will meet fully the public as well as the private interests which are involved here.
We must realize that in this situation, and in the event of repercussions in the United States we shall have to rely upon the good faith and co-operation of the United States government and the good faith and co-operation of responsible trade union leaders in that country.
I was especially appreciative, Mr. Speaker, of the comments made by the hon. member for Port Arthur-


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister continues may I ask him a question? As I read Mr. Wirtz' statement the co-operation was

Maritime Transportation Unions apparently to be determined on the basis of whether or not the Canadian parliament proceeds with the appointment of trustees. In view of Mr. Wirtz' antagonism to the setting up of this trustee board, has the minister been in touch with Mr. Wirtz to ascertain whether the United States government, and its department of labour in particular, will co-operate and carry out the fine sentiments expressed in the paragraph just read by the minister, when and if parliament passes this legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I accept these words of the secretary of labour which I have just read as an expression of the willingness and interest of the United States government in co-operating in this situation. As I say again, we must in this situation rely on the co-operation of the United States government and leaders of trade unions in the United States for situations which develop in that country and which are beyond the reach of Canadian law. There is no doubt about that.
I was appreciative of the comments made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who expressed the importance of united support for this particular proposal. I was also appreciative of the comments of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) who reminded us that in taking this action at the present time we must be prepared to support the trusteeship over a period of time and not weaken in our determination, in the event of future difficulties.
Because of the necessity of having, as I think I have, the assurance of the House of Commons, and because I think the House of Commons is the expression of Canadian public opinion I should like on second reading to have the support of Canadian public opinion and the support of all political parties in the House of Commons for this action expressed in a formal vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would you call for the yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please
say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.

The house divided on the motion (Mr. Mac-	
Eachen) which was division:	agreed to on the following
 YEAS Messrs:
Aiken	Harley
Alkenbrack	Hays
Asselin (Richmond-	Horner (The Battlefords)
Wolfe)	Howard
Badanai	Howe (Wellington-
Baldwin	Huron)
Barnett	Irvine
Basford	Jewett, Miss
Batten	Jones
Beaule	Jorgenson
Bechard	Kelly
Belanger	Kennedy
Bell	Klein
Benidickson	Knowles
Benson	Korchinski
Berger	Laing
Bigg	LaMarsh, Miss
Boulanger	Lamb
Byrne	Lamoureux
Cameron (Nanaimo-	Laniel
Cowichan-The Islands) Laprise	
Cantelon	Laverdiere
Cantin	Leduc
Caouette	Lessard (Lake St. John)
Cardiff	Lloyd
Cardin	Loiselle
Caron	Loney
Casselman, Mrs.	Macaluso
Chapdelaine	Macdonald
Chatterton	MacEachen
Choquette	MacEwan
Churchill	MacLean (Queens)
Coates	MacNaught
Coooer	Macquarrie
Cote (Chicoutimi)	MacRae
Cote (Longueuil)	McBain
Cowan	McCutcheon
Crouse	Mcllraith
Davis	McIntosh
Deachman	McNulty
Denis	Me William
Deschatelets	Madill
Diefenbaker	Mandziuk
Dinsdale	Marcoux
Dionne	Martin (Timmins)
Doucett	Martineau
Douglas	Matheson
Drouin	Matte
Drury	Millar
Dube	Mitchell
Emard	Moreau
Ethier	Muir (Lisgar)
Fisher	Mullally
Fleming (Okanagan-	Munro
Reveistoke)	Nasserden
Forgie	Nesbitt
Foy	Nicholson
Francis	Nowlan
Garland	Nugent
Gauthier	O'Keefe
Gelber	Olson
Gendron	Orlikow
Godin	Ormiston
Gordon	Ouellet
Grafftey	Pascoe
Gray	Patterson
Greene	Pearson
Gregoire	Pennell
Guay	Pepin
Gundlock	Pickersgill
Habel	Pilon
Hahn	Plourde
Haidasz	Prittie
Hamilton	Rapp
Harkness	Regan

Rheaume	Temple
Ricard	Thompson
Richard	Tucker
Rinfret	Turner
Robichaud	Vincent
Rochon	Wahn
Rock	Walker
Rondeau	Watson (Assiniboia)
Ryan	Watson (Chateauguay-
Scott	Huntingdon-Laprairii
Sharp	Webb
Simpson	Webster
Slogan	Weichel
Smallwood	Whelan
Southam	Willoughby
Stenson	Winch
Tardif	Winkler
Teillet	Woolliams-181.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Herridge	Nielsen
Maclnnis	Peters-4.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [Translation]


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Cashin:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted in favour of second reading.
Bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I recognize that the preamble to the bill is discussed at the end of the passage of the bill through committee of the whole. However, I want to raise something that is in the preamble, so the minister will have a chance to look at it and prepare any changes, if he wants to make them.
I draw the attention of the committee to the second paragraph of the preamble which reads as follows:
And whereas the said report ascribes this situation to the tact that the democratic processes within certain maritime transportation unions have been avoided or undermined to the prejudice of the welfare and rights of seamen and the national and public interests of Canada;
I draw attention to the words "maritime transportation unions", which are used in the plural. Now, the report of Mr. Justice Norris made it abundantly clear that the other four unions involved had a clean bill of health; that they were carried on democratically, that their welfare funds were solvent. The minister himself, in closing the debate just a few minutes ago, paid tribute to the other unions. It seems to me that it is a very serious reflection on the other maritime unions to have this attack, which was supposed to be directed against one union, 28902-5-221
Maritime Transportation Unions directed against all the unions. When it says "unions", that means two or more, and that means at least one other union in addition to the S.I.U has been guilty of destroying the democratic processes and acting contrary to the public welfare.
I feel this is probably a typographical error or it is sloppy drafting. However, I draw it to the attention of the minister so that when we come to the preamble, which is generally the last thing to pass, he may prepare an amendment to it.


Mr. Gelber:: I should like to add a word to the discussion on this very important subject. It is with reluctance that a trusteeship is proposed over trade unions. The rights of labour are an important part of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Free trade unions flourish in a free society. The purpose of the present bill is not to abridge the rights of labour to organize and to be democratically represented, but to ensure that these rights are protected.
I am reminded of a story told by a southern senator of a fellow who clenched his fists and went down the street swinging his arms. He hit a bystander on the nose. The bystander protested, and the fellow said, "I have a right to swing my arms." The bystander said, "Yes, you have a right to swing your arms, but where my nose begins your rights end."
In exercising its authority on the great lakes, Mr. Chairman, a union has been denying many workers human rights and fundamental freedoms. Acts of terror have been rampant. Men have been dragged off ships, assaulted on the streets, harassed, beaten, bullied, crushed into submission. Raids have been conducted on other unions and their machinery of operation brutally appropriated. In all this struggle over a period of years, where have been the forces of law and order? Why have culprits not been apprehended and dealt with by our courts? How could this state of lawlessness proceed without lawful retribution? Certainly, the guilt is even wider than the union which has been indicted in the court of public opinion.
If, in the past, federal authorities performed their duties in maintaining the laws of this country, how could the government have received a letter from a shipping company acknowledging that it had been bullied into an agreement with a union in defiance of the laws of Canada, without action being taken? What about provincial authorities? The administration of justice is a special responsibility of the provincial governments. How could these lawless events have persisted over a period of years while the guardians of the law turned aside from their duties?

Maritime Transportation Unions
This government has been most wise in exhausting the possibilities for a private settlement. An agreed solution that was both strong and effective, such as the Minister of Labour has assured the house he has sought, would be much preferable. The imposition of trusteeship on trade unions, even for a short duration, is not a happy solution. We need the co-operation of the international trade union movement, since our trade unions are generally part of a Canadian-United States structure, and because our ships are sailing in international waters. If we are denied this support, many pitfalls are open. We could be faced with a challenge from sister unions across the border.
It would be helpful to have the support of the United States administration. In addition, there is suspicion of public trusteeship within Canadian trade unions themselves. More especially, for all of these reasons, it has been necessary for the government to seek patiently for a voluntary and effective solution within the trade union movement. And now, if a government trusteeship is to be imposed, it is important, not only that justice be done but, as wise judges have said, that justice appears to be done. The patient search for an effective voluntary agreement was the path of wisdom. The government, in following this statesmanlike course, is to be commended.
The craft trade union movement of Canada, from the days of Samuel Gompers and the knights of labour, is one of continental growth, and leadership has come first from the United States. In addition, the contribution of John L. Lewis and the united mine workers of America in the development of industrial trade unionism leaves the Canadian unions much in their debt. Many important and progressive craft and industrial unions have provided the core of our trade union movement. Their responsibility is a hallmark of our democracy. The present struggle can be an important turning point in trade unionism on this continent. The voice of the Canadian Labour Congress has not prevailed in the councils of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in matters concerning Canadian labour.
We may now see a polarization of continental unionism, and a more independent Canadian movement. We are witnessing a failure of continental leadership. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has praised the accommodation within the Canadian Labour Congress of national and international unions. I cannot be as sanguine as he that this era will return. It is a surprising thing that the leaders of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. did not go all out to accommodate the Canadian Labour Congress in setting up a private


union trusteeship. The leadership of the international movement is strongly opposed to government intervention and the Canadian Labour Congress was available to serve. Thus, they could have their cake and eat it, provided the preservation of the status quo on the great lakes, or something approaching the status quo, was not their aim.
The report of Mr. Justice Norris is not as helpful as it might have been. He has proposed serious procedures, but has not examined them. An analysis by the commissioner of the constitutional and other practical problems facing a government trusteeship was certainly called for. Did Mr. Justice Norris consult the very able counsel of the royal commission in formulating his report?
In this country, we want to see a free, strong, independent trade union movement give effective leadership in the many important areas of industrial and public life, where labour in Canada has shown such responsibility. The surest guarantee of wise government trusteeship is that the trustees should be reluctant to assume their jobs, anxious to complete their work well and effectively, and return the affairs of the unions to their members, where they belong.


Malcolm MacInnis: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Marvin Gelber: Certainly.


Malcolm MacInnis: I do not really know how to put the question, but the hon. member amazed me by coming forward now with criticisms of the Norris commission report which I feel would have been more suitable on the resolution stage.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, this is an extraordinary remedy, but I assume it is directed towards an extraordinary situation. Nevertheless such legislation, no matter what evil it may tend to be directed towards, must be founded on proper constitutional grounds, and this is the point I would now like to make.
I should say to the minister through you, sir, that this is an issue which is raised in the preamble, which has been referred to by the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam, and it may well be raised at a later point; but as I bring it to the minister's attention at this stage perhaps he can deal with it now or later.
I first call to the attention of the committee the fact that on August 2, as reported at page 2943 of Hansard for that date, this matter was brought up by the Leader of the Opposition

who asked whether the government was concerning itself with the introduction of legislation to implement recommendations of the Norris commission.
Dealing with the question of when the legislation would be introduced the Prime Minister said:
It would be impossible in the circumstances to have this difficult and complicated legislation prepared within a matter of weeks. It may require a strict examination of the constitutionality of the legislation-
-which I thought was a very sensible observation.
In the preamble to the bill I note these words in the first paragraph:
It was indicated-
-referring back to the report-
-that within the shipping industry in Canada an emergency situation has developed that endangers navigation and shipping on the St. Lawrence seaway with a consequent threat to the economy of Canada, the international relations of Canada, and peace, order and good government on the St. Lawrence seaway-
It may well be, and the minister may be able to answer this, that because the federal government has in the past occupied the field of labour relations with regard to matters which are under the competent jurisdiction of the federal government, that occupation permits it to proceed with this legislation by itself, and to pass legislation which may, and probably does to some extent, invade the property and civil rights jurisdiction which was allocated to provincial governments. But, I am concerned with the fact that the government may be attempting to break new ground here by using the words "an emergency situation has developed" in a particular sector of the country, and making reference to the "peace, order and good government" in a particular section of the country.
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the British North America Act in section 91 does provide that the federal government may, among other things, "make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada," but I have never understood this to mean that, should an emergency develop in any one part of Canada, the federal government may legislate in matters not otherwise in its legislative competence. I think this has been held in cases which dealt with emergency legislation following world war I. I am not going to refer to the cases, but there are very definite limitations on the extent to which the federal government may legislate under the guise of an emergency. I think this applies also to the right to legislate in respect to the making of laws "for the peace, order and good government of Canada."
I am not offering this in any spirit of mischief, but in passing legislation of this kind 28902-5-2214
Maritime Transportation Unions we should be assured by the minister, particularly in the light of what was said by the Prime Minister on August 2, of the basis on which this legislation is founded, and if in effect the constitutional authority is either on the ground of the right of the federal government, having dealt with labour legislation in federal matters, to pass this particular act, or whether the use of these words in the first paragraph of the preamble are significant, and the government is attempting to found the legality of this enactment because an emergency situation has developed in one part of the country and there is a desire to pass laws for the "peace, order and good government on the St. Lawrence seaway." If this is the case, then this is a matter which will require some consideration.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to hold up this bill. Hon. members of this group have indicated that we support the principle, but this is the first occasion that we can express our very great objection to the fact that this legislation is discriminatory. It has bean said that justice must not only be done but it must also appear to be done.
One thing becomes clear from reading the Norris report and that is that the maritime industry is in trouble not just because one of the trade unions was controlled by a gangster, Banks, but because a big shipping company was willing to work with that union and with Banks. I do not know if the minister has read the whole report, but in one section Mr. Norris quotes Mr. Dunkerley, after counsel for the commission had questioned the other shipping companies about the difficulties they had encountered with prayer meetings which were used to disrupt their orderly operations, and Mr. Dunkerley makes it very clear that Canada Steamship Lines never had prayer meetings.
Mr. Dunkerley also says that any time they had trouble they could get quick results by going to the top, to Banks. Another thing which is evident to anybody who can read and think, is that Mr. Banks never did anything for nothing. If Banks gave a favour to somebody he got a service in return.
I join with other hon. members in expressing the hope that the government will quit its delay and get on with the processing of the report of the special counsel appointed to inquire into the possibilities of bringing prosecutions against Banks and the shipping companies involved.
Now, however, we get a bill to enact the maritime transportation unions trustees act, and after two days of discussion and after at least half a dozen members have spoken about the faults of one particular shipping company, the minister completely ignores
3462	HOUSE OF
Maritime Transportation Unions those remarks. Does he feel that the shipping companies are free of guilt, or does he feel this is not the place to mention it? Will there be prosecutions and will the shipping act be amended? The committee deserves to know these things. The labour unions of Canada, which on the whole are clean, deserve to know from the minister what he intends to do. Are we going to have in 1963, as we have had so often in the past, prosecutions and a clamping down on trade unions while people in power, with money and influence, get off scot-free? The people of Canada are entitled to an explanation.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, we have listened to a great deal from all sides of the house, all favourable to this legislation. The house, in a most impressive display of unanimity, has endorsed a far reaching piece of legislation which I am sure is repugnant in principle to very many hon. members. I can recall the chairman of the war labour board in the United States saying the state must be very careful before it displays its own naked power. In a situation like this we are using the powers of the state to achieve a purpose which must be achieved.
I am very proud indeed of the Minister of Labour, the caution with which he has approached this matter and the thoroughness with which he has investigated all the ramifications before action was taken. There are those who felt that the government should have rushed into action before now. There are others, such as the hon. member for Port Arthur, to whom I listened with a great deal of attention, who gave us an insight into the reasons why the parties to this dispute have been led to the positions they have taken.
Nevertheless the public interest is paramount. The time has come when we all recognize that we must take the step of using the power of the state to dispossess a union leader, whom all of us have come to recognize as an evil force in organized labour. We believe in free collective bargaining. We believe in leaving as much as possible to the free determination of unions and management within the framework that has been evolved for the solution of labour disputes.
This is a situation that goes beyond the normal circumstances of collective bargaining. This is a situation in which the unusual and far reaching action of imposing a government trusteeship has been adopted by, as I said, a rare display of unanimity in this chamber.
It would be foolish indeed to think that by simply adopting this legislation we can anticipate that certain results will follow. There is a very great burden upon those chosen as trustees. As was indicated before, the testing


point will come when negotiations for a contract reached their final stage. What kind of contract will be worked out? What kind of democratic union will be worked out within the framework of the trusteeship? What will be the conclusion of the trusteeship? How will it terminate? How will we guarantee that at the end of the period of government operation of not only one union but a group of unions we will have evolved a democratic structure which will be welcomed by the same unions within the ranks of Canadian organized labour that have welcomed government action in these circumstances?
This dispute has taken on an international aspect that again is a little repugnant. I cannot add to what has been said so very well by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the spokesmen for the other parties. There is a challenge to our right to govern ourselves as Canadians within Canadian institutions, and we are seeking to assert this right through this measure. We are confident at the same time that the administration of this measure will be in accordance with the principles of democratic collective bargaining, fully respecting the rights of the parties to the dispute. We are under no illusion with regard to the potential dangers of this task but there is no other choice before us.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I think that the committee is entitled to hear my reasons for voting against second reading of the bill and I wish to take this opportunity to put those reasons on record, so there will be no misunderstanding. In order to avoid repetition may I say at the outset that I endorse fully the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South who voted with me on this side of the house against the measure. The views expressed by him would have been expressed by me had I spoken on second reading.
I too express surprise at the parliamentar; secretary to the Minister of Labour voting for the measure, since he is a member of the same union that I and the hon. member for Kootenay West, I believe, are, and since that union, the mine-mill union, has expressed the view that this is a problem which the workers themselves should clear up without the imposition of legislation that imposes upon their freedom. When the parliamentary secretary spoke to the thirteenth convention of the mine-mill union in Sudbury last September he singled out the fact, as reported in the latest issue of the Mine-Mill Herald, that mine-mill was the first international union to endorse the principle of Canadian autonomy for its Canadian section. He stated, and here

I quote the Mine-Mill Herald which has the words in quotation marks:
"This is a move I believe others envy particularly at this moment."
I would assume that implicit in those remarks was a reference to the situation on the great lakes which was confronting the government.
The basic reasons for my not finding it possible to support the measure on second reading are these. I believe that the powers given to the government trustees are much too broad, if they are required at all, a matter concerning which I will have a word or two to say in a moment. I believe the legislation is unconstitutional since in my view it interferes with the property and civil rights of citizens and goes beyond the scope of the powers of this parliament. I believe also that the establishment of a board of trustees with the prime purpose ostensibly to shunt Banks out of his position of power is not going to solve the situation at all. I believe, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, that this legislation is going to cause more difficulties than the government is already faced with because I believe we are embarking on an international war between the American sections of the maritime unions and the Canadian sections. I think this is particularly so, because as I understand the intention of the government two Canadian trustees and one American will be appointed. The minister shakes his head so I assume this is not the case. I can only proceed on the assumption that there are going to be two American trustees and one Canadian trustee, which makes the situation even worse.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Three Canadians.


Erik Nielsen: This simply points up the validity of my fears and those of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and others who have spoken against the measure, that international strife will develop particularly because of the exclusion of the Americans.
I think that one thing which perhaps might have been done, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, was to seek the assurance of Mr. Wirtz that there would be United States co-operation, a question which I do not believe was answered by the Minister of Labour. Apart from his reading a paragraph of the statement made by Mr. Wirtz, he has given us no assurance at all that he has consulted with Mr. Wirtz to obtain from him an unassailable guarantee that co-operation on the part of the United States government and labour leaders will be forthcoming. If he had held such discussions, and this is one of the alternatives which the minister was perhaps seeking, it is quite possible that concurrent legislation could have been passed in the
Maritime Transportation Unions United States that might have effectively accomplished the creation of that situation on the great lakes which is the desire of everyone.
I think there is another solution. Everyone seems to have laid the strife on the great lakes at the doorstep of Harold Chamberlain Banks, and I believe rightly so. Everyone I have heard speak in the house on this measure has said it is most regrettable that this legislation must be passed, and everyone who has spoken has left me with the impression that the reason for the legislation is because of the activities of Banks. I should like to pause for a moment to read into the record the official views of the union to which I belong. This is an editorial from the Mine-Mill Herald dated October 1963, written by Mr. Smith, president of the mine-mill union, who writes most of the editorials. He has this to say in an editorial headed: "Both a tragedy and a farce".
The man who said that when history repeats itself it is a tragedy the first time and a farce the second, must now be scratching his head searching for a new definition when he looks at the situation pertaining to Canadian seamen, the Norris report, the antics of Meany and Jodoin, etc., etc.
Let's get what really happened set down and that is no small chore and requires very considerable mental agility to follow the turns and twists of official government and trade union policy.
First, the Canadian seamen had a union of their own that fought to improve their conditions and that had succeeded quite well. Second, under the guise of "anti-communism" the Canadian government, the American state department and the official heads of the trade union movement on both sides of the international border moved everything at hand to smash that union, the C.S.U., and replace it with the goon squad rule of Harold Chamberlain Banks, strong arm convict from the U.S.A. Do-not-ship lists were set up to break the backs of those still sailing who did not agree with these "tender" ministrations and forever keep them off the water. The U.S. state department was happy, the Canadian government was happy,-
May I just pause here to say that I cannot help but think of the exchange which took place when discussing this measure between the Secretary of State and hon. members on this side. I recall the time the Canadian government allowed the entry of Banks into this country, and when the secretary of state for external affairs-I say this without malice at all-had before him the order in council with the record of this man attached to it, a record as long as your arm, he approved his application and allowed the appeal of Banks that he be allowed to stay in this country. I cannot conceive how a thing like that was allowed to happen. Continuing with this editorial:
The U.S. state department was happy, the Canadian government was happy, the shipping companies were happy, Banks was happy.. .everybody was happy except the seamen that had lost their union and their jobs.

Maritime Transportation Unions
Now short years later everybody is unhappy again including the Canadian government that brought Banks here and they are threatening to put his union under a government trusteeship.
Claude Jodoin who helped directly to bring Banks into the country now is making noises that international unions should not interfere in the internal affairs of Canadian unions. We suggest mildly that this is a change because obviously Banks was brought here with Jodoin's assistance for precisely that purpose.
I recall reading a press report concerning Mr. Jodoin, who said of Banks that here is a man who is well on the way to making a good Canadian citizen.
We also recall that a major result of these carrying's on by Jodoin & Co. was the wholesale scuttling of the Canadian merchant marine so that all Canadian shipping became by and large dependant on U.S. bottoms.
At any rate this has all the elements of "tragedy" and "farce" and there can be no solution until the seamen and the workers of Canada proclaim and demand their right to clean up the bloody awful mess. The trickster manoeuvering of a Jodoin who piously now proclaims against the "domination" of U.S. international unions at the behest of the Canadian government that wants to put further shackles on the Canadian unions through their trusteeship, makes nothing but a mess.
The struggle for Canadian independence in general and the struggle specifically for Canadian independence in the trade union movement will grow apace in the days ahead.
As the pioneer international trade union organization that established Canadian autonomy and independence we hail every genuine move in this direction and pledge to stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone who supports that struggle.
We call for an all out offensive by the Canadian workers to put a stop to the farces and the tragedies visited upon them by virtue of the foreign domination of our affairs through the international unions. Canadian workers can do quite well without that, as they can do without the puppet-like capers of Jodoin and his international backers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the hon. member agree with the sentiments expressed in that editorial?


Erik Nielsen: Some of the words used are stronger than words I would use, but I agree with the general principle that affairs of unions should be left to the seamen and the workers themselves to settle. I also agree with the sentiments expressed concerning the Canadian section of the maritime unions being controlled by international unions.


David Orlikow: Would the hon. member permit a question. I should like to ask him whether he thinks Harvey Murphy is a better trade union leader in Canada than Claude Jodoin.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder how well the hon. member knows Harvey Murphy. I know Harvey Murphy and have had many discussions with him. Despite the fact that some very poor opinions may have been held about Harvey Murphy owing to his past activities and circumstances, I feel that

Harvey Murphy has been one of the leaders, at least in the north from where I come, in the fight to obtain benefits for the miners in that part of Canada which they would never have received had it not been for Harvey Murphy. I think the parliamentary secretary to the minister will endorse that statement.
I heard that a mine manager from Yellowknife once said of Harvey Murphy at a recent meeting that if it had not been for his presence at that meeting the agreement they were discussing would never have been negotiated.
I should like to quote from the last edition of the Mine-Mill Herald which deals with the address the parliamentary secretary made to the thirteenth convention of the union, and I am sure he will welcome this reference.
-Mr. Byrne did take issue with those who attack the union when he said with reference to the "communist" smear against the union "if the political belief of the members of a union, rather than its accomplishments on behalf of its membership, are to be the criteria upon which the right to existence is judged, then there would be many strange and varied statutes drawn up throughout Canada... the former prime minister's civil rights act would be nothing but a mockery."
I agree 100 per cent with the sentiments expressed there by the parliamentary secretary.
Since everyone seems to have at the back of their minds the elimination of Banks as the cancerous growth at the root of all the strife on the great lakes, I was going to advance another possible alternative, which is action along these lines. The preamble to the bill says that the reason for its passage is because we are confronted with a national emergency, owing to the economic havoc being wrought by the lack of peace on the great lakes. If we are, indeed, confronted with a national emergency, is there not some other method of dealing with the situation? Could we not take action along the same lines as the action we might take in dealing with an emergency at a time when this country was actually involved in a war-and, in effect, this is what is taking place on the great lakes now. If I understand the legal position correctly, Banks is a landed immigrant, not a Canadian citizen. Would it not be possible to amend the Citizenship Act by inserting a section providing specifically, if you wish, for the deportation of Banks as an undesirable individual who should not be allowed to remain in Canada? I think it would be possible to do this. True, it would be an extraordinary measure, but then so is the present legislation. It seems to me the government could have amended the Citizenship Act so as to provide that Mr. Banks no longer had the right to remain in Canada. In my view it would be better to have

done this than to have brought in this trusteeship measure which will merely result in the nationalization of the trade unions on the great lakes. If the government would exert its efforts to bring to the seamen realization that, once Banks had been removed, they would be responsible for electing new officials-strong men imbued with the democratic spirit of free trade unions-we might have been better off than we are as a result of the introduction of the legislation now proposed.
Everybody has had a crack at the shipping companies. If we intend to nationalize the unions, to impose a trusteeship, to take over, in effect, the assets and property of the unions, including their power to make promissory notes and so on, why do we not nationalize the shipping companies as well?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: Everybody is blaming the shipping companies for their part in this affair. It has been said that they and Mr. Jodoin, together with the government, were those responsible for bringing Banks into Canada under the guise of anti-communism. If we intend to press an extraordinary measure of this kind on the trade unions, why not impose a similar one on the shipping companies? What assurance have we now that the shipping companies will fall into line with the wishes of the government? From what I have heard of the representations made by Mr. Leitch, there is no assurance of his co-operation. Maybe the minister has received certain assurances. I do not know.
The last thing the government should do, in my opinion, is to usurp the right of a trade union to manage its own affairs. That is what is now being done. I agree, as do all other hon. members, that Banks should go. If there is no method of prosecuting him and putting him in jail, then, surely, the procedure of amending the Citizenship Act, along the lines I have suggested, would provide a means of kicking him out. This course should have been considered, rather than a measure such as we have before us now-legislation which, in effect, takes the power of managing their own affairs away from the seamen and workers who make up these trade unions.
I do not think the government should have considered interfering with the rights and freedom of a trade union. I do not think they should have considered imposing trustees to manage the affairs of a trade union, any more than they should have thought of imposing a trusteeship over the shipping companies. I want to make that clear, in case anyone misunderstood the analogy I made a few moments ago and which some hon. members on my far left applauded. I do not stand for the nationalization of private enterprise, nor
Maritime Transportation Unions do I stand for the nationalization of trade unions, and I am surprised that members of the New Democratic party should have voted for this measure; because that is precisely what they are supporting-the nationalization of a trade union. If their belief in nationalization extends as far as the nationalization of trade unions, I think they have some soul searching to do.
This legislation has yet another objectionable feature. When the government made known its intention to establish a trusteeship over these maritime unions I had a decision to make and I had great difficulty in reaching the decision which I expressed by my vote today. But when the government spoke of establishing a trusteeship at that time, they talked of doing so on a temporary basis. Now we see that the trusteeship has a five year term to it. Granted, there are provisions in the bill which allow for the ending of the trusteeship, and the handing back of the property taken over, at the end of a period shorter than five years. But to be consistent in its thinking, in accordance with its stated intention to impose the trusteeship on a temporary basis only, I think provision should have been made for supervision on the basis of six months or one year, renewable if necessary. It does not seem to me that it is going to take five years to accomplish the objectives the government has in mind.
There are other objectionable features in this bill. For example, there is the provision which allows the trustees appointed by the government to delegate all their powers to one of their number. Who is to say that if they exercise this power they may not choose another Banks? It seems to me this provision is both dangerous and unwise.
Almost two pages of this bill as it appears before us deal with property and civil rights. It seems to me that to allow a trusteeship to take over the assets and property which belong to the members of a trade union is completely unacceptable. It is an action which sets an extremely dangerous precedent and, for these reasons, this is a measure which I cannot in all conscience bring myself to support. I feel the situation should have been handled by dethroning Banks by other means and I have yet to be convinced that this could not be done. One of the aims of the government should have been to explore the possibility to the full of Canadianizing the Canadian portion of this union, before introducing such legislation as we have before us. The management of trade unions must be left to the membership of those unions and it seems to me to be completely wrong in principle to introduce a measure such as this trusteeship proposal which takes away a fundamental right of workers in Canada in

Maritime Transportation Unions any section of the economy to organize themselves into trade unions. This, in my opinion, is the first step toward eroding the functions of trade unionism, a principle in which I believe as being necessary to our Canadian way of life.
I do hope that perhaps some explanation or some comment will be forthcoming from the minister on the solution which I have suggested in connection with the amendment to the Citizenship Act to enable us to deport Mr. Banks, rather than ask for this extraordinary step to be taken.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the problem necessitating this legislation is a generic problem of our Canadian-United States relations. It is one of the results of this nation having been conceived as an entity which would stretch from east to west, while the lines of nature and basic economics envisage a flow from north to south. Its roots are in the same vein which periodically give birth to the outcry about United States capital control of our industry and of our heritage. When the problem relates to economic entities such as trade unions, which in one land are regarded in the perspective of persons geared to the republican form of government while in the other land the same economic entity, the trade union, is geared by those who are brought up in the background of parliamentary government, then the problem of that fundamental contradiction in our Canadian conception becomes more acute.
When Mr. Wirtz and Mr. Meany rail at us, they do so as the products of the republican system of checks and balances, pressure against pressure, which regards overt governmental interference as virtually sacrilegious, while pressures, governmental or otherwise, are the order of the day. When, on the other hand, we recoil from such pressure with righteous and jingoistic indignation, we quite properly do so as the children of a parliamentary democracy, where parliament is supreme and any outside pressure on parliament is an invasion of our most profound and sacred rights. In all areas of such difference, Mr. Chairman, which I suggest will ever recur as economic necessity brings us closer to our neighbours to the south, I think the road to progress will surely be in the nonflashy but reliable car of moderation.
On the one hand, we should develop our ability to think as republicans while they, on the other hand, should develop their ability to think as parliamentarians. I think this is preferable to the lofty and futile high horse. During this twenty sixth parliament, Mr. Chairman, we have heard often and loud

the voice of faction, the voice of colloquialism, the voice of provincialism. How still and small and seldom heard has been the voice of Canada. Here we have a great, and I believe, transcendent problem which may well affect all Canada and all Canadians. It is, perhaps, the way of democracy that when the problem is so grave as to affect all of Canada and all Canadians, the debate in this house has been on a higher plane, more loftily and properly conducted in the national interest and in the highest parliamentary tradition, than has been the case with any measure which has been brought before this twenty sixth parliament.
I think I should say also, Mr. Chairman, that the party to which I belong, this house and, yes, the whole nation, is indebted to the minister who has sponsored this bill. In his conduct of this matter he has established for himself an enviable, an unassailable position for efficiency, patience and courtesy in the manner in which he has handled this difficult and trying problem from its inception. It has been recently stated in the press that we in the backbenches of this party have some fault, or had some fault to find with the frontbenchers of this party. I can only say that we who sit back here with our posteriors on the edge of the Ottawa river are very proud of the way in which the minister has handled this matter. We have been very pleased to sit behind him. I can only say, Mr. Chairman, it is to be hoped that this house will continue in the manner and spirit which has prevailed in the debate on this measure, so that it may be said of the twenty sixth parliament that it was a bit of a shambles until the debate on the trusteeship bill, but from that time forward matters were handled in the house in the parliamentary manner, and on the highest basis.


Mr. Barnett:: According to the clock at which I am looking, Mr. Chairman, we have reached the hour of five o'clock. I have a number of comments that I should like to make upon this measure, in part at least resulting from the remarks which were made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Yukon. Perhaps the Minister of Labour would like to accept the invitation extended to him by the hon. member and make some reply on certain aspects of the hon. member's remarks. If he does, this may avoid the necessity for some remarks on that aspect. However, it would seem hardly appropriate for me to attempt to make my remarks now, in view of the particular hour at which we have arrived.
I call your attention to the fact it is five o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before private bills are called, I think there was an order of the house made earlier that we would revert to motions.


Harold Edward Winch: That was my understanding, that we would revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, the Secretary of State is quite correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before I put my motion, I should like to report on the meeting that was held at two o'clock this afternoon, at which it was agreed that I should propose to the house that instead of putting my motion, if there were unanimous consent, the house might agree to sit again this evening from seven o'clock until eleven, unless in the meantime we should complete the bill that was just being considered in committee. It was agreed we should take also the second reading stage only of the two territorial bills, on the clear understanding that when those bills were given second reading they would be sent to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters where they could be considered fully and witnesses could be called on any contentious points. This was in accordance with an understanding that was arrived at at the time the bill was given first reading.
I want to emphasize the fact that there was no commitment made to pass either of these bills, or indeed to pass any of them. The only thing that was understood was we would not sit after those three items were taken up. There was no commitment made by anyone that we would necessarily do these things. I want to make that very clear, but the time would be available. On that understanding, we could have an order of the house, and I would then ask permission to withdraw my motion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The general idea was that rather than sit on Saturday, which was the purport of the motion, we would sit tonight for a four-hour period. The Secretary of State has reported the discussion that we had with regard to the passage of the bill now in front of us, or with which we were just dealing. We did not say including third reading, did we?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, that would be entirely up to the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then, discussion turned to the two other bills, the Northwest Territories bill and the Nunassiaq bill. As the Secretary of State pointed out we talked in terms of passing second reading, if this happened before eleven o'clock, and referring the bills
Business of the House
to the committee he mentioned. But unfortunately a misunderstanding crept in because we did not have all the facts in front of us. I did not myself refer back to the debate on July 8 that pertained to the two bills. I do not know whether the Secretary of State looked back at it, but hon. members have since drawn my attention to the fact that a somewhat different commitment was made on that occasion by the Secretary of State, and which is to be found on page 1968 of Hansard for that date.
Whether or not that is gone ahead with will, I suppose be a matter for some discussion, but if the Secretary of State can clear up that statement of July 8 then perhaps we can go ahead tonight and dispose of the three items of business, but not exactly in the way which he mentions.
However, we are quite glad to sit tonight at seven o'clock and discuss the bill which has recently been under discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I can clear up that point. There is no question whatever I did give an undertaking that if on reflection it was asked for-I am not going to read all the language-the government would find some motion to refer a question at issue about these matters to a committee, before taking up second reading.
Hon. members know we cannot refer a government measure to a committee before it gets second reading, so we would just have to refer a subject that was brought up by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to a committee, and have a discussion on that before we even called the second reading of the bill. But I have suggested no such request was made to me and I have called the bills on several occasions.
I am not seeking to rest on any technicality at all. The government will carry out the undertaking I gave, if there is any insistence upon it in the house, but I believe exactly the same purpose could be accomplished if we would give second reading to the bills and then send them to the committee, because giving second reading to a bill does not commit anybody to any clause in it. The only principle in these two bills that is common to the both of them is that the Northwest Territories as they now exist are going to be divided into two territories, so that anybody who accepts the bill can vote for it on second reading and anybody who wants to vote against it would not be accepting anything on second reading, except that.
The question raised by the hon. member regarding the boundaries is not a principle of the bill but an ancillary and could be considered just as fully in committee after



Business of the House second reading as before; and nobody would be committed to anything more.
It would facilitate progress generally if that would be an acceptable solution. If it is not, then the government will do exactly what I said would be done on the earlier occasion. But as I have not got a motion drafted, and have not got one on the order paper, we could not proceed with the matter this evening. But I hope, in the spirit in which I have made this statement, it will be possible to proceed in this way, and I make it very clear that no one by agreeing to this procedure is agreeing to sacrifice any matter of principle of any kind whatever.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, first may I confirm that the Secretary of State has reported accurately what went on at our meeting at two o'clock this afternoon. May I add that, so far as members of this party are concerned, we are quite prepared to sit this evening at seven o'clock until whichever comes first, eleven o'clock or the completion of the amount of business we discussed at our meeting.
With regard to the issue that has arisen since, I may say my attention has likewise been drawn to what was said on July 8 by the Secretary of State, and I am glad to note he takes the position that if what he offered is insisted upon, then the government will meet that commitment. But, I would like to make a suggestion to my friends on this side, particularly to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), who I feel is about to rise. I would like to say to him, as a member of the opposition, that I am sure none of us on this side of the house would lose any rights or opportunities by agreeing to what we discussed at the meeting at two o'clock today.
There is a rule of the house, which the Secretary of State must have put at the back of his mind when he made that statement on July 8, which says every public bill shall be read twice in the house before committal for amendment. In other words these bills themselves could not be put to the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor did I say they could.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe that the matter he has in mind could actually be dealt with better if the actual bill were before the committee on mines, forests and waters. I remind him that the people who are interested in it can serve on the committee. I remind him that witnesses can be called, people representing other interests and people representing provinces, and I am sure we would not be giving anything away if we agreed to this procedure.

I think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has an interest in these bills. Nobody is more particular about his rights than the hon. member for Skeena, but he has agreed this procedure would be satisfactory so far as those who are interested in these bills are concerned. The matter which has been discovered since two o'clock today was not in our minds when we met, but I hope it will not alter the decision we made. In any case, we in this party are prepared to sit from seven o'clock until whichever comes first, eleven o'clock or the conclusion of such business as we have agreed upon.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think that according to the procedures in this house the resolution stage and second reading of bills are occasions and opportunities for us to state our principles, but in this occasion we have passed a resolution stage very quickly. In fact I think it took only five minutes at the end of the day on July 8, and tonight on second reading it will be the same.
But there is another angle to the matter. Bill No. C-84 is not clear at all. There is no precision as to the frontiers of this territory. Before discussion the principles of the bill we would like to know exactly what the frontiers are, and they are not well described in the bill. I have asked for a map of the territory but there are no details on it. I feel that if we pass second reading rapidly the people of Canada, and especially the people of the province of Quebec, will not be aware of the exact meaning of the bill. If the people of the province of Quebec were aware of what is in the bill they would protest in the same way they have protested with regard to other bills. I feel that protestations of the people of Quebec between the time they are made aware of the bill and when we study the principle of the bill will accomplish what I alone could not accomplish. They will force the government to change the bill.
I should like the Secretary of State to consider that angle. I am quite certain that the people of Canada, and especially of the province of Quebec, as well as the members of this house are not aware of what is being done in the bill which has been presented to us. It would be well that before discussing the principle an opportunity should be provided to ask questions in a special committee. Here I refer to what the Secretary of State said on July 8, 1963, as found on page 1968 of Hansard. He said:
In fact I am quite prepared to commit the government to putting a motion on the order paper for a reference to a suitable standing committee of the house to consider these matters before we proceed with the legislation itself.
There are other places where the Secretary of State committed the government. It

is not that I wish to bring about delay. As I understand the matter the urgent bill is No. C-83. I am ready to allow second reading to be given to Bill No. C-83. However, as far as Bill No. C-84 is concerned I submit there are very important points in the bill from the point of view of the province of Quebec. We passed the resolution rapidly, and if we should give second reading to the bill quickly I should not like it because I would feel I had not discharged my duty as a member of the house to see that the people are given the opportunity to be made aware of all the facts before we discuss the principle of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, there is
absolutely no question that I did make a very precise commitment and I intend to carry out that commitment if there is any insistence on the part of any hon. member that I do so. The commitment was to refer a specific matter, namely the frontiers, to the consideration of the committee before we proceed with the bill. If my language is studied it is evident that there is no question I was well aware of the rule that we could not send this bill to a committee before second reading and it cannot be sent to a committee at that point under our rules without at the same time killing the bill.
But if the hon. member or any other hon. member wishes to insist that the matters raised in the debate, that is to say, the question of the frontiers of the territories, should be considered separately first by a committee,
I	will endeavour to consult with whoever raises objection; the hon. member for Lapointe or anyone else, and try to draft some kind of motion to refer the matter to some suitable committee and bring it forward for debate.
But I think we are all aware of the difficulties of the timetable in the house in this part of the session, and I suggest again very respectfully that nothing will be accomplished by that process that would not be accomplished just as well by having the bill debated. I am not even asking the house to complete the debate tonight but merely asking hon. members to have the debate, study these points on second reading and then send the bill to a committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the Secretary of State accept the suggestion, rather than setting an
II	o'clock deadline tonight or whatever time second reading is completed, that we discontinue the debate on second reading of Bill No. C-84 and not adopt second reading tonight, so that we will have an opportunity to study the matter and to consult the experts before we finish the debate on second reading?
Business of the House


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have never suggested at any time, of course, that I was going to tell the house when they would pass any bill. If the house wants to spend the whole evening on the trusteeship bill, they can do so. I am asking that we should sit until eleven o'clock but if we pass these three items I am not going to ask the house to do any other business. We will quit earlier.


Gilles Grégoire: Possibly I did not express myself well. Suppose we finish everything else by six o'clock and then we have from seven to eleven to talk on Bill No. C-84. I will not talk for four hours this evening on that bill, but second reading might be given because nobody else wanted to talk on it. I want to see everybody have the opportunity to give their opinions, but if they have done so by ten o'clock I do not want to see the house give second reading to the bill tonight.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it will facilitate the business we will not ask for any vote tonight on the second reading of the Nunassiaq bill. If we can agree on that basis, then I will ask to have the house adjourned when we reach the point where hon. members wish to adjourn the debate on that bill.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, would it not be a solution to proceed with our general suggestion that we meet at seven o'clock? By the time we have passed Bill No. C-102 some considerable time will have elapsed and in the interval we might be able to reach some conclusion as to what we might do with the Northwest Territories bill and the other one; but let us now agree to sit at seven o'clock and go ahead with Bill No. C-102.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the house will sit from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. this day and that the business be as outlined by the Secretary of State?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Unanimous agreement.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the decision we have just taken may I ask the Secretary of State if he will give consideration to allowing the page boys the evening off, or as many of them as he feels can be released? They have had a long week, this is Friday night and they are young.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would hope that might be possible. I wonder whether I might explain to the house, in case anyone is wondering, why the government has not suggested that we go on with government business between five and six o'clock. I was partly restrained by some strictures delivered on a previous occasion, but also partly restrained by the fact that the Minister of Labour simply had to be out of the house between now and seven o'clock because

Canada Elections Act of other things that are happening elsewhere. We will go on with private members' business now.

members' travelling expenses


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, while we are still on motions I wonder whether I might have the consent of the house to move, seconded by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught):
That the recommendation of the commissioners of internal economy set out in the extract from the minutes of the meeting of the said commissioners tabled by Mr. Speaker on October 10, 1963, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may now have the permission of the house to withdraw my motion to sit tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent to the motion being withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion (Mr. Pickersgill) withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, was attention
paid to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that the younger members of the staff be given the night off?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the Chair heard the suggestion, and with your usual benevolence I am sure Your Honour will do your best.


Mr. Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of public bills.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-26, to amend the Canada Elections Act (advance polls).


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act in order to prevent a repetition in the next election or in subsequent ones of offences or irregularities such as those committed in the last election in my riding, as well as in other constituencies in Canada.
I know that all members of the house are quite familiar with the Canada Elections Act and are aware that it was amended in 1960 in order to increase the number of advance polls in various electoral districts.


Those advance polls are open on the ninth day and the seventh day prior to the day of the election so that people who expect to be absent from their country or electoral district on election day may have a chance to vote.
I believe that amendment has given many electors the opportunity of exercising their franchise before the date of the election. However, infractions can be committed in those advance polls. I know that, at the last election, in my riding, a deputy returning officer counted the ballots at the end of the first day of voting at the advance polls. Results in one advance poll were made known. I realized then that if the act was not amended, that could have serious effects in certain constituencies, especially when the electors know how the voting went a week or nine days before election day.
If results at some advance polls are revealed prematurely, that can have a great influence on the vote on election day.
That is why I propose this amendment. Besides, the hon. members know that the deputy returning officer is responsible for the ballot box at the advance poll on voting day and keeps it in his possession until the actual voting day. And it is only in the evening of that day, two hours after the closing of the polls, that the deputy returning officer, in the presence of representatives of the various candidates, must open the ballot box of the advance poll.
The present act is not sufficiently strict with regard to offences committed by the deputy returning officer when he is caught doing something illegal, as happened in my riding.
As a matter of fact, the only punishment that can be meted out to him is that he loses one day's salary or his salary for the two days he worked at the poll as deputy returning officer.
Therefore, there is a serious danger, because at a given time one or several deputy returning officers could conspire with various organizers to count the votes in a number of advance polls so as to publish the results before election day.
Under the Canada Elections Act, anyone guilty of divulging prematurely the results of the voting at a poll is liable to a fine ranging from $1 to $500.
In my opinion, our aim would be achieved by this amendment if a deputy returning officer who counts the ballots before election day were liable to the same penalty as any person who publishes the results of the election ahead of time and were fined from $1 to $500.

Canada Elections Act
I sincerely feel that if we pass this bill, we one I referred to a moment ago, without often will prevent breaches of the law at advance suspecting the almost tragic consequences polls in future elections.	involved.


Mr. Jean L. Rochon (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to support the measure which was presented by our colleague, the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc). I do not intend to spend too much time on this, but I should like to explain my views on that subject.
My riding is the third largest in Canada; it is outranked only by Scarborough and Mercier. Over 60,000 of my constituents are residents of the northern part of Montreal and another 58,000 live on Jesus island where eight cities and five towns are located.
During the June 1962 election, the chief electoral officer set up 22 advanced polls and many Canadians took advantage of the right they had under the Canada Elections Act, to vote before the official date of the election.
Now, it just happened that in four advanced polls, the returning officer announced the results in favour of one of my opponents with the consequence that, because of the indiscretion committed by the officials, on voting day, the vote was next to nothing in the district where those polls were situated.
I quite understand that, as my colleague for Gatineau has just explained, under the present legislation, a deputy returning officer who commits an indiscretion loses his job and is not entitled to any pay. However, as my hon. friend said, that is not enough and if such a returning officer has to pay a $500 fine just like any person who publishes prematurely the election results, people would think twice before acting and I am convinced that in the case I am concerned with at present, things would have been different.
In a riding such as mine, Mr. Speaker, with more than 118,000 voters, even if the vote is thus switched around a bit, the effects are not as far reaching as they would be in a smaller constituency, as the hon. member for Gatineau pointed out a moment ago, where that could be enough to alter the results completely and bring about a vote which would be the reverse of the opinion the electors would otherwise have expressed.
I am sure all of us in this house, Mr. Speaker, no matter which party we belong to, want truly democratic and honest elections, and I know this bill would be suited to that purpose and would prevent many mistakes being made.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, caught in the election turmoil, we ourselves, members of our organization, the returning officer and his assistants, unfortunately cannot prevent some thoughtless campaign officials from doing such things. They do things such as the
It rests with us, members of this house, to prevent such situations and, without prejudice, under our oath of office, to legislate so as to assure not only the integrity of the administration, but also that of those who will be called upon later on, as ourselves, to govern the country.
It remains with the hon. members, Mr. Speaker, to protect the public against itself, to protect certain organizers, whatever party they belong to, against the extravagant enthusiasm they show during an election campaign in favour of a candidate of their choice.
The bill of our colleague for Gatineau has been introduced for no other purpose than to assure the honesty of the vote and to give to the people members of their choice. In other words, it is a matter of electing a truly democratic government, fully representative of a common ideal.
Mr. Speaker, these are troubled times in which we live. Let us be on our guard, for tomorrow may be too late. Those who live under a democratic government tend to forget that elsewhere things may be different. Although dictators are clever at painting things a lovely rosy hue, their subjects become tools in the hands of a small group of men, of potentates who, in the name of the nation, use them as mere puppets to satisfy the mad ambitions of vainglorious masters thirsting for power.
That fact is illustrated by the story of the last 20 years. Nazi Germany and fascist Italy dreamt of holding sway over a trembling world and, in fact, succeeded in enslaving whole nations, but they have since paid a bitter price, and drunk to the dregs the cup of humiliation. Hitler committed suicide in his lair in the Bavarian Alps and Mussolini was delivered to public obloquy and hanged, as we know, by his feet.
It will be objected that the situation is not quite so bad. I agree. But in the last five years, even in the last two or three years, the difficulties which have occurred on all sides are different from those of the past.
People luxuriate in liberty and quite properly demand that their rights be respected, placing on our shoulders heavier responsibilities which are quite different from those of the past due to the needs of our times.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, as modest as it is, if we stop and consider it carefully, will remedy many mistakes and particularly many unfortunate abuses of the past.

Canada Elections Act
That is why, on behalf of the voters in my riding, I make it my duty to support this measure introduced by our colleague from Gatineau.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I will take a few minutes only to express my views about the measure under consideration.
First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Montreal-Laval (Mr. Rochon) for the sincerity with which he supported the bill introduced by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc), but I must tell him that I do not share his view about advance polls set up when a general election is held.
Such advance polls are set up to give the greatest number of electors the opportunity to cast their votes before the date set for the election, when they have to be away on voting day.
If my memory is correct, I think those advance polls have been used only in the last two general elections. Previously, those advance polls were open only one day.
During the 1962 and 1963 elections, the polls were open, as the hon. member for Gatineau pointed out, the ninth day and the seventh day before election day.
I feel that this measure was presented to the house following the mistakes that were made across Canada during the last general election, but I think that if you compare the few mistakes made with the number of polls set up for the 1963 election, you realize that the number of deputy returning officers who made such mistakes was negligible and just because a few deputy returning officers made mistakes, I do not feel that we should necessarily amend the act and go back to the years when advance polls were opened just for one day.
Mr. Speaker, I have here the result of the voting in the four last federal elections for my riding. If we consider the number of voters who cast their vote at advance polls, we readily realize that those polls have certainly enabled a great many Canadians to exercise their franchise, compared to previous years.
In 1957, for instance, 11 voters reported to the advance poll in St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, whereas only ten did in 1958. But if we study the results of the 1962 general election, we find that the number has gone up to the extent that 101 voters exercised their franchise, and this, because the advance poll remained open for two days instead of one.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speakers tried to influence our judgment, but I do not think there is much danger of being misled by their contentions.

For instance, the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) claimed that the results could be known prematurely under the present procedure. Besides, he mentioned that the scrutiny of the votes cannot be made, by virtue of the act, before two hours after the closing of the polls.
Well, if the object of this bill is to punish those who are bent on transgressing the law,
I am afraid that the hon. member's efforts will be in vain.
In my opinion, the important thing is to try and teach people who hold offices in polls to act only according to the law.
In fact, I think that most of the mistakes made are due to ignorance rather than ill will.
In the last election, the result of the voting in an advance poll in my riding was published before the national voting day, and I am convinced that that mistake was not made through ill will.
And how can the rest of voters in the riding be influenced by that, since only five or six voters go to an advance poll?
And even if all votes had been for one candidate or the other, that certainly does not represent the general opinion and would not influence at all the rest of the voters in that constituency to vote in favour of such or such candidate in particular.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that instead of passing the measure now before us, we should, in a general election, give the necessary instructions to those who are entrusted with the duties of deputy returning officers. Briefly, instead of changing the present provisions which enable more voters to use their right to vote, we should rather make allowance for the advantages granted to the voters under the present legislation.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have but brief comments to make about Bill C-26. I am happy to see that the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) has brought in this bill to amend in parts the Canada Elections Act particularly, as far as the advance polls are concerned.
The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Rochon) said a moment ago that such an amendment to the election act might forestall the advent of a totalitarian state in Canada. Personally, I feel that my hon. friend got carried away, and that his words went beyond his thoughts. We must admit that nazism in Germany and the totalitarian regime in Italy were bred by factors much more vital than those we are striving to rectify through this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I endorse the remarks of the hon. member who sponsored the bill and I wish to quote a case which occurred in my

own riding during the 1962 general election.
An advanced poll had been established in the town of Roxton Falls and about 15 persons having the same political views had been allowed to vote. After the closing of the poll, it was learned that the result of the vote had been made public not only in many neighbouring parishes but also in the main centres, especially the town of Granby.
That indiscretion surely influenced the voters. In fact, I received many telephone calls on that matter. I was also informed about it by political organizations. Also, the returning officer in my riding had to make a statement over the radio to the effect that the results were not official.
Therefore, I think it is wise to bring forward such a piece of legislation.
I do not deny that abuses might still take place but if the act is not amended, similar errors might be repeated.
Everyone knows that those who have a thorough knowledge of the Elections Act can take advantage of certain circumstances. It was also said that the errors disclosed were due to ignorance. It might be true in most cases-at least, I trust it is-but I am convinced that as far as I am concerned, what happened in 1962 was certainly not due to ignorance, but was well premeditated because the whole thing had been planned. Fortunately, the damage done in that community could be repaired because the necessary action was taken.
Mr. Speaker, I will not labour the point in order not to hold up the passing of Bill C-26 so that the nation can have a better elections act in the future.

Mr. Reid Scot! (Danforlh): I just want to make one or two comments on the proposal before the house. It is not that I object to the principle of the bill; I think there is some merit in the proposal itself. But I should like to say a word in defence of the deputy returning officers. No doubt, conditions vary from one riding to another. I do not pretend to know much about electoral procedure in the riding of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, but we have found that most of the deputy returning officers are sincere people. They are not particularly well schooled in their duties or activities and I think most of the mistakes they make arise, not through malice on their part, but largely through indifference, or ignorance of their duties. In these circumstances I doubt that it is very wise to impose penalties of the type envisaged in this bill.
I presume, of course, that the measure would be referred to the committee on privileges and elections so that it could be studied
Canada Elections Act
in greater detail and its terms debated, but I think it would be unwise to pass a blanket provision imposing penalties on these people. Perhaps the penalty should only be imposed if some serious malice can be shown or some intent to influence the decision of the electorate. There should be some safeguard in the bill so that innocent people will not bear this onerous penalty.
There are, of course, many matters in connection with elections which should be dealt with in the privileges and elections committee. Certainly, we should do something about prohibiting the publication of public opinion polls during the course of an election. These have, sometimes, an unusual appeal to the population, and perhaps consideration of this matter might be included. At the same time, something should be done about preventing United States stations from broadcasting eastern results in western Canada before the polls close. This, again, would seem to be an infringement of our rights. These are matters which, perhaps, could be studied by the committee.
I hope the hon. gentleman's bill will be referred to the committee because, as I have indicated, we approve of the general principle. We feel that the abuse the hon. member is trying to correct is one which should be corrected. However, we do not want to see a lot of innocent deputy returning officers penalized for mistakes which they are only making out of a lack of knowledge or, more likely, a lack of instruction from the returning officer. I am not criticizing returning officers. They have too much to do in a short time, and it is not always possible to correctly school the deputy returning officers. All this might be corrected if we could institute a permanent voters list, and permanent deputy returning officers who would be in touch with their polls. Perhaps these are matters that could be gone into by the committee. I thought that someone from our party should indicate that there was merit in the hon. member's suggestion, and the measure should go to committee where it could receive the fair treatment it obviously merits.


Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South):: When I look at the clock, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that I can only speak briefly in support of this measure. I would point out to the house that, as the law now stands, there is an absolute prohibition against the publication of the results in any newspaper. There is nothing said about whether the newspaper does this with malice or otherwise.

Maritime Transportation Unions As long as the newspaper publishes the information, then it is liable to a fine or imprisonment. I do not know how you imprison a newspaper, but I suppose you can imprison the executives.
In so far as the deputy returning officers are concerned, they can only be fined or imprisoned under section 97 if it can be shown that they acted in a corrupt manner. This is a very difficult thing, of course, to prove. It is my feeling that there should be teeth put into this elections act so that the deputy returning officer will be liable to an automatic fine and/or imprisonment. Now, this may seem very harsh, Mr. Speaker, but the purpose is to prevent an unscrupulous group getting together in several ridings spread throughout the country. Then, the day preceding the actual election day, they could get as many of their supporters as possible to the advance polls and make arrangements to ensure that the results of four or five of these advance polls are leaked to the public.
I am not suggesting this would be done, but it could be done. If it were done, then we create this band-wagon approach to an election. We know that a good many of our neighbours vote a certain way because their neighbours are voting a certain way. They do not necessarily vote on the merits of the situation, but they jump on the band-wagon. I would urge that teeth be put into the law. I agree with the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) that when these results are made known in advance by the deputy returning officer, it is generally out of curiosity and there is no malice entailed. However, there is a danger of this happening. I see the hour is late, and I understand the measure is going to be referred to the committee on privileges and elections, so I will conclude my remarks.


Hon. J. Watson MacNaughl (Solicitor General):: I move that the subject matter of this bill be referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-102, to provide for the placing of maritime transportation unions of Canada under the management and control of trustees-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, when the proceedings on this bill were suspended at five o'clock I had just risen to my feet and indicated that I wanted to make one or two comments in reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Yukon, particularly due to the fact that it appeared the Minister of Labour was not showing any inclination to do so at that point.
I can readily understand the reason some of the leadership of the mine-mill union, to which the hon. member for Yukon belongs, shows a tendency to look back in this situation to the days when the C.S.U. was organized on the great lakes. I feel it is quite possible some rather serious errors were made at that time in dealing with the situation that then prevailed, but now we should face up to the realities of the present situation. What may or may not have been done, correctly or incorrectly, in connection with that situation is almost a matter of ancient history and should not be of primary concern now to either members of trade unions in Canada or members of this committee.
The thing I most vividly remember about that situation is my feeling at the time that much of what was done then was done because of certain pressures which were exerted upon the government of Canada and the Canadian trade union movement by those who live in the country to the south of us; and in view of the pride which the hon. member for Yukon indicated in the fact that the union of which he is a member has taken a strong Canadian union position, I find it rather difficult to comprehend his apparent lack of readiness to object to the kind of pressures that are being exerted in the current situation in Canada.
When he spoke earlier on second reading my colleague, the hon. member for Port Arthur, suggested that this really was not the time for us to be indulging in recriminations or reminiscences concerning the past history of the situation which led up to the mess in which we are at present, and I feel that should be the basic point from which we should approach this legislation. I also feel the hon. member for Yukon was putting the gloomiest possible construction upon the things that might happen as a result of the passage of this bill.
I think he would agree that no hon. member who has spoken so far has suggested this is a desirable step, but rather it would appear that what has happened in the past makes it the only possible step we can take. So far

as I am concerned I am at once willing to concede I fully expect a great many difficulties will arise consequent upon the passage of the bill. We would be blind to the realities of the situation if we did not recognize that fact but I also feel we have a responsibility, particularly those of us who are reluctantly prepared to agree to the passage of the bill, to watch very carefully over the manner in which it is put into operation. We have a responsibility from time to time, if we consider it justified, to be critical of the manner in which the trusteeship is operated, but we also have a responsibility to do our best to see that it functions successfully.
As I see it, of course, the first requirement has to do with the calibre and experience of the trustees who are chosen. I am sure the Minister of Labour is not unaware of the importance of that matter, and I hope he is going to be able to find people to assume this responsibility who, because of their personality, their character and their knowledge will be able from the start to give proper prestige to this body and will be able to bring the right kind of wisdom to bear.
My prime purpose in trying to catch your eye originally, Mr. Chairman, prior to when the hon. member for the Yukon spoke, was to come back to the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, namely, what the intentions of the government are, if any, with respect to dealing with the shipping companies referred to in the Norris commission report. I feel that the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact he is piloting this bill, should give us some indication of his thinking in this matter and what the intentions, if any, of the government are in this connection.
I can understand that the Minister of Labour may be somewhat reluctant to do this, and in a sense I would agree it is not primarily his responsibility because, in my view, the particular bill before us has to do with the union aspect of the situation and is of direct interest and concern to him as Minister of Labour. I would assume that any steps which might be taken to correct some of the wrongdoings that have gone on, on the company side of the picture, would not necessarily fall directly under the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, or that any proposals which might be brought before parliament by the government would not necessarily be brought forward in his name.
Actually, I believe the person who should rise in the house during the course of this discussion and make a statement as to the government's intentions is the head of the government, the Prime Minister, because in
Maritime Transportation Unions my opinion this is a matter of the broad policy of the present administration which I think could properly be dealt with by the Prime Minister, either in this debate or outside it. In any event, before clause 1 of the bill carries I hope the Minister of Labour, as the spokesman of the government at this time, will indicate to us in no uncertain terms just what the intentions of the government are in connection with any action that may be proposed, to ensure that the companies involved are going to become respectable, law-abiding Canadian companies.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I opposed a trusteeship, and because a few others who have opposed it have stated their reasons may I say that I certainly do not want to be associated with the reasons advanced by former speakers in this debate. I, too, remember the day of Pat Sullivan and the old Canadian seamen's union. It was felt that the action taken then was in the best interests of the trade union movement, and it is unfortunate that history has not proven this to be correct.
However, the arguments that have been used as a basis for opposing the bill do not necessarily represent my objections. I think I can state my objections fairly simply. First, I have an inherent dislike for trusteeship. I think this is shared by almost every trade unionist in Canada and throughout the world. I am sure this view is shared by most members of parliament and in particular by the Minister of Labour himself. I also think that the dislike is even greater when trusteeship is applied in a legislative way, because it takes away from the workers any rights in the foreseeable future with regard to the operation of their own organization.
I am only guessing and can only guess, but I presume that a man who has been sitting in the gallery today may be one of the trustees. I hope this is true, because I can remember when I was more or less under trusteeship as a member of a union that was under discussion in another sense this afternoon. I can remember this gentleman coming to the mining area. He was highly acceptable to that area and he gave encouragement to the people and helped to establish a democratically based union there. I hope that history may repeat itself and that his success may be as great in this instance. It might be said that there was almost a trusteeship that time, under the congress of that day; but at no time was it ever suggested that this was something to be desired or welcomed, but rather that it was something to be used only because there did not seem to be any other relief. The same problem is repeating itself and making it necessary for

Maritime Transportation Unions intervention from without, in view of the fact that the constitution and machinery-available to the workers is not such as to allow them to do something for themselves.
My second reason is a very simple one. I hope very strongly that I am wrong in my views, because if I am not the situation will be chaotic. It is my expectation that the trusteeship will not do what it is intended to do. It would seem that all Canadians have decided that the remedy to clean up the S.I.U. must be the removal of Mr. Banks. This can be accomplished, of course, because of the illegal acts that have been committed in the past, but yet nobody seems to be sure that there will be any legal arrangement made to dispose of Mr. Banks.
I believe the minister has said on a number of occasions that under the circumstances this gentleman cannot be deported. I find this is quite true. A landed immigrant can never be deported unless the country from which he came or to which we wish to deport him is willing to accept him, and under the circumstances this may be very difficult to accomplish. This may be one bad apple we will have a heck of a time giving away. We do not want him and probably nobody else does. I hope I am wrong, but I am wondering whether there is any chance for the trusteeship to accomplish what we hope it will.
As for my third reason, I would point out that this situation has already had one very good result. From this less than desirable situation there has developed a Canadianism that has been sadly lacking in this House of Commons for a long time. We have become more used to separatism and division on our national scene than we have to unity of national purpose. It has even brought many of the members of the House of Commons together in this matter. If this is an accomplishment that has been achieved, everything will not be wasted, if we are able to develop a sense of responsible nationalism in Canada, pointing out to some other people some of the faults that have no doubt existed in the past and honestly paying some tribute to some of the advantages that have accrued to the Canadian people because of the exercise of responsibilities and duties of people outside our own country.
I only wanted to make it very clear that my reasons for opposing this were not necessarily the same as others who have opposed it. I do so, knowing full well that we have no alternative to offer, and I know that an alternative or some solution to the problem must be arrived at. I hope that some of the changes that may make it more acceptable will be introduced by the government during the passage of this legislation. If that is done,


this measure will, in my opinion, have more chance of success than it appears to have with its present terms.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 1 carry?


Reid Scott: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could have a word of direction and perhaps some indication from the minister of how he intends to handle the passage of the clauses. With regard to various clauses we have submissions to make and proposals to suggest to him. It might be better if the minister would deal with our objections to each clause as we go through the bill, rather than leaving them to the end. Before clause 1 carries, I wonder if we could have some statement as to what the intentions of the government are with respect to the matters raised by the hon. member from Comox-Albemi.
I want to assure the minister that we are not raising this question in a facetious way. We are having great problems explaining this legislation to many of our supporters and explaining to them our support of it. We want, if we can get it, some indication as to whether something is going to be done about the other guilty parties. I realize it is not necessarily within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, but it would be most helpful if, before allowing clause 1 to carry, we could have a statement from the minister or somebody on the government side indicating that the other culprits to the conspiracy, namely the shipping companies, are not going to be permitted to get off scot free in this matter.
We are not suggesting necessarily that they should be placed under trusteeship also. I am not sure that this is practical. But we would like some indication as to what proposals the government may have in mind or what action it intends to take to see that the other parties to this whole conspiracy are also given some attention. I do not want to belabour all the evidence that has gone on the record. Other hon. members on this side of the chamber have read into the record the incontrovertible evidence of the collusion that took place between the S.I.U. and the various shipping companies, collusion in violation of the laws of Canada. Without this collusion much of the trouble could not have happened. We would like at this stage, Mr. Chairman, before clause 1 is carried, to have some indication from the government as to what measures they may have in mind to deal with the other guilty parties to this disgraceful conspiracy against the laws of Canada.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, my comments will be very brief. This whole subject has been given a very excellent debate in this house, and I would just like to stress a few points. This whole situation with which we are faced today seems to be one long

retreat from a series of evils. If we go back far enough we find it was the evil of the shipping companies that first led to the communist dominated union on the great lakes. Then to get rid of the evil of this communist domination we brought in the evil of Hal Banks; and when that evil becomes more than we could stomach we bring in the evil of this trusteeship. Let us not forget; it is an evil. I think we all do, or should, recognize this. Surely history has taught us that evils do not correct themselves; somebody must make some move some place along the line to correct them. I think this is something that should remain in the minds of hon. members of this house. We are now faced with two evils, the evil of this legislation that we have to pass to cure a worse evil, and we still have with us-as has been pointed out by many hon. members-the original evil that started it all off, as represented by the shipping companies which have been hand in glove with Hal Banks over the years. Therefore this legislation has the support of the house to cure one particular evil; but let us not forget that there is another one to be corrected. Let us not leave this evil too long on the books.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to go on the record this evening in connection with my vote this afternoon, to explain to the house my action in voting for a measure which I have considered all my life to be against my convictions. I regret exceedingly that the government of today has been forced into a position, by the inaction of the previous government, that has made such action necessary. The hon. member for Kootenay West, when making some remarks a day or two ago, commented that this proposed piece of legislation would be a black mark across the beautiful canvas that Canada has been painting throughout the years. In my estimation this piece of legislation which has been forced on us by the inaction of the previous regime is a backward step, and one that is to be regretted.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has just cast a reflection on the previous administration, and he said this has been forced upon him. There has been nothing forced upon any member of the house. We had a free vote. He had his choice this afternoon, and he took it. That is not the responsibility of any previous administration.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. That is not a question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: It is a question of privilege as far as I am concerned.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, in 1834 we had the tremendous case of the Tolpuddle martyrs
Maritime Transportation Unions who were prosecuted by the government of the day because they formed an association of free men in the form of a trade union. I consider it a sorry state of affairs that in 1963, in the Dominion of Canada, we are passing legislation which brings under government trusteeship associations of free men. I wonder how many members of the Canadian House of Commons realize that of the six martyrs of Tolpuddle of 1834, all of whom were transported to Australia by an unjust decree and an unfair government, five, after they left Australia, emigrated to Canada and lie buried in the province of Ontario. Those five Tolpuddle martyrs who suffered grievous injury and wrong because of their beliefs that free men should be allowed to freely associate in a trade union lie in western Ontario, in cemeteries in the vicinity of London, Byron and St. Marys. It is interesting to note that one martyr of Tolpuddle, who lived the longest, to the age of 92, lies buried today in St. Marys, Ontario, in the same cemetery as a former prime minister of the Dominion of Canada.
In justifying my action in supporting this measure brought in by the government that I support, I would point out that when Liberal candidates ran in 1962 and again in 1963, we were assured by our leader that we had tremendous messes to clean up resulting from the inefficiency and indolence of the government that was then on its way out. When I stood for parliament in 1962, I did so knowing that this country was faced with a crisis resulting from the inability of the then government to handle the affairs of the nation. I tell you that the messes facing the present government of the Right Hon. Lester Pearson make the 12 labours of Hercules a mere myth. One of the tasks of Hercules was to clean the Augean stables. The Augeans thought he would refuse because he could not stand the stench of the offal and refuse around the cattle barns of the estates. We Liberal candidates in 1962 knew the refuse and offal that was lying around the cattle barns of the government. We volunteered to clean up the mess.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; I am sure the hon. member would agree with me that he is not coming very quickly to consideration of clause 1 of the bill now before the committee. I would ask him, as soon as possible, to relate the remarks he has been making to the subject matter of the bill and particularly to clause 1 thereof.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I was going to draw an analogy between the fact that Hercules diverted two rivers into the Augean stables to clean up the mess and this action

Maritime Transportation Unions of the government's, on the St. Lawrence seaway, which will clear up the situation which has developed there.
I	should like to draw to the attention of the committee, because I have not heard any other speaker refer to it, the fact that on page 298 of the Norris report you will find this sentence which goes to the heart of the entire report. Mr. Justice Norris writes:
II	any one thing was demonstrated on this inquiry, it was how lawlessness (including in the term disregard of the rule of law, of constituted authority, and of contractual obligations) begets lawlessness.
Mr. Justice Norris says that if any one thing was demonstrated in this inquiry it was how lawlessness begets lawlessness. I regret that in the clouds of hysteria surrounding this matter many have intimated that the lawlessness was on the part of one union led by one man. If hon. members would read the Norris report, and I regret exceedingly the large number of members who have not read the Norris report, they would find he attacks the shipping companies as well as the trade union on this matter of lawlessness. At page 298 of the report, Mr. Justice Norris adds this:
It was at any time within the power of the C.S.L. with all its strength and influence to accomplish much in stabilizing the great lakes situation by taking a positive stand on the side of law and order, but for the sake of a present- at best uneasy-peace and for competitive advantage, it not only did nothing, but gave support to Banks, the lawbreaker. It showed a cynical disregard for its contractual obligations with the N.A.M.E.
Now, the Norris report points out that Canada Steamship Lines is the biggest of the Canadian companies, and its actions were generally followed by the other companies. The C.S.L. was the bellwether of the flock.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North read into the record the other day a list of the directors of the Canada Steamship Lines. The Secretary of State, in reply to a question, has read into the record the names of the directors of Misener steamships. Anyone who is acquainted with business life in Canada knows that these men are the leaders of our business community today. I came into the house at the age of 60, after 40 years in the business world. I would not have anyone think that I consider the members of the Canadian cabinet to be the ablest men of their age and generation. The members of Canadian cabinets have a job to do and most members do it well.
However, there are businessmen in this country who, immediately an election has taken place, begin to size up those people selected for the cabinet. I can assure you that following the elections of 1957 and 1958 the businessmen of this country sized up the

members of the cabinet, took their measure and knew exactly how far they could go with whatever endeavour they wished to carry out.
Now, the record concerning the disregard of one of the shipping companies for the law of the land has been brought to our attention, and reference has been made to it in the Norris report on pages 54 and 55. I do not need to read the record again. However, I would point out that not only had the steamship directors a cynical disregard for the Minister of Labour, but even the Canadian brotherhood of railway and transport workers expressed their opinion of the ability of the previous government. On page 14 of the Norris report we find some extracts of the evidence given by Mr. Frederick Nicoll, director of organizing and servicing for the Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers. Under questioning, Mr. Nicoll was asked what he hoped to accomplish by the boycott that was called on vessels passing through the St. Lawrence seaway and the Welland canal. His reply was as follows:
We hope to accomplish two things. Mr. Wright. Basically-primarily, rather; one was to force the situation where the Canadian manned ships that were presently being boycotted in the United States would be released from the boycott and we were hopeful that we were going to jockey the Canadian government into taking these steps which had been suggested by ourselves for I don't know how many years, by the Canadian Labour Congress in 1962, that there should be an industrial inquiry commission established to go into the whole sad sorry mess-
Q. Yes, and in retrospect did you accomplish- not did you accomplish, but were these two objectives accomplished?
A. As far as we are concerned, yes.
Mr. Nicoll is saying that the Canadian brotherhood of railway and transport workers jockeyed the Canadian government into the position that they desired. Now, a jockey rides an animal and is in control of that animal. He can make him go wherever the jockey wishes him to go. I ask, does this sound like a strong, independent government when an official of a brotherhood stands up and says they were hopeful they would jockey the Canadian government? In answer to a direct question he said they accomplished their purpose.
Now, the steamship lines wrote a letter to Mr. Bernard Wilson, the director of industrial relations, a very enlightening and revealing letter. In the course of the letter to Mr. Wilson, Misener Steamship Lines under date of April 10, 1959, stated that they realized their course of action was against the labour relations act. This letter came to the Department of Labour of the federal

government. Along with that letter, Mr. Wilson received a copy of a letter of indemnification granted by the seamen's international union to the Misener Steamship Lines. Mr. Justice Norris made the comment that similar letters were sent to other shipping companies. I say to you that the federal government was notified by letter under date of April 10, 1959, that these steamship companies were breaking the law, and the government did absolutely nothing about it. The letter stated frankly that this course was against the labour relations act.
We on this side of the house have been trying to explain the inaction of the government during the five and a half years it was in power. Many of us thought that friendships with directors of some of the big steamship companies were responsible for the inaction and indolence which characterized the former government, particularly so far as the Department of Labour was concerned. However, I have a good friend of 40 years standing who is a director of a steamship company, and I could not believe that he would stoop to such a practice. And lo and behold, this is what the former minister of labour told us, not only last night between a quarter to ten and ten, but also the day before, as reported on page 3432 of Hansard:
As I pointed out yesterday, any initiative on the part of the government to launch an inquiry into the affairs of a union which was affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress would have aroused the most terrible attack upon the government by all members of the Canadian Labour Congress.
I want to repeat that to hon. members for emphasis.


Malcolm MacInnis: Do not bother; you do not understand it.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The former minister of labour said:
-any initiative on the part of the government to launch an inquiry into the affairs of a union which was affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress would have aroused the most terrible attack upon the government by all members of the Canadian Labour Congress.
But the former minister of labour did not point out that in June, 1959, the Canadian Labour Congress had kicked the S.I.U. out of the Canadian Labour Congress. So that means that from June, 1959, until the government resigned in April of this year, a period of three years and ten months, the S.I.U. was not affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress; so the reason advanced by the former minister falls to the ground.
If you look at the supplements to the Norris report and at schedule 31 you will find listed there by Mr. Justice Norris examples of intimidation and violence. Nineteen cases of beatings are listed. No action was taken
Maritime Transportation Unions on those 19 cases which Mr. Justice Norris listed as occurring between August 18, 1957, when the former government was in power, and August 20, 1962. I should like to point out that of the 19 cases of beatings only the first two cases occurred when the S.I.U. was an affiliate of the C.L.C. The remaining 17 cases took place after the C.L.C. had rejected the S.I.U. as a member of their organization.
The hon. member for Ontario stated last night that when the record of lawlessness and malpractice on the great lakes had grown sufficiently serious action should then have been taken by this government. I would point out that the record of beatings and harassment and property damage occurred during the tenure of office of the former minister of labour. He had been properly sized up by the businessmen of this country and they knew how far they could push him. They knew how far they could go and they signed illegal contracts. They then notified him that they had signed them, knowing that in his ineptitude no action would be taken against them. As Mr. Justice Norris said in his report, lawlessness begets lawlessness.
This situation has been forced on this government by the inaction of the previous government, and I thank heaven we now have a government in power which is willing to take action. On page 296 of his report Mr. Justice Norris points out, in his conclusions, referring to Banks, that he and his union operated a vacation pay plan unlawfully and contrary to the directions of the minister of labour. Could anything be more plainly stated than that? Now we have a Minister of Labour who is willing to take action and who has notified the ship owners that they are not to send that vacation pay money to the S.I.U. but that it is to be returned directly to the employees. And in addition, the minister has taken action to recover $300,000 from the
S.I.U. which money Mr. Justice Norris said was being administered unlawfully. What did the former minister of labour do to clean up that situation?
While I have pointed out the ineptitude of the former government and how it has brought us to the situation where we have to take action by legislating the affairs of unions, a step which is against the convictions and lifetime practices of members of the Liberal party, I should also stress that the inaction of the previous government has put a strain on our relations with the United States government. That is to be regretted. Our relations with the world must be based on friendly relations with the United States. Our relations with the United States are now strained, and this situation is going to take very careful

Maritime Transportation Unions handling. This has been forced on the government by the inaction of the previous government. Last night the former minister pointed out that when he was minister of labour the relations between Canada and the United States were such that we would be called bosom pals. Now he says there is a conflict between us. I say there is no fighting in a cemetery. Where there is no action there is no disagreement. But the moment this government, under our present Prime Minister, steps forward to straighten out the situation we receive protests from the United States, and we are told by members of the opposition that we are causing trouble.
In the course of discussion on this bill we have been told time and time again that Mr. Banks is the darling of the Liberal party; that Mr. Banks was brought into Canada by the Liberal party; that Mr. Banks has been nurtured in this country by the Liberal party, and that he expects to receive the same friendship from this government that he received from the St. Laurent government. I ask, Mr. Chairman, how could we extend any more friendship to this man than was extended by the former government, when you read their record of inaction-lack of police court action against the S.I.U. in connection with their activities throughout the country, all of which is documented by Mr. Justice Norris? The statement has been made several times that Mr. Banks has been granted the status of a landed immigrant; that the previous government, again because of their ineptitude examined the law of the land and found that Mr. Banks could not be deported from this country. When this was challenged and it was pointed out that he could be deported if he violated certain laws of the land, we got that hollow laugh that bespeaks the vacant mind and were told no, he could not be deported. According to a press release which appeared in the Toronto daily Star on Monday, September 23, the former prime minister revealed that his government had had Mr. Banks fully investigated, but concluded that it could not deport him because of an order in council. Yesterday the Secretary of State challenged that statement, pointing out that Mr. Banks can be deported if he at any time violates the law of the land, and that he would be deported if he were to do anything that justified such action.
It is a little difficult to follow the comments of some of the speakers so far. I knew a former member for Broadview very well, and I will long remember a comment made by the late Joe Clark, who was father to Gregory and editor of the Toronto daily Star for about 40 years.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: After I am through speaking. Mr. Clark referred to the former member for Broadview, Ontario, as being the greatest orator Canada had ever seen because he was entirely unhampered by facts. Well, we have one here in the House of Commons at the present time who is running him a very close second, and when the Secretary of State very properly challenged that hon. gentleman on his statement that Mr. Banks as a landed immigrant could not be deported -and he went to the length of making a press release to that effect-on the very next page of Hansard, page 3404 of the issue for October 10, in the left hand column the hon. member for Prince Albert-and it is to him that I am referring-is reported as saying:
They gave him the status of a man who was above challenge, so long as thereafter he lived within the law.
That is exactly what we Liberals have been saying. And in the very next sentence the right hon. gentleman goes on to say, entirely unhampered by the facts-"but Banks was above the law". In his first breath he says he was given the status of a man above challenge as long as thereafter he lived within the law-which is correct. And then, in the next sentence he says: "but he was above the law". How is one to believe statements made in this manner? The first statement was accurate. The second was as false as the Secretary of State stated it to be.
I regret exceedingly that this Liberal government has been forced into the position of bringing in legislation such as has been introduced today. We know it had to be done. When we took over we found that in the Department of Finance the interest payments on the national debt had been increased by a million dollars a day. We found that the unemployment insurance fund was bankrupt. We found that the Department of National Health and Welfare was allowing the issuance of dangerous sample drugs to people free of charge. And now, in the Department of Labour, we find a situation which calls for legislation of a kind which many who sit on this side of the house find it onerous to support. But because we volunteered in 1962 and re-enlisted in 1963 in the army to clean up the Augean stables which, according to the Greek myth, stank so much that two rivers were needed to clean them out-because we volunteered to clean up that mess, we mean to do so right now.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the previous speaker a question? A question has been raised as to whether or not Mr. Banks can be deported. I do not think the Secretary of State was correctly interpreted the other day and I

should like to ask him whether it is his opinion that Mr. Banks, because of his status as a landed immigrant, can be deported to the United States without the permission of the United States for him to land there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is doubtful that we could deport anyone to any country which was not willing to accept the person deported. We cannot dump human beings into a country which does not want to accept them.


An hon. Member:: You did that in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be allowed to answer the question without the intelligent assistance I am receiving. It is well known that under the law of Canada the grounds for deporting a landed immigrant are, as they ought to be, much more stringent than those which apply to someone who is just a visitor. When we give someone a landing in this country we give him a certain status and I think it is fair to say that a man who has been landed as an immigrant can scarcely be deported for anything he has done before the date of his landing. However, anybody can read the Immigration Act as well as I can, and it will be seen that until a person becomes a citizen of this country there are grounds for deportation and, therefore, the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition was not in accordance with the law which he himself helped to make. That was the only point I was seeking to make the other day.
Since I have been asked to answer a question, I should like to add this: the Leader of the Opposition did a lot of loose talking about this matter, but the only offence he mentioned in respect of which Mr. Banks had been convicted was the possession of smuggled cigarettes.


An hon. Member:: Thirty thousand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whether it was thirty thousand or three does not seem to me to make very much difference. Either somebody smuggles them or not. The number of cigarettes does not change the position.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are speaking of convictions in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Leader of the Opposition never gave any examples whether in Canada or elsewhere. He talked about the record Banks had and I asked the right hon. gentleman a question which he did not answer. The question I asked him was: was Mr. Banks ever convicted for anything after he was landed as an immigrant. And of course, the Leader of the Opposition, as he always does when asked an awkward question, changed the subject.
Maritime Transportation Unions


Erik Nielsen: What about the record attached to the order in council?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, until recently the Leader of the Opposition was head of the government for six years and I do not think that if Mr. Banks had been convicted of anything in the courts the right hon. gentleman would have been reticent in telling us about it. I am not seeking to defend Mr. Banks, but I can only assume the only conviction he had in Canada was for the possession of smuggled cigarettes. All these other things are charges, and for the author of the bill of rights to talk about charges as if they were convictions is for him to appear in a somewhat strange guise.
I am supporting this bill. I am 100 per cent in favour of it. I think the record of Mr. Banks as displayed in the Norris report is reprehensible and that he should not be in charge of this union. I also think that Mr. Banks, like every other human being, is entitled to have the truth told about him and not have statements made about him which cannot be supported by the record. If Mr. Banks is, in fact, guilty of some of the things of which the Norris report indicates he is guilty, and if the previous government in six years never laid a charge in the courts, I say hon. gentlemen opposite were derelict in their duty during all that time, considering the fact that this union is a union on the waterways of this country and that it would therefore have been within the power of the previous government to have laid charges in the courts, and to secure convictions, if such convictions could be secured.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the hon. gentleman one question. I have been following this discussion with great interest. As I understood what was said in the course of the debate, the order in council which was signed had a record as long as your arm attached to it. Surely the Secretary of State saw that record. I cannot understand why, in the face of that evidence, the order in council which gave Banks the status which has caused this difficulty was signed in the first place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has been an awful lot of talk about "a record as long as your arm", and perhaps it is characteristic of the hon. member that he should have used this expression, but I notice he did not tell us anything about that record when he spoke.
I think the hon. member will find that those offences were committed over 30 years ago by a young man who had no convictions for more than 20 years, except the conviction for possession of those smuggled cigarettes.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask a question?

Maritime Transportation Unions


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could finish
answering one question before I am asked another. Whatever judgment the government may have made at that time in this regard, and I have not seen the documents since that time, speaking to the best of my recollection I believe those offences were committed in California in the 1930's, the depression period, by a young man who had no other convictions after that time. That is my recollection; I may be wrong because I have not looked at the record for a very long time.
It is also my recollection that one, and perhaps two of those offences, were offences in the state of California that were not offences in Canada. Again I may be wrong; but whatever they were, the right hon. gentleman and many other hon. members of this house-not including me because I was not in the house at this time-made a change in the Immigration Act in 1952.


Mr. Winkler:: A serious change.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, a serious change which I am sure the right hon. gentleman supported, because it was the kind of humanitarian thing he liked to associate himself with. Up until that time it had been the law of Canada that no one could be admitted to the country as an immigrant who had any criminal record. The law was changed to provide that if a man many years previously had a criminal record and if he appeared to be reformed he could, in certain circumstances, be admitted. This parliament made that change in the clear light of day. It was a very deliberate change and was made before I was a member of parliament, and it was in pursuance of that change in the law that the action was taken in 1954.
I have no doubt that, considering what has happened since then, if one had had the advantage of hindsight at that time, Mr. Banks would not have been landed. Maybe it was an error of judgment. That may well be, but I do say that it was in accordance with the law which I had no part in making. It was a decision made by my predecessor before I became the minister, but which, I have said before and I say again, I know he made conscientiously after the most careful examination of all the facts.
Whether it was wise or whether it was not wise is another matter, but anybody who suggests it was made by my predecessor on any other grounds than a conscientious desire to carry out the law made by parliament, does not know my predecessor in that office very well.


Mr. Webb:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, once again we have just had another display by the Secretary of State, who is the house leader, jumping up when a question is

asked of some other hon. member and trying to interfere. Perhaps he thinks the other hon. member who was asked the question is incapable of answering it.
The Secretary of State was not even recognized by the Chair, and just got up to make a long political speech. It is time something was done about this, sir. This is something which was brought to the attention of the Chair the other day, and tonight we have the same thing. The question was asked of the hon. member for York-Humber, but evidently the Secretary of State thought him incapable of answering it, so he jumped up and took over.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I understood-I may be mistaken-that the question was directed to me.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: It was not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it was not directed to me then I am very sorry indeed. I apologize most of all to the hon. gentleman to whom the question was directed. It is a well known fact that I am rather deaf in the ear pointed to the questioner, and I had no intention or desire to take part in the debate; but apparently I misunderstood. I thought it was a direct question posed to me, and as I had no desire to duck it I got up and answered it.
After all, sir, I too was elected to this house. It does seem to me that hon. gentlemen on the opposite side who are so touchy when there is any suggestion they should not be allowed to speak as often as they like, should realize even members of the government were elected to this house, and should also have a reasonable degree of freedom of speech in the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to raise a point of order. Surely this discussion is going far afield from clause 1 of the bill. The government brought us back here tonight because we were told it was most important this legislation should be passed. We have now listened for nearly an hour to an argument regarding whether or not it is the Conservatives or Liberals who are to blame for Mr. Banks and the state of affairs in the shipping industry. Surely we ought to get on with the bill, and surely most of this discussion has been out of order so far as the first clause of the bill is concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order, I quite agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I apologize for any part I took in this discussion.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the previous speaker-not the interjector-and it certainly is not my intention to prolong the debate. I would like to

ask the hon. member for York-Humber, was he here this afternoon when the yeas and nays were called, and if so did he support the government?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I stated when I began to speak that I had voted yea on the measure, and I said I wished to speak tonight about the little alacrity with which I supported the bill. I was here and I voted. I was not paired and I did not go behind the curtain.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Utterly ridiculous.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I wonder if we could discuss clause 1 of the bill?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I heard your request, Mr. Chairman, that we should discuss clause 1 of the bill. I also heard the apology of the Secretary of State for his intervention in the debate, and I heard the speech made by the hon. member for York-Humber. But what are we to do now? Are we simply to accept this and let the Liberal party get away with these accusations against the former government? Are we to permit the Secretary of State to make the accusations he made against the leader of this party, in his absence, and then be restricted from replying? That is about what it amounts to.
We were thoroughly co-operative today and anxious to get this measure through the house, but we are being prevented by the type of speech made by the hon. member for York-Humber and the interjection by the Secretary of State, which I think is very regrettable indeed.
I will delay the house only for about two minutes to say that the Secretary of State, in accusing the leader of this party of not putting the facts on the record with regard to Mr. Hal Banks-


Harold Edward Winch: Delay no more. Let us have a vote.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I also appeal for freedom of speech in this chamber, the same as the Secretary of State, and I insist on my rights.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I simply refer the committee to Hansard for October 4, page 3216, where the leader of this party referred to the order in council, with the appendix attached to it, which lists the offences or charges under which Mr. Banks laboured in days gone by. He actually read part of the document into the record, and in the Norris report, on pages 104 and 105, something is said about the record of Mr. Hal Banks. For anybody from the Liberal party to suggest that the leader of this party 28902-5-222
Maritime Transportation Unions was not putting the facts before the house is quite incorrect, and it is to this that I raise an objection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty clear we will never get to the end of this discussion as to who was responsible for what in the past. Suppose we get back to where we were about an hour ago and invite the Minister of Labour to answer some of the questions that were put to him about the government's attitude toward the other culprits in the mess that is before us, namely, the shipping companies.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to intervene again in the debate because I thought I had set forth my reasons for voting against the measure quite clearly before the supper recess. However, the answer of the Secretary of State to the question I asked him is so incomplete that in all fairness I think it deserves a little elaboration. I have gone into the matter very carefully. I examined my conscience very carefully before I had the temerity to vote against the measure, and one of the factors that affected my decision was the record of Banks and my complete lack of understanding as to why the order in council was signed in the first place in the face of that record and, second, why he cannot now in the face of his background still be the subject of a special amendment to the Canadian Citizenship Act. I think Banks' record should be discussed a little bit further.
On February 5, 1930, at Long Beach, California, Banks was arrested on four charges of issuing n.s.f. cheques. On March 6, 1930, he pleaded guilty to one charge. On March 27, 1930, he was given a nine-month suspended sentence and placed on probation for three years on condition that restitution was made.
On July 22, 1930, at Los Angeles, California, he was arrested for burglary and was also charged with issuing an n.s.f. cheque. His probation was revoked. On September 17, 1930, he pleaded guilty on the cheque charge. On September 27, 1930, he was sentenced to zero to 14 years in San Quentin penitentiary. The district attorney asked that the burglary charge be dropped although the police knew that Banks had participated with others who had not been caught yet. He cited the sentence already given the accused.
On March 8, 1934, he was released from San Quentin, some three years later. On January 16, 1937, he was arraigned at Long Beach, California, on a charge of murder arising from one Oral Hammer having been kicked to death in a tavern brawl. On March 13, 1937, he was found not guilty of murder

Maritime Transportation Unions or manslaughter. On June 28, 1942, at San Bernardino, California, he was up on a charge of child stealing which was dismissed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Was it not his own child?


Erik Nielsen: I would not want to be specific because I am not sure of my facts in that particular regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is my recollection.


Erik Nielsen: The information I have been able to gather is that he was arrested on a charge of child stealing and this was dismissed on June 28, 1942. On December 17, 1947, at Richmond, California, he was arrested on a charge of carrying a dangerous weapon and of disturbing the peace. The first charge was dismissed and he was found guilty on the second and was fined $30 or ten days. The fine was paid.
Now we come to that part of his record after he arrived in Canada. I would assume that all of the previous record in concise form must have been attached to the appendix to the order in council. Subsequent to his arrival in Canada, on May 7, 1949, at Montreal he was charged with causing bodily harm by Maurice Pitre. On May 25, 1949, at Montreal he was charged together with three others with carrying sawed-off shotguns and rifles by Frank Miner. On October 18, 1949, the Pitre complaint was dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Who was the judge?


Erik Nielsen: The Miner complaint against Banks was dismissed on grounds of lack of evidence but the three others were convicted. Judge Almond heard both cases.
On April 14, 1952, at Montreal Banks was charged under section 217 (3) of the Customs Act in a case involving 36,000 U.S. cigarettes. He pleaded guilty and was fined $200. The fine and costs were paid. I presume in this case the knowledge was in the possession of the Canadian government.
On January 9, 1954, at Montreal he was charged by Byron Ryan with intimidation. The case was dismissed when the complainant failed to show up. On October 10, 1957, at Montreal he was charged by Jacques Sa-vard with defamatory libel and with publishing a libel in company with two others. That would be a criminal charge. The charge against Banks was dismissed but the two others were committed for trial. On October 17, 1957, at Montreal he was charged by Harry Mockeridge with defamatory libel together with two others, again a criminal charge. On December 19, 1957, the charge against Banks was dismissed. Judge Almond held that although Banks had control of the


matter published he should be exonerated by reason of ignorance. Again, the two others were committed for trial.
So this is Banks' record as I understand it. In the light of that knowledge I have a complete lack of any understanding-


Mr. Munro:: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Erik Nielsen: In just a moment, please. I have a complete lack of understanding as to how in the face of these facts the then minister could have allowed such an individual the status of a landed immigrant, which is right next door to Canadian citizenship.


John Carr Munro: Could I ask the hon. member a question? In the long list that the hon. member has just read how many convictions were there?


Erik Nielsen: I think I dealt with each charge and the disposition of it. There was only one conviction, that for smuggling cigarettes.


John Carr Munro: In the whole list.


Erik Nielsen: In Canada.


John Carr Munro: And in the United States how many convictions?


Erik Nielsen: They are in Hansard now and you can count them, because as I went through the record-


John Carr Munro: This is grossly unfair. There is no purpose in reciting them if the charges were dismissed.


An hon. Member:: Defending Banks.


John Carr Munro: Just fairness. That is all.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps the hon. member does not wish to hear the answer to his question. As I went through the list I gave the date and the charge and I think I also gave in each case the disposition of the charge. In Canada he was only convicted of the one offence. Nevertheless, there was a long list of charges and I would be astounded to learn that the Canadian government did not know of these charges.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. I did ask him in the course of his remarks and I believe he indicated that three of these cases were heard by a particular judge. I wonder whether he knows the name of the judge who heard the other charges.


Erik Nielsen: In those cases where I have named the judge it was Judge Almond, but where I have not indicated the judge on the bench I cannot specify.


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Chairman, as the house knows, I took my seat in the house for the first time on May 16, and I have listened attentively to many of the assertions and counter-assertions that have been made on various issues. As a backbencher sitting back and listening to the pros and cons of this matter, I think I can honestly and fairly say that all the evidence is in. Let us proceed to apply the remedy.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, we in this house agreed to sit tonight so we could accomplish something definite in regard to the urgent problem that is before us. It seems to me it does not matter whether the past government, or the present government, or a government before that is at fault; we should be dealing with the issue that is before us. Judging from the caustic and uncomplimentary remarks emanating out of the United States today it is apparent that Hal Banks is a hero below the 49th parallel. At least, they seem to think more of him than they do of our present Prime Minister, or the past prime minister, or any of us here in parliament.


Malcolm MacInnis: He might make a good leader for you.


Robert Norman Thompson: It seems to me it would be a sound proposition if we got down to the business of passing this legislation as quickly as possible, then perhaps on Monday morning the government could see whether through deportation or some other means Hal Banks might be sent back to the United States, because at least from what we hear from across the border they ought to be happy to receive him back. But the question is whether we will go ahead with this legislation. We are not sitting this evening to waste our time. Let us get on with it as quickly as possible.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 1 carry.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I just have one brief question, which bears on something with which the Minister of Labour is perhaps going to deal, or his colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Am I not correct in assuming that a landed immigrant is still a citizen of the United States?


Mr. Favreau:: Of course, Mr. Chairman, he does not lose his previous citizenship and he does not become a Canadian citizen until such time as he has been granted Canadian citizenship. In the present case, as has been explained, in accordance with the act as it stands, five years after having been landed 28902-5-222J
Maritime Transportation Unions as an immigrant, he has acquired, not Canadian citizenship but what we call Canadian domicile, and from that moment he could be deported only-


An hon. Member:: What about Weldon Chan?


Guy Favreau: -in accordance with the provisions laid down in the act, and the main one is subversive activities. I would say that I was not in parliament during all that time, but I think that in this matter all the responsibility or onus for having either admitted to this country or failed to deport Hal Banks during the five year period after his admission in 1954 rests with both administrations. The two administrations had the same opportunity to act in this regard, and I think we should all take it for granted until the contrary is proven, that during that five year period after which he obtained Canadian domicile, both administrations acted in good faith. If the previous government did not deport him during the two years he was under their jurisdiction, I assume they acted in good faith; and I assume the previous administration also acted in good faith.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, there is
nothing in this legislation that has to do with deportation. Surely the committee should not have its time wasted in listening to legal argument. If he could have been deported, then the previous government and the present government were derelict in their duty in not deporting him. But that is a separate question altogether. As a matter of fact I would point out something to my hon. friend who has taken up a great deal of the time of the committee in trying to substantiate his argument that if you deported Hal Banks today you would not get rid of all the trouble, because Paul Hall would send another one of his goons back here in the morning and you would have the same thing all over again. The only way to deal with the S.I.U, is to set up the kind of trusteeship covered by this legislation. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that if we are not going to deal with this legislation now, I for one am prepared to present a motion that the committee rise and report no progress.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, prior to the vote I think there were four other hon. members besides myself who spoke against this legislation.


An hon. Member:: Three.


Malcolm MacInnis: Three others, rather. I was one of four. Since the vote a number of hon. members from the government side of the house have risen and taken up the time

Maritime Transportation Unions of this committee to alibi themselves for the stand they took. There was the reference of the hon. member for York-Humber about going behind the curtain or something like that, which was uncalled for. He made his decision this afternoon and he has now taken up quite a bit of the time of the committee to alibi his way out of it.
I do not care how anybody votes, but this committee unanimously, including the four who voted against the legislation, put the entire blame for this situation, not on one or other administration but in the lap of Hal Banks. Why since the vote was taken have hon. members from that side of the house risen to alibi themselves out and cast reflections on the previous government? And then they do not expect us to retaliate, by casting reflections on the previous Liberal government. Prior to the vote everybody was unanimous in saying that Hal Banks was at fault. Now they have reached the point where they are asking who is to blame. People on the other side of the house have said that the Conservative government was to blame; people on this side have said that the present and former Liberal administrations were to blame. Then we had the leader of the New Democratic party rising and saying it does not really matter who is to blame. We have placed the blame where it belongs, with Mr. Hal Banks.
I will go along with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who said that both administrations were perhaps equally to blame, but I will include also the C.L.C. whose president, Claude Jodoin, made it impossible for any government to move against Hal Banks, because he was one of the citizens, one of the union leaders, who went before the immigration appeal court with this same Hal Banks and said he would make a model citizen. So the blame goes right across the board. Therefore let us have no more of who is at fault, this government or that government; the C.L.C. is also involved.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, every party in the chamber has now had an opportunity to justify itself. Let us come back to the question.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. MacEwan:: That is the best speech you ever made, Bob.


Erik Nielsen: Again, Mr. Chairman, I would not be rising but for the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who has accused me of wasting time.


Mr. Gray:: That is right.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member has spoken on practically every debate in this house, and
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
when one matter is raised about which my own conscience is deeply concerned he said I am wasting the time of the committee. He says the committee is wasting time hearing legal argument; but this question seems important to me. It may not be important to the hon. member. I am wondering whether any alternative is available, before this legislation goes through. One of my questions has been answered. I anticipated that answer and thought it would be as it was, from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I hope that when the Minister of Labour rises he will satisfy me as to why the alternative of amending the Citizenship Act was not adopted because, this being the extraordinary measure it is, surely an alternative, just as extraordinary albeit, but not having the necessity of imposing a trusteeship, could have been adopted. Why was not the Citizenship Act amended in such a way as to revoke the status of Hal Banks in Canada, thus making him no longer a landed immigrant and reverting him to his United States citizenship, in which case he could have been deported from this country?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, at seven o'clock this evening I rose and took up a few minutes of the committee's time to pose a question to the Minister of Labour. I know that on at least two, if not three occasions in the time that has elapsed since he was on the point of rising but yielded the floor in courtesy to other members. I for one would still like to hear the Minister of Labour, before we pass clause 1, give answers that I think he is prepared to give to some of the questions, at least, that have been raised.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the alternative that has been proposed as a method of dealing with this situation, I must remind the committee that the house has decided upon the principle of the bill on second reading; that is, to place the maritime transportation unions of Canada under the management and control of trustees. If at the second reading stage there were other alternatives, hon. members were free to place them in the form of amendments and test them in the opinion of the house. The house has now accepted the principle of the bill and is considering it in committee.
Several hon. gentlemen have asked me why there are no provisions in this bill to deal with the shipping companies. Mr. Justice Norris, as hon. gentlemen know, spent about a year studying the matter and preparing a report. I believe he reviewed this situation completely. It is true that he did apply some strictures to the shipping companies, especially the Canada Steamship Lines; but in his recommendations he made no proposals to the

Minister of Labour in respect of action to be taken against the shipping companies. He made a proposal that we ought to set up a government trusteeship. I presume he had concluded, on the basis of the evidence, that the root problem in the situation, notwithstanding the evidence of collusion that he found, rested within the S.I.U., and if that root problem were solved the rest of the situation would adjust itself. This is the only conclusion I can draw from this recommendation.
I say further to hon. members of the committee that if parliament approves this measure and if, as we expect, capable and reputable trustees are appointed to administer the trusteeship, they will be able to root out any future collusion that may exist, or conspiracy on the part of the shipping companies. The report of the inquiry was to the Minister of Labour and, in this bill, I am acting upon the recommendations of the commissioner in respect of the maritime transportation unions.
Now, with respect to any further actions that hon. members may feel are necessary or justified in so far as the shipping companies are concerned, that is a matter for the government as a whole. It would be a matter of government policy with which I cannot deal in a committee studying a bill whose principle has been approved by the House of Commons.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister this? If the companies who have in the past broken the law and have connived with Banks in flouting the law, were to continue this practice, if they were to refuse to co-operate with the board of trustees and were to work with the racketeering element that the board of trustees hopes to eliminate, has the minister got power in this or any other act to deal with these companies and compel them to co-operate with the board of trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a helpful question. Clause 10 of the bill provides for penalties that apply to any person who obstructs or hinders the trustees in carrying out their duties. It would seem to me that if the trustees found that any shipping company was obstructing them in carrying out the purposes of the trusteeship, then sanctions under this section would apply to the shipping companies. This would be my view.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not a lawyer, and I welcome the minister's interpretation of clause 10. However, since this act is to provide for trusteeship over trade unions, I am wondering if a company which does not co-operate would be violating the provisions of this measure and would come under clause 10? It would seem doubtful to me.
Maritime Transportation Unions


Guy Favreau: I would read the clause in this way because "person" includes a corporation. Whenever the bill speaks about hindering the activities or the carrying out of the duties of the trustees, there is no reason in the world why a shipping corporation which is hindering the trustees should not fall under clause 10.


Erik Nielsen: I regret the fact that the minister failed to deal with or comment upon the suggestion I made concerning the amendment of the Citizenship Act. He knows, or he should know, that if I had wanted to move an amendment on second reading which would have embodied the suggestion I made, it would have been out of order. I cannot recall the house being faced with an amendment on second reading which would have the effect of repealing the measure under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
William Arnold Peters: In paragraph (d) of clause 2 we find rather extensive powers are being requested. It would seem that a number of things will be picked up by this trusteeship, as happens in most cases where a trusteeship is invoked. The trustee has the right to pick up all the papers and documents, get control of the bank accounts and other journals connected with the operations of the union.
However, in this particular case mention is made of property of any kind, whether real or personal, movable or immovable and including money, rights of any kind and choses in action. There seems to be little that is left out. There have been some suggestions that the R.C.M.P. is ready to conduct the necessary raids to put this provision into action as soon as the bill is passed. This is probably as it should be. However, I am wondering if there are rights that may be taken away under this type of provision. If there were to be an accounting, there would probably have to be a reference to the exchequer court. There is a rumour that certain evidence may be disposed of, and I am wondering if the R.C.M.P, is to be empowered to act under this particular clause.
I think all hon. members will agree that the provision is rather extensive, and there should be some legal terminology applied here so that there will be an accounting of the property.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the minister answers,
I should like to ask two short questions somewhat related to the question asked by the hon. member for Timiskaming. Why are there two descriptions of property, one under the word "property", and one under the

Maritime Transportation Unions words "property of a maritime union"? Would the minister explain why there are these two descriptions of property in this bill? Also, not being a lawyer, would he explain for my benefit, or illustrate what is meant by "corporeal or incorporeal" property?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to answer the last question first, with the leave of the Minister of Labour and more particularly of the chairman of the committee. The reason why in paragraph (d) of clause 2 the word "property" is defined is to make sure that, in whoever's hands it be found, the whole concept of property, whenever necessary for the carrying out of the purposes of the unions, is provided for under the act. In paragraph (e) that property which is defined in paragraph (d) may be in the hands of two types of unions, those which are incorporated and which can hold their own personal property-they are provided for in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (e)- and those unions who are not incorporated and may not hold property themselves, but whose property is in the hands of other persons, in the hands of their administrators. Those are the type of unions provided for in paragraph (e)(ii).
As to the first question put regarding the generality of the definition of the word "property", the hon. member may rest assured that this is a matter which has been the cause of serious concern to, and therefore serious consideration by, the government. We came to the conclusion very sincerely that if there is to be a trusteeship the application of this legislation and the fulfilment of its purpose becomes impossible if the funds and investments of the union are not at the disposal of the trustees.
Second, I think one will agree that if the trustees are not vested with the control of the moneys of these unions the whole purpose of the bill may be defeated by anybody seizing control in a fashion not in conformity with the purposes of this legislation. The question is very serious and I think we all thank the hon. member for raising it. However, he will notice that, for instance in clause 11 (2), the government has shown its intention not to vest the trustees with these moneys just for the purpose of doing so. Because in the case of moneys which are directed to the establishment of a welfare plan for the seamen, the paragraph vesting the trustees with these moneys does not apply if the moneys are administered by trust companies or insurance companies. I think this explains the situation and I hope it answers the question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have a question with regard to clause 2 (c), which defines a maritime transportation union and a
[Mr. Herridge.}
maritime union, as those terms are used in the bill. I feel there should be some explanation given in this connection, because if one consults schedule B, parts I and II, which schedule is referred to in clause 2(c)(i), it is clear that the trusteeship is to extend to maritime unions not only operating on the great lakes but also on the coasts of Canada. I feel that a good deal of misunderstanding may arise owing to the fact that all the discussion we have had is centred on a situation existing on the great lakes.
I think a very natural question not only in the minds of us who sit in this house but in the minds of many people who are members of unions, as well as those who are citizens in other parts of the country, will be why any application of this act should be extended to the west coast or the east coast of Canada. I think the minister should give some explanation at this point why the bill does propose the inclusion of local unions, for example, the C.B.R.T. on the west coast of Canada, under the provisions of the proposed trusteeship.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think that if my friend would refer to the recommendations of the Norris report he would find that Mr. Justice Norris pointed out the possibility of the extension of the operations of such combinations along the seaway in Canadian and United States ports, and on the coast of Canada. We attempted in the preparation of this legislation to include all unions in the maritime field so that the trusteeship would have control over the whole situation. The trusteeship might be very ineffective if responsibility was assigned to the trustees for one particular area and difficulties arose elsewhere which frustrated the operation of the trusteeship. That is why the total field is covered.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Then do I take it from the minister's remarks that he would envisage the possibility that Mr. Hal Banks might decide to move his centre of activities to Vancouver and create a similar situation there to that which has prevailed on the great lakes? Is that part of the minister's thinking in this connection?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think that is true. I believe this person to which my hon. friend refers has operated already in Vancouver.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Establishment of the trustees.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Naturally, Mr. Chairman, the minister would not want to name whom he intends to appoint to the board of trustees, but there is one recommendation of Mr. Justice Norris with which I do not agree, and

it is an important point. He suggested that the board should be made up of a chairman with wide legal experience, an economist with some knowledge of labour matters, and some person experienced in transportation. I should like to ask the minister whether he cares to suggest the kind of categories from which these people will come. Does he plan to have a lawyer, an economist, or what type of person is he thinking of appointing? If I may re-emphasize what has already been said several times from this side of the house, if one of the functions of this board of trustees is to take these unions one of which has lost democratic control and train it so that once again it can assume democratic control of its own affairs and manage them, this will call for a person with experience in trade union matters. I do not care how good an economist may be, how experienced a person may be in the transportation field, or whether you have a first class legal mind. Unless somebody knows how trade unions work and can lead these people step by step into assuming responsibility, I think the trusteeship is likely to break down because of a lack of understanding and communication between the board of trustees and the unions they are supposed to be supervising. I wonder whether the minister has given any thought to the kind of person he is proposing to appoint.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am glad to tell the hon. member what is under consideration or, at least, what I have been thinking about. It has occurred to me it might be helpful to have as chairman of the trustees a person of judicial attitudes, whether he be a judge or whether he be someone who has experience in mediation or arbitration. I agree that it is necessary to have on the trusteeship body a person very knowledgeable in labour matters, preferably someone with personal experience of the conduct of union affairs. With these two considerations in mind we shall attempt to get an effective group of men to discharge this responsibility. I am in full agreement with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that the trade union aspect ought definitely to be represented.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister's answer indicate that the name of the hon. chief justice will be considered, possibly for the chairmanship?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member obviously is thinking of the kind of highly qualified person I have in mind. But I certainly do not want to start naming names tonight.
Maritime Transportation Unions


Malcolm MacInnis: Possibly the minister could indicate whether Mr. Walter Harris has been considered.


Mr. Aiken:: There is no doubt, I presume, that the three trustees will all be Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman, they will be.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Personnel.
Erik Nielsen: I have one question to ask on clause 5. I see that clause 17 provides for the payment of certain expenses to be paid out of government funds. I wonder if that clause will apply to the payment of personnel who might be appointed under clause 5?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: I was wondering whether the minister expects the trustees to be active in the actual operation of union affairs. In other words, does he contemplate that the trustees will operate from some remote point, or does he expect them to participate actively in the operation of building a new union as a full time job.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I take it the trustees must be in full charge of the situation. It would in my view certainly be a full time job for these men. It might be necessary for them to hire other persons to assist them, but I would expect that the trustees would be closely identified with the activities which they intend to control.


Mr. MacRae:: I note that the entire cost of the trusteeship is to be borne, as I understand it, by the government of Canada and thus, ultimately, by the taxpayers of this country. Has the minister given any consideration to having a certain amount of the cost of this trusteeship paid by the five unions involved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it would be reasonable to expect the taxpayers to assume the cost of these proceedings because this is to be a public trusteeship-the trustees are to be appointed by the government pursuant to an act of this parliament. If a private trusteeship had been in effect, and if the prime responsibility rested upon the union movement, I think it would be fair for the unions themselves to have borne the expense, and this is what was in mind in the now lamented private memorandum we had worked on. In this case, however, the trusteeship is public, not private and it seems reasonable to me that we should deal with it as an expense to the taxpayers.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Maritime Transportation Unions
On clause 7-Function of the trustees.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I feel this is one of the more important clauses of the bill since it outlines the responsibilities and duties of the trustees. It tells them, in fact, how they are to operate and what powers they are to receive. With reference to clause 7 (1), the question has arisen in the minds of some of us whether or not, according to this wording, the trustees will be subject to and have to operate within the ordinary terms of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I, for one, feel that the legislation as drafted does not make this point clear. It says nothing about it one way or another. It does say specifically in line three that the trustees must act in accordance with the legislation which we now have under consideration, but I am wondering whether any thought has been given to the point which I have raised.
It has occurred to me that if, immediately following the words "this Act" in line three, words to this effect were added-"and subject to the terms of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigations Act" the position would be made entirely clear. At the back of this suggestion is my idea that these trustees should in effect be acting as if they were the duly elected officers of the trade unions involved, and that it should be clearly set out that they would be expected to deal with such matters as negotiations with the companies when the time comes for these negotiations to be carried out. In other words, they would be acting as if they were officers of a trade union dealing with the companies and subject to the normal operation of our labour laws. Has the minister any comment to make on that suggestion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is intended that the trustees should fully observe the normal industrial relations law, and there is nothing in this bill which would supersede the application of the act to which the hon. member has referred. We fully expect that the trustees will operate within that framework.


Erik Nielsen: With respect to clause 7(5) I see that there is a power of delegation so extensive that it would amount to a complete abnegation, if it were exercised, of the responsibilities of the trustees. Under the subsection the trustees may delegate "any or all of the duties and powers of the trustees to any person appointed by the trustees." As I read this, the trustees could delegate all the powers which this legislation gives them to a single person or to a group of persons. The danger which I see is the possibility of the trustees delegating the whole


of the powers to any one individual. I am wondering what is the purpose behind this subclause?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think we have to assume the trustees will delegate in accordance with the authority they will have under this bill. It may well be necessary to have this kind of delegation because of the extent of the operations coming under the trusteeship.
The Canadian maritime union has one local with 500 members. The S.I.U. has 17,000 members, with two divisions. The marine engineers have seven locals and the Canadian merchant service guild has two divisions with more than 2,400 members. The C.B.R.T. has 13 locals in various parts of the country, in the east and the west, so that it certainly will be necessary for the trustees to have this power of delegation, and presumably in certain instances this will not present any difficulty. Presumably there are certain unions which will operate normally without delegated powers, and the trustees will not have to probe very deeply into some of these operations where the unions are currently operated democratically.
It seems to me, while these powers are necessary, the possibility of delegation strengthens the capacity, even under trusteeship, for the locals to operate on their own.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the hon. member for Yukon has raised a good point. The delegation of powers by the board of trustees to elected officers of a union is perfectly understandable, and I recognize the delegation of powers to another person may be necessary because of the scattered nature of the operations. But this parliament is giving very wide powers to the board. The board in turn is going to have the authority to delegate these very wide powers to some other person, and if that person uses them in an irresponsible manner, then the board of trustees will be in trouble and we will be in trouble.
The kind of persons to whom these powers are delegated is an important matter. I think it comes back again to the whole question of the board of trustees. We have the minister's assurance that it is not going to be a board which meets once a month, and then the members carry on their regular occupations and leave a group of people to whom they delegate authority to discharge their responsibilities. The board must be full time, and must stay on the job. In addition, the people they select to whom they delegate responsibility on both coasts and at various points in Canada, will have to be carefully selected.
When the minister talks about selecting some person who has judicial experience there is something to be said for that, because a person with judicial experience is accepted

as being fairly objective and unbiased; but the fact remains, no matter how unbiased he may be we are all creatures of our own environments. Some judges have had most of their training in corporation law, and have spent most of their professional lives acting on behalf of corporations. They have that particular viewpoint; but there are judges-I could name two or three-who have had a good background in dealing with labour matters and who have acted frequently in labour cases, in conciliation and arbitration cases. When the minister is making the appointments I hope he will keep this in mind.
I feel that some person in the judiciary who has had a good association with labour, a good understanding of labour law and the principles involved in operating a union, ought to be selected. If that kind of person is not selected and the board delegates these responsibilities to some person who may have no understanding of trade union procedure, then there will be a complete breakdown in relations between the board and its appointees on the one hand, and the men who work the ships on the other.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I agree with the comments of the hon. member that it ought to be the objective to select a person-even if that person is a member of the judiciary-with experience in labour matters. We shall make our effort in that direction.


Gerald William Baldwin: There is a question I was going to ask under clause 9, but in view of the fact the minister has directed his attention to subsection 5 of clause 7 I may as well ask it now. Is it intended that the exemption from individual liability envisaged under clause 9, so far as the trustees are concerned, will extend to those to whom the trustees have delegated power?


Guy Favreau: I think the answer to this is that the trustees will not be a body corporate. Were they to constitute a body corporate then they would be placed in the same situation as directors or presidents of a company. It is only out of fairness to the trustees that the clause has been devised that way, and I think it must be read that the trustees, for all practical and legal purposes, will have the same type of responsibility with respect to funds, their application or otherwise, as the directors of a corporation personally would have in the same situation.


Gerald William Baldwin: What I wanted to take from that is the fact that that exemption from liability does not extend to people to whom the trustees might delegate authority under subclause 5. I want to know was this the
Maritime Transportation Unions intention, that such exemption from responsibility will not attach to those to whom powers are delegated under clause 7(5)?


Guy Favreau: I have no authority to speak here, otherwise than in my own name, so far as my opinion of the text is concerned, but it is my clear opinion that this clause relieves only the trustees themselves, and in no way whoever may assume delegated authority from their hands.


Erik Nielsen: The minister's opinion is very helpful, but I think what my hon. friend and I are interested in is knowing whether it is the intention of the government that those to whom powers are delegated will not receive the same protection as the trustees under clause 9?


Guy Favreau: I am advised by the Minister of Labour it is the intention that the clause be applied as the hon. member just suggested, so as not to free those exercising delegated power.


Reid Scott: I want to direct a question to the minister with regard to subclause 2(a). It provides for the establishment of advisory councils of seamen and their representatives and joint advisory councils of seamen and ship owners to advise, and so on. Could we have some explanation as to what the ship owners are going to be doing, and how it is envisaged they will fit into the general pattern of the trusteeship? We are somewhat mystified by it. I wonder whether the minister could elaborate on the role that it is intended the ship owners will play.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend will notice that Mr. Justice Norris did recommend the usefulness of having advisory committees of seamen on the one hand and of ship owners on the other. I think first of all it must be mentioned that the trustees will be free to decide on this point. They are free to appoint them or set them up if necessary. We think there is some value in the trustees having the opportunity to set up advisory committees of seamen on the one hand and to set up as well, if they so desire, a committee of ship management and labour. Surely it is common practice for labour and management to sit down together, and this may be a helpful development in this situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we are quite familiar with the idea of labour-management committees and labour-management co-operation, but it is not the usual thing for the leadership of a trade union to have the authority and responsibility to appoint an advisory council consisting of both its own people and management people. It seems to us
28902-5-223

Maritime Transportation Unions that this clause overlooks the fact that what is being appointed by this legislation is a board of trustees to administer the union. In our view these trustees are for the time being the heads of the union organization. Their purpose is to get things cleaned up and to get democratic processes operating again. But it appears to us that there is a suggestion here that there is to be a relationship on the part of these trustees with the management side that is not the usual thing in trade union organizations.
We feel that this same situation occurs in clause 7 (2) (c) where the trustees are given the right to tender advice to bargaining committees of a maritime union. If you couple with that the fact that the trustees may have an advisory council consisting of both labour and management, one wonders what kind of advice these trustees may give to a bargaining committee that is engaged in collective bargaining with management.
Our whole point is that if we accept the principle of trustees to run these unions for whatever period of time this legislation is in effect, they should in effect have the trade union point of view. It should be a clean, democratic, free trade union point of view; but nevertheless it should be the trade union point of view, and it is our feeling that point of view is set aside by the language both in 2 (a) and 2 (c).
For example, what happens if under 2 (c), -and I think 2 (a) and 2 (c) are related,- the committees that are doing the collective bargaining get advice from the trustees based on advice they have got from this joint advisory council, which is advice that suggests that the union seek less than it may be seeking in its collective bargaining? Does this not destroy the normal rights and privileges of a trade union? Should not the whole relationship between the trustees and management be just as much at arm's length so far as management is concerned as it is in the case of ordinary trade union officers?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Before the minister answers I wonder whether I might ask a related question arising out of paragraph (c). To follow one step farther than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has gone, I would point out that the trustees may delegate the power to enter into a collective bargaining agreement. If such a collective agreement is not effected, do the trustees have the power to call a legal strike under this legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer to the question is yes. May I point out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that these councils are joint councils and they were made joint councils for the very reason that the


hon. member suggests. As I recollect, the Norris commission recommended a separate advisory body of employers or ship owners and we thought that we ought to protect the points made by my hon. friend, namely, that if in the management of a union the point of view of the ship owner was to be received at any stage it should be received in a meeting at which labour men were also represented. So there is that control in so far as the exercise of advice is concerned. It is control by the presence on that council of the seamen or representatives of the seamen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister does not seem to have got our point. What we are setting up here is not a body that has oversight of the relations between labour and management. What we are setting up here is a substitute for the trade union leadership itself. These trustees will take the place of the normal administrators of the trade unions concerned. Does the minister know of any trade union in this country where the officers of the trade union have the right, on their own initiative and authority, to set up a joint advisory council of labour and management, where the officers of the trade union name the representatives from the management side? It seems to us that our point is being missed by the minister.


Guy Favreau: I think I see the point that the hon. gentleman makes. I take it that the hon. gentleman means that the trustees, as in the case of a trade union itself, ought not to be given the power, which a trade union would not otherwise have, to designate and appoint members for management on any joint advisory body.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Any more than management should name the representatives of the union.


Guy Favreau: I think the problem might be solved if instead of giving direct power to the trustees to establish advisory boards we gave them the power to promote the establishment of such boards. Then there would be no question of their having the right to appoint members from management or members from the union side. This would permit entire freedom of discussion and would, I think, place the trustees in the same situation as that in which a union would be in a case where a union would seek to convince management to get together with the union to try to form a joint committee. Therefore I would be ready to move an amendment myself, with the concurrence of the minister, who would agree, replacing the word "establish" by the words "promote the establishment of". Would that be agreeable to the

hon. gentleman? Then there would be no direct power given to them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has caught our point and I believe the suggested change of wording may meet it, although we may have to look at it closely. The trustees may promote this sort of thing, but they are not given the power to name representatives of management. In other words, what we are trying to avoid here is company unionism in reverse.


Guy Favreau: Perhaps we could proceed with the other clauses, Mr. Chairman, and come back to this subclause. In the meantime we could work out an amendment.


Malcolm MacInnis: On that point, Mr. Chairman, and following up the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think what we must ensure is that the trusteeship which is to be set up here is in no way associated with management and should not be associated with management unless they are negotiating or renegotiating a general agreement. We take it for granted that union representation will be available to the trustees, and therefore the trustees will also be associated with management when the union feels they must meet the company to discuss a grievance. Any other association between these trustees and the company should be entirely eliminated. There should be this association during the negotiating or renegotiating of a general agreement, or in the case of a grievance when the union advisers to the trustees see fit to have a meeting with management; otherwise they should be kept entirely separate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the minister's reply to a question, to the effect that the trustees would have the power under this act to call a strike. Could he illustrate to the committee under what possible circumstances the trustees would call a strike after receiving the advice of an advisory council composed of management and labour?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First of all, of course, the trustees are not obliged to accept any such advice. This clause has no connection what-sover with the collective bargaining situation; it is not intended to apply to any such situation. The trustees, acting as union officers, would be free to call a legal strike, because there is no attempt to restrict them by this particular paragraph (a). I certainly think that if there is any fear on this score, the amendment that will be proposed by my colleague will overcome any difficulty.
28902-5-223J
Maritime Transportation Unions


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister whether I am right in assuming that two kinds of councils are contemplated in paragraph (a). The wording is that the trustees may:
establish advisory councils of seamen and their representatives-
I assume those councils would be made up entirely of seamen, and their function in the main would be to advise the trustees in matters of negotiation, what wage demands they have and what recommendations they have regarding wages, hours and conditions of labour. Then we are also dealing with a second council, and the wording is:
-and joint advisory councils of seamen and ship owners-
I imagine they would meet together for the the purposes of administration. Is my interpretation correct; are there two different kinds of council?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I do not think joint committees get together to do anything in the way of labour-management relations, other than such things as setting up a study of safety, which is a mutually advantageous matter, and industrial promotion, automation in the industry, and other things that go along with that. These two functions in the main, industrial promotion-which would be a labour-management function in the normal sense-and the industrial safety function should perhaps be added in order to get rid of these implications. I do not think you would ever have harmony enough to bring these two groups together for any other purpose, if this were successful. If it were not successful, it would break down and you would have a company union; and this is certainly not the intention.
Therefore it might be wise for the minister to add the two categories which I have suggested, that of safety and industrial promotion in normal labour-management relations in an industry sense, and the industrial safety function. I think there is a role that the trustees could play, as do normal unions and management, in these two fields. But I think it would be very foolish to go any further than these two fields which are not directly related to the grievance procedure, to the negotiation procedure or to normal union-management responsibility.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I agree fully with my hon. friend with respect to this particular point.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I am not so sure that the assurance which the minister has given to the committee is accurate. Under clause 7, as I read it, the trustees are given the powers that are listed in subclause 2 to
3494	HOUSE OF
Maritime Transportation Unions act under the bylaws and constitution as provided in subclause 1. But nowhere in the powers that I see listed in clause 7 is the power given to the trustees to call a strike.
There is a rule of law, which I am sure the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is aware of, which stipulates that where you enumerate certain classes of power and neglect or overlook, intentionally or otherwise, to enumerate others, those others are excluded. It seems to me there may not be the power in the trustees to call a strike under the provisions of this clause, and it might be a good deal better if it were spelled out in the provisions of the bill that the provisions of this clause in no way abrogate the powers of the trustees to call a legal strike on behalf of the union membership, should circumstances arise where this is desirable.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this bill that supersedes the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Therefore there is nothing in this bill inhibiting the rights that are accorded under the present labour legislation of the country. The trustees have the management and control of the maritime unions, and the clause says they may jointly do all such things as the officers of the union may do under the constitution and bylaws of the union. Surely the constitution and bylaws will direct the trustees as to the way in which they might call a strike?


Erik Nielsen: That still does not allay my fears, Mr. Chairman, that the rule of law about which I spoke a moment ago would not apply in this case. The minister has mentioned the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and I think he should read carefully the section that probably assisted him in drawing up subclause 1 of clause 7, which says:
The management and control of the maritime transportation unions is hereby vested in the trustees who shall, in accordance with this act, manage and control each of the maritime unions-
And so on. To my mind this confines the powers of the trustees to those powers that are set out in subsection 2 of the clause. Nowhere within those powers do I see any power or saving provision which would allow the trustees to call a legal strike, if that were the wish of the membership of the union. I think it would be far better, rather than subjecting the whole matter to future tests, to spell it right out in the powers that are given to the trustees and to preserve, in that fashion, beyond any dispute whatsoever the right of the union membership to strike, should the trustees feel it to be in the best interests of the union.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no doubt whatever that the trustees will have this right because all this bill attempts to do is to provide for the management and control of the unions, one side of industrial relations. It does not attempt to provide regulations covering employer-employee relationships. These are established under a separate act. This bill simply means that the trustees will be obliged to manage the union in accordance with the provisions in this measure. There is nothing in the bill that prevents their calling a strike. They are empowered to do so under the constitution of the union.


Erik Nielsen: I am afraid I still cannot accept that argument. What the minister is saying is that because there is nothing in the bill to prevent the calling of a strike the trustees are empowered by law to do so. If that argument were valid, then the powers that are most elaborately set out in the bill concerning financial arrangements and so on, would be unnecessary.
I again suggest to the minister quite strongly that there is doubt about this matter, and rather than subject it to future tests the course of prudence would seem to indicate that the power be included. This would certainly reassure the seamen who are most affected by this legislation. If the power to call a strike were clearly spelled out, there would be no doubt whatever that the trustees would have that power.


Malcolm MacInnis: I believe this issue is becoming more and more confused. There are many people who apparently do not understand the circumstances of certain unions. The minister has just agreed to some remarks made by the hon. member for Timiskaming. While I may agree with the purport of what he said, it only adds to the confusion surrounding the duties of these trustees. Reference has been made to the power of the trustees to call a strike. I believe this power is amply covered by the fact that the prime duty of the trustees is to clean up the unions. In doing so, the trustees will act according to the constitution of the union. There is no doubt whatever but that the constitution of the union will provide for strike action.
Since the trustees are to replace the union executive, I think we are only complicating matters further when we speak of such things as industrial management, production and development. These things are usually referred to in cases where management and labour have been working hand in hand and have been agreeing on such things as safety committees or sick committees. These duties are not usually handled by the executive officers of the union, but by the rank and file of the union.

I believe we are only complicating matters further by referring to the duties of these trustees. I believe the trustees' duties should be put in the simplest form possible, namely to clean up these unions. This should be done within the constitution of the unions. Do not saddle the trustees with a lot of nonsense about things that are handled by a local union in the normal routine. There is no doubt that the power to call a strike is written right into the constitution of the union, and to talk about what the duties of the trustees will be only adds to confusion. I think it is imperative that the trustees be put in the position of acting as union executive officers normally act. It is not normal for union executive officers to be running to management with this and that problem. Their duties, so far as management is concerned, should be confined to negotiating general agreements or renegotiating them, or perhaps dealing with a grievance. Other than that, I feel that the duties of the trustees should be confined to union business, and never mind this nonsense about management.


William Arnold Peters: I think there is a reasonable difference of opinion in this case. I am sure that the minister must have had some reason for writing in this paragraph (a) of clause 7. There is reference to the establishment of advisory councils of seamen and joint advisory councils of seamen and ship owners to advise the trustees in the carrying out of their duties. I believe you should add that this relates to the field of industrial safety and labour-management co-operation. If this is done, I believe the provision will make some sense.
I think it is a fact that the seamen themselves are going to have safety committees, just as management probably has safety committees. If you are going to have a joint advisory council to bring them together, in my opinion it would only be for the purpose of dealing with things which are legitimately within the field of management-labour cooperation. The hon. member for Cape Breton South made a reference to this. First of all, the federal government has established a safety department and has also established a labour-management department. I would suggest to the minister that he should have one of his colleagues write in a definition of the fields in which they want these advisory councils to act. There should be a reference to these fields of safety and labour-management co-operation which the federal government now supports. These activities could be extended into the maritime field where, I expect, there is very little co-operation between the various agencies involved.


John Chester MacRae: I wish to discuss subclause 4 of clause 7. I take it the discussion is completed on subclause 2(a) or that the Minister
Maritime Transportation Unions of Citizenship and Immigration is drafting an amendment. At any rate, in the interests of getting on with this legislation, I will be as brief as possible.
Subclause 4, if it is stripped of its legal verbiage, would appear to read that the trustees may not increase the salary of any union official and, second, if the union wishes to decrease the salary of any officer of the union, that would not be valid unless the trustees approved of it. I should like to ask the minister why the subclause is in the bill at all. After all, if the trustees have complete authority over the union, why should they be circumscribed in the first place by not being able to raise the salary of any union official; and if they have complete authority, why should the second part of the subclause beginning with the words "and after the commencement of'' be there at all?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first point is that the effort in the legislation is to provide that the trustees exercise their authority through the existing constitutions, except where otherwise provided. In this particular case the provision is made that the reduction of a salary, cutting it in half or cutting it out altogether, will be prevented in an effort to remove an officer in an indirect way.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to carry on a cross-fire between myself and the hon. member for Timiskaming, but I think I speak with some knowledge of the workings of a labour constitution. I cannot see how you can draw management in when the trusteeship is set up to replace or to displace a union's executive. I feel that there must be the operation of a union executive. I brought up the matter of negotiating or renegotiating contracts or general agreements for the simple reason that this legislation will probably be in force for five years, and unless someone is prepared to tell me that the seamen will be under contract for the next five or six years this is a matter which will come before the trustees. At some time or other in the near future they will have to face the company with a general wage agreement or negotiate further agreements with the company. It is provided in the constitution that the union operate according to that constitution, and I see no reason why all these side issues should be brought in. The constitution of the union itself will provide for their duties. The whole question boils down to the trustees displacing
and that is probably the better word in this case-the union executive; and having done that, they then govern themselves under their own constitution, as the bill so provides.
With regard to the other issue which was raised about committees set up here and

Maritime Transportation Unions there, that is a matter which is handled within the routine of labour locals in any case. A lot of hodgepodge has been piled up which is absolutely unnecessary, but I think it is vital that any reference to a joint committee between the trusteeship and the management must be eliminated. The prime purpose of this legislation is to displace the union executive officers who are not capable or competent or honest or trustworthy enough to operate the unions, and to replace them with a trusteeship. Let us not confuse the issue any further by telling them that they have anything to do, other than follow the union constitution provided for them.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, this discussion on clause 7 has gone on at some length, particularly with reference to subclause t2)(a) dealing with a joint advisory council between the seamen and the ship owners. I have been sitting here with a draft amendment in my hand which expresses my own thoughts on the matter, and I feel that the simplest way to clear the matter up, so that there is no room for any suspicion that it was the intention of parliament that these trustees should act in any other capacity than as agents for the time being of the unions concerned, is to move the following:
That clause 7(2) (a) of the bill be amended by deleting therefrom the words "and joint advisory councils of seamen and ship owners and their representatives".
It seems to me that that would bring the clause into line with its general concept, which, as I understand it, sets out the directions in which we would like to see the trustees move as quickly as possible in the reorganization of the affairs of the union, in keeping with trade union principles and the constitutions and bylaws of the various unions.
I understood from some remarks made earlier by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that he was prepared to give consideration to drafting some amendment which would change this subclause in the manner we would like to see it changed. I think the draft amendment I have would be the simplest way out of the situation.
The Minister of Labour made one or two references to the recommendations in the Norris report in this connection. I suggest to the minister that he has already indicated some departure, as far as his thinking is concerned, from that of Justice Norris, particularly with respect to the kind of personnel who should form the trustees. Generally, the approach of the minister indicates he is in agreement that it should be clearly understood that the functions of the trustees are to act in a substitutive manner
[Mr. Maclnnls.l
as trade union officers for the time being. As far as I am concerned, in view of all the discussion which has taken place on this clause and the earlier remarks of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, perhaps we should ask that clause 7 stand for the time being and come back to it later when the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration might have some amendment to offer the committee.


John Edward Lloyd: On a point of order, I understood that we agreed to this three quarters of an hour ago; that is, unless I misheard the minister of citizenship when he spoke to this matter. I even noted his use of the words "promote the establishment of"; he suggested that they be substituted, and I heard another hon. member from the hon. member's party say he thought that might be acceptable, that we should go on and let it stand. That is exactly where we are now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am agreeable to standing paragraph (a) and we will come back to it. We can pass clause 7 but come back to paragraph (a) at the end.


Malcolm MacInnis: Perhaps the Minister of Labour would allow me to make a suggestion. I feel the clause should read in this way:
That subparagraph (a) of subclause (2) of clause 7 should be amended by deleting in lines 24, 25 and 26 the words "and joint advisory councils of seamen and ship owners and their representatives".
If those words were deleted I think it would meet with the satisfaction of the last speaker. That is exactly what I suggested before.


William Arnold Peters: I believe the advisers of the minister had in mind the establishment of something more than would be represented by this provision if we emasculate it. I agree with the suggestion that this be left for the time being until someone has had a chance to look at it, and incorporate what I believe must have been the original intention of establishing a relationship between parts of the industry as a whole, so that joint labour-management relations could be worked out. I think that would be the purpose intended, though maybe the wording was bad in the first place. However, I strongly urge that the provision should not be dropped. This is a forward-looking step and if it is a move to establish joint labour-management consultation in this field we think it is desirable.


John James Greene: Bearing in mind the fact that this bill will hit the courts about as quickly as it is passed here, and live its natural life in the courtrooms until the happy day when it is never seen again, it behooves all of us,

including the law officers of the crown, to the best of our ability, to make sure that every facet of it will stand up. In particular I have considerable qualms with regard to subclause 5 of clause 7. The law of trusteeship is a provincial right within the constitution and I wonder whether this broad power of delegation given here will stand up in the courts. I should like to hear something from the law officers as to their opinion in this regard. Even assuming the constitutional validity of this bill, is this broad power of delegation within the ambit of the federal authority? In the second place, even it be within the ambit of the federal power to delegate trusteeship to this extent, I fail to see the effect of the words in the subclause "or elected as an officer of the union". The subclause reads:
In respect of a maritime union the trustees may from time to time delegate in writing any or all of the duties and powers of the trustees to any person appointed by the trustees-
To me, that is the end of it. What is the meaning of the words which follow? If they can delegate these powers to anybody, what is the point of adding the words "or elected as an officer of the union"? I suggest that these words are redundant-that they are redundant words in a statute which will undoubtedly live its full life in the courts.
Finally I would suggest that consideration be given to the opinion expressed by hon. members opposite to the effect that clause 9, to which perhaps I might be allowed to refer for a moment, may not give the indemnity or exemption to delegates of the trustees, even if the power to delegate is lawful. Surely it would be wise to add in clause 9 the words "or the delegates" so that it will read "the individual members of the trustees or their delegates-" and so on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 7
carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let it carry, all but (2) (a) and let us look at that an hour from now when the minister has an amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is that course agreeable to the committee?


William Arnold Peters: I notice that in this clause under subclause (3) (d) the trustees are given power to retain and use the seal, if any, of the maritime union. I suppose it would be lawful to do this, but I am wondering whether it would be just. The seal might be used for purposes for which it was never intended, because in some of these cases it actually belongs to international unions. It might be in the custody of one of the locals, but it often remains the property of the international union.
Maritime Transportation Unions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We intend through this provision to maintain the identity of these unions where they have seals. I think that is the purpose of it.


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to make one suggestion in relation to a point which has already been made by my hon. friend from Yukon. I have the strongest doubts whether the legislation as drafted gives the trustees power to exercise all the functions which the union would have had prior to the enactment of this measure. Clause 7 authorizes the trustees to manage and control in accordance with the legislation we are now considering. It then goes on to say that the purpose is to try to return the unions as soon as possible to the management of their own executive officers. When the minister is considering the amendment to which he referred a few minutes ago, would he also consider adding as part of clause 7 subclause 1 some such words as: "Save as otherwise provided, the trustees will have the same powers, duties and responsibilities as the union did prior to the enactment of this legislation". This would set at rest any doubts there might be in the matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the point raised by the hon. member has already been covered. I believe I read it a short time ago. It is covered in paragraph (f) where it says in effect that the trustees may-
-generally do all such things as the officers of the union may do under the constitution and bylaws of the unton.


Gerald William Baldwin: I read that paragraph, but I think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will probably bear me out when I say there is a rule known as ejusdem generis. When you relate subsection 3, which has given the trustees certain financial and business powers, and take these powers from (a) to (e) then you say in (f) "generally to do all such things as the officers of the union may do" you might well be met, when you come to this point, that (f) is a general, all-embracing, catch-all clause dealing with matters already covered in (a) to (e), or along the same general lines.


John Edward Lloyd: While that is being considered, I understand the spirit of this legislation is to have the trustees supplant officers. When the officers have been replaced by trustees there are many things that may be discovered which you cannot delineate in this legislation. Therefore you must draft this legislation in broad permissive powers, and the trustees will be guided by the principle of the law just to put the house in order and return it in a satisfactory state to the union at a future time.

Maritime Transportation Unions That is why you cannot use such words as "you shall", because it is difficult to delineate.
It was difficult enough for Mr. Justice Norris to delineate after months of evidence, and it would be very wise not to do anything more than leave the trustees with a broad framework of direction in order to discover things which may not even have been discovered by Mr. Justice Norris.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure the spirit of the legislation is not intended to suspend, during this clean-up operation, the only weapon which workmen have at their disposal to ensure their rights are maintained, namely the right to strike. The suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River is a very good one, and it would remove any doubt that the trustees have power to call a legal strike if the best interests of the union membership were served by that.


John Edward Lloyd: I am sorry to speak again, but under the provisions of this legislation, certainly if all the provisions of labour legislation have been provided by it, then I am quite certain if members of a union took a strike vote and went through the proper procedures there is nothing in this bill to deny reasonably minded trustees from going along with that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Peace River have a point which would be worth while for the government to look at, because undoubtedly this legislation will be gone over with a fine tooth comb with a view to challenging it in the courts. Paragraph (f), on which the minister is hanging his whole case is, the last paragraph in clause 3 and it says that in the management and control of a maritime union the trustees may "generally do all such things as the officers of the union may do."
Not being a lawyer it seems to me as a layman the interpretation might be that they can generally do all such things having to do with the management and control of a union, and that they have these wide powers only in so far as the internal management and control of a union are concerned, and not in the broad matter of negotiating with management, calling strikes and so on, and acting for employees under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. The government should look at this very carefully.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are agreeable to stand subclause 1 and 2(a). We will come back to them again and attempt to cover the points raised and have a form of words which will satisfy the difficulties mentioned.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed the clause will carry subject to standing subclause 1 and 2(a)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 7 stands.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-Non-personal liability of trustees.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This clause states:
The individual members of the trustees are exempt from personal liability for any act or thing done or omitted by the trustees in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of a duty or power of the trustees under this act.
Does this mean that the board, as a board, can be sued?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer is yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Someone back here has suggested that in clause 9 there be added after the word "trustees" the words "and delegates or those to whom they have delegated powers." Does the minister feel this should be inserted in order to make absolutely sure that those persons to whom the board delegates powers will have the same protection as the trustees themselves?


Erik Nielsen: I would like to speak in opposition to that view, because while there is justification for providing protection to the trustees, without which it may be very doubtful you would get anybody to act or accept an appointment as a trustee, nevertheless the very fact that you withhold the same protection from a person delegated under the provisions of clause 8 will make that person much more careful in the exercise of the powers delegated to him. The way the clause now stands it provides a good deal of protection for the unions themselves and their membership, because the persons to whom powers are delegated will be subject to suit for malfeasance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would assume this does not protect a person from suit for malfeasance. It says here "for any act or thing done or omitted ... in good faith." May I point out that if the hon. member for Yukon says it is going to be difficult to get trustees to act unless they have this protection, it will be equally difficult to get people to act as delegates if they have no protection, and you could completely tie up his trusteeship by filing suits against the persons appointed to act on its behalf.


Erik Nielsen: I should have used the term nonfeasance, not malfeasance; and in addition may I say there is no impairment in getting people to act as delegates of the trustees. As I understand the clause, the purpose is to give the board power to delegate powers to maritime unions which do not require

much supervision by the trustees. If the trustees are prepared to say that a union agrees to accept delegation of a lot of powers which the constitution of the union provides, then surely you should not extend the protective powers under clause 9 to the particular officers of that union to whom those powers are delegated. It seems to me ordinarily they would be liable to suit for their actions, so why should you remove liability from them when the trustees decide to hand their powers back to them?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wish to deal with the matter that was immediately under discussion. Listening to the discussion it strikes me that there are apt to be in effect two categories of persons who will act as agents for or under the direction of the trustees. One is the group of persons to whom the hon. member for the Yukon has just been referring, people who have been acting as officers or agents of the various unions as they have existed in the past. On the other hand, in clause 5 of the bill it is provided that the trustees may, with the approval of the governor in council, employ such professional, administrative, clerical or other personnel as the trustees may deem necessary. It seems to me that clause 5 envisages that for a time at any rate the trustees are in effect going to have a civil service, and these people would in effect be acting as direct agents of the trustees in the discharge of their duties.
It does appear to me that there is a distinction to be drawn between such persons whom the trustees may appoint as professional advisers or administrators, and the people who at the present time and normally function as officers or agents of the union. I would be inclined to agree with the hon. member for Yukon, that these personnel should not be granted any particular exemption under this legislation from the liability that they ordinarily have. But it does appear to me that professional assistants or clerical assistants whom the trustees may engage, and who according to my understanding would be direct agents of the trustees in the carrying out of their duties, might be considered as rightfully having the same kind of exemption from liability as the trustees themselves, provided they acted in good faith. I would be interested to know whether there is any agreement that there is a distinction to be drawn there.


John James Greene: It was my understanding that the minister indicated to us earlier that it was the intent of the government that delegates be exempt under section 9 and, if so, I respectfully submit that should be made clear.
Maritime Transportation Unions


Erik Nielsen: That is not what he said.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the concern of all hon. members who have spoken on this point with regard to delegates. I think we must return to the original and basic principle that, after all, these trustees whom the government will ask to perform this kind of public service, thus removing them from the field of their normal activities for a period of two, three, or more years, ought to be given at least the same protection as the directors of what otherwise would be a corporation, and which they would have if they were directors of a real corporation.
When you take the case of a corporation, those to whom the corporation delegates any of its powers and who are employed as agents or employees have a type of responsibility which is personal and different from that of those who are directors. I think the reason for that is that the intention of these delegations is to make the delegates the people who are closer to the actual performance of the acts.
The trustees will have both a directive and a supervisory capacity. Those will be their main functions. They will, of course, have the functions of direct administration to the extent that they choose to use them. But as I say, their delegates will come closer to the actual and physical performance of given acts than the trustees themselves, and I think they must be assimilated and placed in the same situation as a person who receives from a corporation or from the directors of a corporation, whose liability is limited, certain powers and accepts those powers.
I think one will find that in many of these cases the delegates will happen to be certain of the present officers or employees of the unions, who will continue to carry on, for purposes of the trustees, certain of their functions; and I do not believe it is unfair not to give them protection that they do not have at present. In other words, I think if we go back to the basic principle and to the only real reason why this was spelled out in the bill, the reason being that the trusteeship happens not to have a corporate form, then it follows that it is not unfair to leave employees or delegates in the same situation as they would be at present, should they receive from the unions themselves such delegations or such powers as will be given to them by the trustees.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to labour the point, except to say that what the minister has just said is perfectly true with reference to persons elected or who, as officers of the union, carry out the duties of the board. It is

Maritime Transportation Unions not true, however, of those who are appointed by the board to do a certain job. If the board of trustees sends someone to the east coast to manage the affairs of the union until such time as officers can be elected, and so on, it seems to me that person could be completely hamstrung if, every time he moved, he was put under personal suit for whatever action he was taking on instructions from the board. Once the elected officers have taken over, I quite agree they should have no more protection than they have now. I am thinking of the persons who are appointed in the first instance to carry on at the behest of the board in order to get the unions democratically organized.


Guy Favreau: Well, whether these delegates be members of the union or not at present, as they will be executives I think that even in their case it would not be unfair not to give them more protection than if they were persons accepting by way of delegation the power or duty to perform something in the name of a corporation somewhere else. They would have a personal responsibility. These delegates will certainly not under this legislation have more responsibility than any ordinary agent who has accepted delegated powers. I do not believe it is really unfair.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The average agent of the average corporation is not trying to clean up a hoodlum empire.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the officers of the crown are obviously confusing the word "delegate" with "employee, servant or agent". They are two different things in law. If a person is appointed as a delegate or nominee of a director of a company he enjoys the same exclusion from liability that the director did. An employee, servant or agent is a different thing. Possibly not now, but shortly, I think the legal agents of the crown should clarify that point, before this section goes through. They are two different things.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 10-Obstructing trustees.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Clause 10 is quite an interesting one to me. It reads:
Any person who obstructs or hinders the trustees or a person to whom any duty or power of the trustees has been delegated, in the carrying out of a duty or power of the trustees under this act is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
In my opinion there is no question that the interpretation of this clause can become largely a matter of opinion. For instance, in the first line it refers to any person who


obstructs or hinders the trustees, and so on. Suppose in a particular union the members gathered together at a meeting and urged the trustees to call a strike, or discussed some matter and passed resolutions which were in opposition to certain proposals put forward by the trustees, or took any action to express a collective opinion as the result of the views of certain people being expressed; under those circumstances could the members of a union, or the persons who chaired the meeting or led the meeting, possibly be considered as obstructing or hindering the trustees? I would appreciate the minister's opinion on that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that in the circumstances to which the hon. member has referred the officers, or the trustees, or the delegates are obliged to behave within the constitutions of the various unions. It seems to me that any activity conducted by members that is within their own bylaws and constitutions cannot be regarded as obstruction of the trustees. That would be my view. It seems to me there are other situations to which this provision would apply; for example, removing or suspending officers. If the trustees attempted to do this and were prevented from so doing, this provision would then apply. This is my view.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I would like to support what has been said by my brother union member, the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: It seems to me that the powers given under clause 10 are very wide indeed and they could be abused to the extent my hon. friend has suggested. For example, what about a wildcat strike? This clause would apply in that case, because surely a wildcat strike would be interpreted as hindering the trustees. However good the government's intentions might be, or however good the trustees' intentions might be, nevertheless the power is there and it could be abused to the extent that has been suggested. I think my hon. friend makes a very valid and a very good point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The situation to which my hon. friend refers is already covered by the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Property held for a union or the members thereof.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am curious about subclause 3 of clause 11, which says:
The trustees may appoint agents or attorneys to administer any property vested in the trustees

under subsection (1) or may convey such property to any other person to be held by such person for the benefit of the maritime union or members of a maritime union, as the case may be, for the objects and upon the conditions that are binding on the trustees in respect of that property.
There has been some suggestion that when the trusteeship is ended there may not be as many unions in that trusteeship as there were at the beginning. The word "person" as used in this clause is the legal interpretation of "person", which can mean a company, corporation or other union. This subclause would cause a great deal of difficulty. This has always been a problem between the international and the local; the local is always afraid of losing its hall, or whatever it may be, and its reverting to the person administering the trusteeship and then being turned over to the international. I think that subclause 3 is the place in which this type of protection should be provided. If it is provided, perhaps the minister could assure us on the point; and if it is not, I think we should consider it.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 11 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Arnold Peters: I would like to know about this, Mr. Chairman, because we do not want five unions to go under the trusteeship with five complete organizations, and come out with one or two, or three, or perhaps four.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This provision, Mr. Chairman, is intended to apply particularly to welfare funds.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 12-Delivery of records and property.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I have a very serious observation to make with regard to clause 12. The minister will notice that clause 12 (1) (a), (b) and (c) concerns the property of the union in the way of books, and so on, that must be handed over to the trustees. The important words to which I would draw the attention of the minister are "at the request in writing of the trustees". I go to subclause 3, where the absolute power is given to a judge of the exchequer court, or a judge of a superior or county court, who may, upon ex parte application by the trustees, issue a warrant authorizing the seizure of those records, papers and documents that are mentioned in subclause 1 (a), (b) and (c).
I presume it was the intention of the government that such power as is set forth in subclause 3 with regard to the issuing of a search warrant, in effect authorizing the seizure of such records and other property,
Maritime Transportation Unions should only be exercised after there has been a denial by the person or persons in whose custody these things are of the request in writing of the trustees. It seems to me the legislation is inconsistent on this point because it says in subclause 1 that the documents are required to be handed over after the trustees have made the request in writing, and in subclause 3 it is implicit that one does not have to have any regard whatsoever to a request in writing but can go straight to a judge and get a search warrant and effect a seizure.
My suggestion is that the government should consider making the compliance with subclause 1 a condition precedent to the exercise of the powers in subclause 3. In other words the trustees should only be able to go to a judge for a search warrant after the request in writing has been made, and there has been a failure to comply with the request. Then this provision should apply and they should go to a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or a judge of a superior or county court.


Guy Favreau: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with the clause, but it is the type of clause which on its face is always to a lawyer or to a fair minded citizen-


Gerald William Baldwin: They are the same thing.


Guy Favreau: -repugnant in appearance. I think we must look at the spirit of the clause to find the necessary justification for, and the importance of subclause 3 of clause 12. The committee will see that there are two methods by which the trustees may seek the possession of documents or property. Documents and records would be mainly concerned in this case. One method is by making a request in writing. In the case where the trustees feel that the documents will be dealt with in good faith, that there is no danger of their being disposed of within the period of 24 hours of the notice, then the power is given to the trustees themselves, without reference to the courts, to give notice. But we all understand, I think, irritating as it may be, that there will be cases where a genuine fear will exist in the minds of the trustees that a notice to produce documents will probably cause the disappearance of the documents. We have to face these things.
This is why in such a case the law does not allow the trustees to send somebody to seize the documents without notice; but if no notice is given the legislation says-and this provision is for the protection of whoever is concerned-the trustees must go to an exchequer court judge or to any of the other judges mentioned in the clause, who
3502	HOUSE OF
Maritime Transportation Unions will use his judicial discretion in the issuing of a warrant. For example, if a search warrant is asked for unilaterally, he will question the applicant and upon his responsibility as a judge will decide whether to issue a warrant.
In so far as other types of legislation are concerned, you will find that if orders of this type are necessary in the public interest exactly the same type of device is used, and in most cases, against the will of the party concerned. There is a provision of this type in the Combines Investigation Act under which the director of investigation and research may seek production of documents in cases where he fears that a notice may be the cause of acts contrary to the public interest. He may seek the power, then, to search without notice. These are the types of situation in which this power, distasteful though it is, is essential in the public interest. This is the only reason it has been written in here.
One should look at the distinction between the two types of situations. In the first case there is a request by the trustees themselves; or then they may go and obtain the right to search without notice when the judge is satisfied that there is a good reason to search without notice. If the judge is satisfied, he may issue the order.


Erik Nielsen: If that is the intention, it should be spelled out in the legislation. The minister speaks of the same type of judicial discretion being exercised on an ex parte application for a search warrant as was exercised in connection with some of these offences which related to Hal Banks. If that is the case, then I suggest we might be in some real difficulty. If it is the intention of the government that a judge can take this action upon being shown that it is necessary in the public interest, then the legislation should say so. As we all know, an ex parte application means an application by one side only. It seems to me that sufficient protection is not granted to the individual's rights under this provision. Under a provision such as this an application could be made, without any notice to the parties concerned, a search warrant granted and the party could leave immediately to conduct a raid, as the hon. member for Timiskaming said.
I think the government should give consideration to amending the provision to this effect, that failure to comply with the request set forth in subclause 1, and then continue with the wording of the subclause as it is. Failing the acceptance by the government of that suggestion, perhaps the minister could consider inserting an amendment which would provide that a judge of the exchequer court would only exercise this extraordinary power 

if he were given good and sufficient reason for exercising it. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings suggests that words "upon cause be shown" should be inserted.


Guy Favreau: I agree completely with the hon. member that cause has to be shown. I believe it would cause some concern amongst the judiciary if we were to write that into this bill, that they are not to grant an order of this type without being shown cause, because that is automatically done. I suggest that it be taken for granted that, if it is found something has to be stated along procedural lines, that will be done in the drafting of the regulations. I would not suggest such a provision be written into the bill because this would be the first statute in which we would find this particular type of declaration. It cannot be automatic, otherwise there is no reason for reference to a judge.


Erik Nielsen: I have great respect for the minister's knowledge in this area. However, this is an extraordinary piece of legislation and contains sweeping powers. I am sure the minister himself has, on occasion, made an ex parte application where no cause at all had to be shown in order to obtain an extraordinary remedy such as that provided by this subclause.
In so far as similar pieces of legislation are concerned, there are several that I can recall under which a judge has exercised his discretion upon an ex parte application only upon cause being shown as required by the legislation itself. The case can be made even stronger because of the nature of the legislation, and these sweeping powers which are given. We must be very careful that the rights of individuals are not abrogated by injudicious judicial decisions. I do not believe it would hurt the legislation at all or hurt the intention of the government if these words were inserted. I am sure they intended that judicial discretion should be carefully exercised. The minister himself has said that the judge is going to be shown cause before the application is granted, and if it is not going to hurt the legislation then I think those words should be inserted.


Guy Favreau: I do not want to labour the point. It is true that would not hurt the legislation, but there are so many words we could add in many statutes which would not hurt the legislation but would also, I say respectfully, not add to it. Even if we were to add the words, "upon due cause being shown", this would not prevent any judge from injudiciously exercising his own discretion.


Gerald William Baldwin: As I understand the minister, he is saying that subclause 3 would not come into effect except under circumstances where the trustee felt that clause 1 would not be complied with. Am I correct in my assumption?


Guy Favreau: I said that is the purpose.


Gerald William Baldwin: Could you not say simply, instead of using general words, that upon cause being shown a judge may, upon referring to clause 1, find the facts-


Guy Favreau: I am afraid we are saying the same thing again.


William Arnold Peters: I do not want to get into any legal discussion because I do not know anything about it. It seems to me that we should have something written into the legislation to forestall the movement of some of these documents outside the country. If this has already taken place, there should be a provision to force the return of these documents. Is there a legal stipulation we can make that will give the trustees some authority to ask for the return of documents?
I am thinking of a situation in which the
S.I.U. decided to return to its international some of the documents that will be needed for the operation of this trusteeship. If all the documents and authorities vested in the union are returned to the international, there will be very little for the trustees to administer. Is there some legal stipulation that could forestall the removal of these documents to the United States or force the return of them?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 13-Voidable transactions.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This clause says that:
(a) any payment of money belonging to, or deposited or held to the credit of or for the benefit of, a maritime union, members of a maritime union, or the building corporation, where inadequate valuable consideration has been given therefor;
-is voidable if done, made or entered into on or after the 6th day of July, 1963. I should like to ask the minister two questions arising out of this wording. Will the trustees collect union dues from the members and, if so, would the trustees have the right to expel members for non-payment of dues?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer to both questions is yes.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the minister, how can "valuable consideration" be inadequate?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It has already been pointed out that clause 13 has to do with preventing the alienation of some of the assets of a union. It seems to me there may be some puzzlement, at least to me, why the date July 6,
Maritime Transportation Unions 1963, has been set forth in the legislation as the date after which these transactions are voidable. I feel that discussion of this bill would not be really complete without some explanation in the record at this point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Even though this date happens to be my own birthday, the real reason is that it was the date upon which the report was issued.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Before we pass clause 13 I should like to have some explanation of paragraph (d). There is a question in my mind as to why that paragraph has been inserted. It might not have very much merit if some of the collective agreements which these unions have made are not doing any harm to the public or national interest. It seems to me that not every collective agreement and supplemental collective agreement is disadvantageous to the nation. Therefore, could the minister explain to me the general principle of this paragraph?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There have been cases, especially with the seafarers' international union, where supplemental agreements have been entered into following the main agreement, and this paragraph gives the opportunity to the trustees to take a look at these supplemental agreements.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, from what I have heard this evening it appears that, although ^ these unions have agreed to come under this trusteeship, the legislation seems to be designed to deal with one union, which I firmly believe does require this attention. Nevertheless if there are to be trustees dealing with five unions, then I think this legislation should apply to each and every one of them. After all, I have reason to believe that although our problem is with Mr. Banks and his particular union, many things are going on in other unions which could take a good looking at.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer to that, of course, is that the provisions of this legislation apply to all of the unions listed in the schedules. I used the S.I.U. for purposes of illustration only in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 14-Recovering proceeds of property.
Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, the words appearing on line 31, page 8 of the French version of Bill No. C-102 are exactly the opposite of the English wording. It is not because the text is in English that it is necessarily consistent with the government's intention, but it happens that in this bill, it


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee has heard the terms of the amendment to bring the French text in line with the English text. Shall the amendment carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
On clause 16-Annual report to parliament.


John Chester MacRae: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question in connection with the expression "within three months after the termination of each year". The date July 6 is used in several places in this bill to indicate the date of the implementation of certain parts of the bill. Under clause 23 the bill will come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation. That is another date. Then third, this is a government agency, and therefore I assume might operate within the fiscal year, which would terminate on March 31-or would it be within the calendar year ending on December 31? My question is prompted by the desire to know when parliament and the people of this country will receive the first report of the trustees.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand that the year referred to here is intended to be the calendar year.


John Chester MacRae: Which will be December 31.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is in accordance with the Interpretation Act.


William Arnold Peters: Was any consideration given to providing for interim reports on a basis of four months or some such period? That would give the Minister of Labour an opportunity to keep his finger on the situation and to report on it to parliament, which will be watching these developments very closely. This makes provision for a report of the standard type, a general report which will contain the annual financial statement of the building corporation fund and so on. I believe it could very well be of advantage both to the minister and hon. members if reports were forthcoming more frequently.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it would be possible for the minister to ask the trustees for an interim report at any time, if that seemed desirable, and he could then make a statement to the house on the contents. I would be prepared to do that from time to time, if it seemed necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
On clause 18-Regulations.
Erik Nielsen: Before this clause carries I should like in the strongest terms to convey my objection to the inclusion of the powers contained in clause 18 in legislation such as this, which already contains such wide powers.
This clause provides that:
The governor in council may make such orders and regulations as he deems necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act.
In effect, the act itself could be completely bypassed by regulations and orders in council made behind closed doors. I can remember in what I might call the fat years, when we were on the other side of the house, the strong objections which were made by the Secretary of State, then sitting on this side, to provisions such as this when they were embodied in legislation presented during that period, amounting to nearly six years. He objected strenuously to granting the powers to make regulations. Every time such a power was provided for in the legislation it was the Secretary of State we heard from most. I recall, in particular, the passage of the Customs Tariff legislation, when he spent a great deal of time telling us that it was an abuse of power to do these things by regulation. I feel just as strongly about this clause 18 as he did on that occasion, and it seems strange to me that, in addition to the sweeping powers already vested in these trustees, the government should still think it necessary to have the power to make orders in council and regulations which, as we all know, do not require the scrutiny and approval of this parliament. It seems to me that the interests

of both labour and management would best be served by the deletion of this iniquitous clause.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to support what the hon. member for Yukon has said, particularly in view of the special nature of this bill and the differences of opinion which could arise with respect to a number of these clauses. The debate this evening has shown that there is a conflict of opinion as to the purpose and the effect of certain clauses, and I suggest that consideration be given to striking out this provision or amending it so that any regulations which may be made are strictly within the interpretation of the act, as we have heard it explained to us this evening by the minister speaking on the various clauses.


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: If we
pass this particular clause we do not need the rest of the bill. This paragraph gives the government the power to do anything it wishes. It reads:
The governor in council may make such orders and regulations as he deems necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act.
There is no need for the bill. All that is needed is that paragraph. We do not even know what it refers to. It does not say what the purposes and provisions are. It simply says, in effect, that the governor in council may do whatever he wishes. It is a bad provision and it should be eliminated.


Guy Favreau: The government would agree to striking out the words "purposes and", so that it would read: "-for carrying out the provisions of this Act". That is totally objective.


Erik Nielsen: I think that would accomplish what I have in mind.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Did the minister say he would consider amending that clause?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, by leaving out the words "purposes and".


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear that. We appreciate the response to our plea.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if it could be understood that the clause is carried as amended and that the amendment can be written out at the table.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree that the words "purposes and" in clause 8 be deleted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
Maritime Transportation Unions
On clause 23-Commencement.
Mr. Clancy:: I would suggest an amendment to this clause and it is that this act be made subject to review by the House of Commons on the first supply motion annually.


Robert Norman Thompson: I would ask the minister why the act will not come into force on the day it receives royal assent instead of coming into force only on the date fixed by proclamation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think there are two main reasons for the inclusion of this particular provision. We want the act to be proclaimed when the trustees have been appointed and when the property is vested in the trusteeship, so that there may be a certain time between all these phases, allowing the trustees to get to work at a particular date.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 24-Expiry.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the views that have been expressed with respect to the expiry date of the bill, and in order to make it abundantly clear that there is no desire on the part of the government to ask for the continuation of this particular trusteeship beyond the necessary time required, we thought it would be useful to include a five year provision in order to discourage persons from waiting out a period of trusteeship in order to return to the control of these unions. That is why this period was suggested.
However, because of the views that have been expressed, it is now agreeable to the government to reduce this to a three year period, and to provide that the trusteeship may continue beyond that period by proclamation, with a provision that members of the house may raise this matter and have the proclamation revoked at their own vote in the house. If they wish to end it, it will end.


Guy Favreau: I move:
That Bill C-102 be amended by striking out clause 24 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
24(1). This act expires on the 31st day of December 1966 unless before that date this act is extended to a later date which may be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.
(2)	. A proclamation under subsection (1) shall be laid before parliament not later than 15 days after its issue, or if parliament is not then sitting, within the first 15 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
(3)	. Where a proclamation has been laid before parliament pursuant to subsection (2), a notice of motion in either house signed by 10 members thereof and made in accordance with the rules of that house within 10 days of the date the proclamation was made before parliament, praying that

Maritime Transportation Unions the proclamation be revoked, shall be debated in that house at the first convenient opportunity within the four sitting days next after the day the motion in that house was made.
(4). If both houses of parliament resolve that the proclamation be revoked, it shall cease to have effect and this act shall cease to be in force but without prejudice to the previous operation of this act or anything duly done or suffered thereunder or any offence committed or any punishment incurred.
The last part is essential to retain the validity of whatever would have been done before the expiry of the act.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


Erik Nielsen: I am very happy to see that the minister proposes to amend clause 24 by reducing the five year period. I was hoping he would reduce it to 1964, but having heard the amendment I think that the device of proclamation could be used at the end of one year just as easily as it could at the end of three or two years. I think the period is still too long and I suggest it be further reduced to December 31, 1964.
As the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has just suggested to me, the act can always be extended by a separate act of parliament, and this amendment is a very complicated way of accomplishing the desired objective of making the extension subject to the review of the House of Commons. All the minister has to do is introduce another bill saying this one will be extended for whatever period the government feels necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now revert to clause 7 (1) and (2)(a).


Guy Favreau: I move:
That Bill C-102 an act to provide for the placing of the maritime transportation unions of Canada under the management and control of trustees be amended:
(a) by striking out paragraph (a) of subsection (2) in clause 7 of the bill and by substituting therefor the following:
"(a) promote the establishment of advisory councils of seamen and their representatives to advise and aid the trustees under this act and promote the establishment of joint advisory councils of seamen and ship owners and their representatives for the purpose of developing good relations between employees and employers, safety in the industry and other labour relations except those ordinarily associated with collective bargaining;"
I might say this covers exactly the point which has been raised to the effect that these joint advisory boards should remain what they are presently in the trades, and not deal with the collective bargaining, and:
[Mr. Favreau.1
(b) by adding immediately after subsection (5) on page 4 of the bill the following new subsection :
6. Nothing in this act shall be construed to restrict any right of a maritime union or the members thereof to bargain collectively and to implement the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act in any labour dispute.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the amendment carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me the minister has met the two points that were raised over here, but as I followed his reading of part (a) of the amendment it seemed to me there were a few words left out from what I thought was going to be given. I wonder if I could see it.


Guy Favreau: I am sorry but we do not
have a copy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the minister did not intend this part to read: "Promote the establishment of advisory councils of seamen and their representatives to advise and aid the trustees in carrying out the duties of the trustees under this act". The minister has left out words that were in the original version, "in carrying out the duties of the trustees." I wonder whether there has not been a stenographic slip somewhere.


Malcolm MacInnis: You had better give it to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre so he can redraft it for you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: I would agree that this would be an excellent suggestion. Because of the typographical error in typing the text which was discussed previously, the hon. member is absolutely right when he says that the words "in carrying out the duties of the trustees" were omitted.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is it the same as line 27.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister would not mind calling it a stenographic error rather than a typographical error. I speak as a member of the international typographical union.


Guy Favreau: I am sorry. We will correct Hansard. In conformity with what has been said by the hon. member, the words "in carrying out the duties of the trustees" will be added after the words "promote the establishment of advisory councils of seamen and their representatives to advise and aid the trustees."


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister allow me to express my appreciation for the consideration which the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration have accorded to the suggestions made by myself, the hon. member for Peace River and also the

Business of the House
hon. member lor Timiskaming whose idea It still has to go through the other place and it originally was for the first amendment. We I think it is only sensible and reasonable appreciate the co-operation.	that third reading should be held on Monday.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the clause as amended carry?


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the preamble carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Burnaby-Coquitlam raised a point about the preamble. I wondered whether it has been considered.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, maybe we would not need to draft an amendment to meet the hon. member's point. I think it is a good point. The change would bring the preamble in line with the findings of the Norris commission. I think we could have the preamble read, "within a certain maritime union".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the preamble carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As amended.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As amended.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the preamble as amended carry?
Preamble as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Nowlan:: Let the press gallery write something now about parliament at its best. It would be a welcome change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the said bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Next sitting.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the third reading of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


William Arnold Peters: On division.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it is quite contrary to the rules for an amended bill to pass third reading without unanimous consent. I did not give unanimous consent. The house has done very good work tonight. This bill is not coming into force immediately.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member was engaged in conversation I think he did not hear the Chair ask for unanimous consent, although it was repeated twice. However, in view of the excellent co-operation there has been we would not wish to take any advantage of the situation. If there is any way in which it could be considered that this which has happened did not happen, I would hope that would be done, and that the house would unanimously agree that the bill did not receive third reading. The hon. gentleman, who has been most co-operative, as all hon. members have, obviously did not hear the Chair when the request for unanimous consent was made, and I hope there will be unanimous consent to forget that the matter was raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre might change his mind and give unanimous consent.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have no intention in the world of holding up the bill. It is not that there would be any debate on third reading on Monday on our part. It is just the method of procedure. I was paying very close attention and I think the Speaker did not hear me when I disagreed. But if it is the will of the house that the bill be given third reading now by unanimous consent I raise no further objection.
Bill read the third time and passed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I want to express to the whole house, but particularly to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, my appreciation of the really exceptional co-operation there has been throughout the whole day in dealing with a very controversial and a very difficult measure which I think we all feel, whatever way we may have voted, has involved a very distasteful duty we have had to discharge in this parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hope it will be recorded that the legislation was passed by the house in spite of frequent obstruction by the Secretary of State.


John Whitney Pickersgill: For which I apologize.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, now that we have clearly demonstrated to all concerned that parliament is a very excellent institution in the conduct of democracy, may we have from the Secretary of State the order of

Business of the House
business for Monday? I take it that unless be done until the proceedings of the com-there is some unusual emergency, this will mittee were available in both official lan-be a supply motion.	guages.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has anticipated completely what I was going to say. Unless there should be some situation, which I hope will not arise, which would make it necessary for the government to ask the house to do something else, it is the intention of the Minister of Finance to move to go into supply on Monday. I will try on Monday or Tuesday, after consultation with hon. gentlemen opposite, to forecast the business for the rest of the week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister when it is his intention to deal with the report of the committee on privileges and elections, which matter has now been hanging fire for quite a while.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very glad the hon. gentleman asked that question. I had hoped that my hon. friend from Hull (Mr. Caron) might be able to move concurrence in the report on Monday. I believe there was, however, an understanding that this would not


Erik Nielsen: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am told there is some difficulty in this connection. Although I believe the translators are working all night, I am not sure that this report will be available for Monday. If it is available, it would be the intention to have it dealt with on Monday. If it is not available until Tuesday, it would be dealt with on Tuesday. The government is very anxious to have this matter resolved as early as possible, as I think the whole house is. If it were possible to accept a version in only one language, or in one language without its being printed in the other, we might be able to abbreviate the situation. I would like to say how much I regret that it is not available right now, but I am afraid these are circumstances that are beyond anyone's control.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, Oclober 14, 1963