1963-10-10

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it was decided today that the Canadian government would make available to the Canadian Red Cross Society an amount of $20,000 for the provision of Canadian relief supplies to the peoples in the Caribbean area suffering from the destructive effects of hurricane Flora. Five thousand dollars of this amount has been earmarked for Tobago, and the remainder would be available for possible use in other areas affected in the Caribbean such as Jamaica, Haiti and Cuba, where the Red Cross considers the most effective use of this contribution can be made.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister regarding assistance to countries that have suffered from the hurricane in the Caribbean, is consideration being given to sending some of our surplus butter, powdered milk and other surplus food products to the assistance of these countries?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I agree with the hon. member that we should send them some butter but unfortunately most of these countries do not have refrigeration to take care of it. Under these circumstances we have to send them something which will keep in the hot weather.


Mr. Gregoire:: As a supplementary question, can the minister not send the butter and the refrigerators too?


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: At
the opening of our business, the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister announced, if I heard him correctly, that some $20,000 would be given by way of assistance to the Caribbean area to relieve the
distress caused there by the recent hurricane. I believe the hon. gentleman announced also that $5,000 of this amount would go to Tobago, which would leave $5,000 for Haiti, $5,000 for Cuba and $5,000 for Jamaica. May I ask the minister if he considers this an accurate reflection of the generosity of the Canadian people?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the hon. member understands that when decisions of this nature are made they are weighed by officials of the Department of External Affairs in consultation with the Canadian Red Cross. This is what was done on this occasion, and this is how the amount was arrived at.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him how the processes of mediation are operating in connection with the longshoremen's strike, and whether those processes give an indication of having arrived at the point of exhaustion. I also ask whether, under all the circumstances, the words of the Prime Minister in Toronto today would indicate that the government intends to act effectively now so as to assure that Canadian national interests shall no longer be permitted to deteriorate.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisler of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the right hon. gentleman that Judge Lippe had further discussions this morning. He is holding discussions as of this moment with both parties, and has indicated he is not yet satisfied that a settlement is impossible, and that he is continuing his activities.
There is no one more concerned than I about this particular dispute and its ramifications, but I do believe that having given this responsibility at this stage to Judge Lippe we ought to give him our confidence and support until he has exhausted all the mediation processes. That is all I would like to say at the moment.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister what has been done, if anything, to allow the passengers aboard the Empress of Canada to land. I understand that the representatives of the Canadian

Inquiries of the Ministry Weekly Newspapers Association are most desirous of getting home, and that yesterday they endeavoured to get off but have had to stay on the ship, at least until an hour or so ago. Has the minister any hope of the freedom from ransom of these newspapermen?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the task of the Department of Labour is to lend all assistance to the settlement of this dispute, of which this particular matter is a manifestation. With respect to any legal activities I think the right hon. gentleman should direct his question to the Minister of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: The question is so
directed.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has just brought up is one which has been engaging the attention of the government since it was first brought to our notice, and the position is that an interim injunction is being sought by the national harbours board which was to have been heard at 2.30 o'clock this afternoon. I have not received any information as to the disposition of it, and until I have I am not able to inform the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the minister say what is the nature of the injunction?


Lionel Chevrier: I understand the injunction is to restrict and restrain members of the I.L.A. from entering national harbours board property, so as to permit the disembarking of passengers from the Empress of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I would like to ask the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the requests of the longshoremen seem to be fair and reasonable, is there any indication that the companies are dragging their feet in the hope that compulsory arbitration will be imposed; and may I ask the minister whether he has given any thought to bringing the two parties together personally, with a view to seeing whether this problem can be resolved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be improper, much as I would like to accommodate my hon. friend, to attempt to describe the bargaining positions taken by the various parties with respect to the current mediation efforts. For that reason I cannot possibly attempt to describe what either party has attempted in the way of concessions at this stage. I have said that the government has assigned a very important responsibility to Judge Lippe, who is discharging that responsibility, I think, with a great deal of courage, skill and patience at the present, time.

It is our objective to support him until his efforts are concluded. That is the time when other matters that are under consideration might be decided upon. But I assure the hon. gentleman that the government is aware of the very serious aspects of this problem and has them under consideration, but no decision has been made with respect to further steps.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. Could he tell the house whether the meeting of Judge Lippe with the two parties this afternoon will be the last one before the government or the minister himself steps forward and takes over the mediation between the two parties?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the assumption behind that question is that Judge Lippe is going to fail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Because of reports which have come to my attention this morning I would ask the Minister of Labour, is it true that in the event of continued failure to settle the longshoremen's strike the government is contemplating making use of Canadian armed forces to load and unload shipping, in order to maintain essential shipping services?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no comment to make on that question, Mr. Speaker, which has within itself, it seems to me, the kind of possibility that will not assist in the settlement of this problem.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Henri Latulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In answer to a question I asked him the minister announced yesterday that the Canadian Pacific had filed an official protest because of the fact that the Empress of Canada was unable to anchor at Quebec city. Has the company asked the government to pay for the additional expenses thus incurred? Would the government agree to do so?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) is not here, may I point out that this question, and the second part in particular, does not seem to be urgent as it refers to future damages. I would suggest that it be put on the order paper.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question of the Minister of Agriculture. How long does the minister and his colleagues intend to allow the intolerable situation created by the longshoremen's strike to continue before taking positive action to protect the interests of the western farmers, and indeed of the whole Canadian economy?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, 1 have every confidence in the Minister of Labour that this will be resolved as soon as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Prime Minister back to the house after his sojourn in Toronto and would ask him a question with regard to the words he used today in his Canadian club speech in Toronto:
-that if the national interest is seriously and demonstrably damaged, if serious national consequences are flowing from a strike, and if all reasonable efforts at mediation are exhausted, then government must intervene to stop the strike-
Did he have reference to the longshoremen's strike when he made that statement?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that certainly was in my mind when I made that statement. But perhaps I had better put the full statement on the record, seeing that the right hon. gentleman has quoted part of the paragraph. I was talking about Canada's national purpose, and I quote from the text:
A strong Canadian national purpose rejects, I believe, the idea that the government should forcibly intervene in a labour dispute which has become a lawful strike after the required processes of collective bargaining have been exhausted; intervene, that is, in order to force men back to work.
But a strong national purpose means that if the national interest is seriously and demonstrably damaged, if serious national consequences are flowing from a strike, and if all reasonable efforts at mediation are exhausted, then the government must intervene to stop the strike.
I went on:
But the intervention should be of a character to get people back to work, and legislative measures for intervention do not always have that result. The intervention should also be of a kind to ensure that there is no prejudice to the interests of either the employee or the employer in a subsequent fair settlement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that additional words have been included by the Prime Minister over and above those that appear in the release he gave to the press. However, making due allowance for that, would the Prime Minister say now, 28902-5-216
Inquiries of the Ministry with regard to the various qualifications necessary to impel this indolent government to act, which of these qualifications are now regarded by the government as being in existence? Is there serious and demonstrable damage to the national interest? Are serious national consequences flowing from a strike? Does he think those elements have been established?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman characterizing this government as indolent in this matter is being as inaccurate as if I characterized his question as being entirely irresponsible.


Some hon. Members:: Arrogance.


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Pontiac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's statement today that the strike cannot go on indefinitely, will the Prime Minister state when he will take action to put an end to the strike if necessary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government will not step in until all the resources of mediation are exhausted. I am sure my hon. friend would agree with that procedure.


Paul Raymond Martineau: What did he mean by his statement that the strike would not go on indefinitely?



NORRIS COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether he has yet received a decision on the report made by the special counsel who were appointed to look into the Norris commission report to see whether any charges could be laid.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have the preliminary report. As I have indicated once before, that preliminary report is under discussion between the officers of the criminal section of the Department of Justice and the two counsel. As yet I have received no final decision.



OAKVILLE, ONT.  STRIKE AT FORD PLANT

Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Have representations been made to him about the wildcat strike in Oakville, Ontario at the plant of the Ford Company of Canada? Has the minister any statement to make in this regard?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would mind repeating his question?


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I was asking the minister whether he had received representations about the strike involving employees of the Ford company, in Oakville, Ontario, and whether he could make a statement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hope that is really under provincial jurisdiction.



WHITE PASS AND YUKON RAILROAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, but before doing so I want to speak on a question of privilege. I tried yesterday for 45 minutes to ask a question on a rather urgent matter, and I have been trying today for 50 minutes to do the same thing. Perhaps it has not been intentional on Your Honour's part, but hon. members all around me have been recognized. In so far as the numerical distribution in this house is concerned, three or four members from the small opposition parties to our left have been recognized.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You shouldn't stand sideways.


Erik Nielsen: This is quite out of all proportion with the representation in this house. I am sure Your Honour has seen me, because you have recognized the hon. member who sits to my right, the hon. member who sits to my left, the hon. member who sits in front of me and the hon. member who sits behind me. I do not know whether there is any purpose in refusing to recognize me, but I have stood on every single occasion after an answer has been given by the government.
The question I have to ask concerns a reply given to me by the Minister of Labour on October 8 last, when I directed a question to him concerning the strike of the shop and craft employees of the White Pass and Yukon route and referred to the very serious consequences that strike was having on the economy of the Yukon and the northwest generally.
The Minister of Labour told me he would be giving me a report on October 9, which was yesterday, and I am wondering whether he has yet anything to report on this matter.
[Mr. Belanger.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The labour situation in question is not exactly a strike. I understand the railroad laid off its employees in anticipation of possible action by the employees themselves. I understand that the Alaska mediator is ready to assist the parties to solve this difficulty.


Erik Nielsen: My question to the minister was: has he or any official of his department offered any assistance to those concerned with this labour problem which is affecting the economy of this area of Canada, in the hope that some solution may be found?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sure the Department of Labour intends to discharge its responsibilities in this situation as it is doing in others, but in this instance the responsibility lies primarily with the Alaska mediator. If there is anything we can do we shall be glad to do it.


Erik Nielsen: Here is a Canadian-based railroad which is being tied up by labour problems in the United States. Surely, the Minister of Labour could offer the facilities of his department in an effort to put this railroad back into operation so that the economy of the area would be revived.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence I shall ask the Acting Prime Minister to give me an answer.
When I put a question last week concerning the new nuclear bases, the Minister of National Defence replied that under the Canada-U.S. agreement, no new nuclear base would be established in Canada.
I would like to know if there is any truth in the rumour that a new nuclear base would be established at Val d'Or, in the riding of Villeneuve?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the statement made last week or early this week by the Minister of National Defence, in reply to the question put by the hon. member. Since the minister concerned is absent today, may I suggest to the hon. member for Villeneuve that he ask his question again when the minister returns.



U.S. REACTION TO CANADIAN SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the understanding between the Canadian and American governments and the fact that information regarding wheat sales by both countries is exchanged on a confidential basis, has the minister made a protest officially or unofficially to the United States government about the disclosure of this confidential information to the United States press and the consequential harm to the interests of western farmers and Canadian-United States relationships in general?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned the answer to the specific question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is no, we have not yet made any protest. I do not think at this particular time any such protest would be helpful. However, he may be assured that we are not very happy about the disclosure of confidential information provided to the United States government, particularly about sales that the Canadian wheat board has made to Japan.
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, in view of the question that has been asked, to say just a word about relationships between Canada and the United States in this field?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, naturally the hon. gentleman would have to ask to revert to motions so that we would have the opportunity of dealing with and dissecting the statement made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A dispatch from Washington this morning quotes spokesmen of the United States department of agriculture to the effect that on August 6 Canada dropped the price of wheat 6 cents a bushel to coincide with wheat sales to China. It claims that the sale to the U.S.S.R. was at the same price, and that the sale to Japan was at 5 cents below the world price. Will the minister confirm or deny these statements, and will he tell the house whether it is true, as the press report states, that on September 20 Canada assured United States representatives that no further fixed price agreements would be entered into following the wheat deal with the U.S.S.R.?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions asked by the hon. member 28902-5-216J
Inquiries of the Ministry for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I will see if I can answer them in order. First of all, the Canadian wheat board sells wheat from day to day at the prices that it publishes. The sale to mainland China was made at the published price of the wheat board on that day. So was the sale to the Soviet union, and so was the sale to Japan. As to the suggestion that the price on any of these occasions was below the world market price, I simply do not know what is meant by the question. The Canadian wheat board fixes its sale price from day to day and that is the price, and it sells at that price to all buyers on that day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What the report implies is not just that the price to China was 6 cents below the world price but that it was dropped 6 cents below what the board had previously been asking in order to coincide with the agreement. I wonder if the minister would give us some information on that claim.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it is well known to all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that when the sale was made to China the wheat board did reduce its price, and that remained its price until there was a change.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any justifiable reason why the Minister of Trade and Commerce cannot divulge this information to the House of Commons, in view of the fact that the Department of Trade and Commerce and the wheat board have already divulged this information to the general public?


Mitchell William Sharp: The wheat board never divulges information about its sales contracts.


Stanley James Korchinski: Everybody knows except us.


Mitchell William Sharp: The information that was divulged the other day about sales to Japan was not divulged by the wheat board. No announcement was made. I agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that this was a leak.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether it is true that the United States has threatened to launch a trade war against Canada because of Canada's wheat selling practices. Also, perhaps he will clear up the matter if he could tell the house whether or not there have been any previous agreements such as the forward pricing arrangements contained in the recent wheat deal with Japan?


Mitchell William Sharp: As to the first question, the hon. member knows as much as I do. I have heard no suggestion that there is going to be any

Inquiries of the Ministry trade war between Canada and the United States, and I very much doubt it. As to the second question, whether there have been any other forward sales such as those reported, the answer is yes.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he advise the house whether the contracts signed with China and Russia contain provision for price during the duration of those contracts, or whether there would be negotiation as to quantities and prices during the period?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have explained those transactions on a number of occasions, but in order to refresh the memory of the hon. gentleman, when the contract was entered into by the wheat board for the sale of wheat to mainland China the agreement was for three years. At that time I announced that of the quantity, covered by the agreement, which was a substantial quantity, 500,000 tons had been the subject of a contract on which the price was fixed. In the case of the Soviet union the contract called for delivery within the present crop year and the price was fixed.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I, too, have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The hon. gentleman made a statement that the wheat board sold at a fixed price. May I ask him if there is more than one fixed price per day for the wheat board?


Mitchell William Sharp: My understanding is that the board fixes its price each day and does not vary it during the day. I do not wish to say this is invariably the practice, but it is the practice as I have known it.


Stanley James Korchinski: Is there any occasion
on which the Department of Trade and Commerce or the wheat board have ever entered into an agreement where there has been a fixed price arrangement for the future?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a question for the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister did not reply to the second part of my question. I regret that I was not able to give him notice of my intention to ask it, but the second part of my question was this. On September 20 did representatives of the Canadian government give to representatives of the United States an assurance that following the wheat agreement with the Soviet union no further fixed price agreements would be entered into by Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to that question is no.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been asked over and over again. However, I should like to know if the minister has taken steps to absolve the Canadian wheat board from the accusations of price fixing, and thus protect and encourage the Canadian wheat board?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members know that Canada and the United States are competitors in the wheat markets of the world. They are friendly competitors; nevertheless they are very keen competitors. Each of us is anxious to maintain our business and to get new business. Each of us, I believe, is also very anxious to see some stability in world markets. This is one of the reasons that we are both members of the international wheat agreement, whose purpose is to stabilize world wheat markets. It is under the auspices of the international wheat agreement, and otherwise, that we carry on consultations from time to time with the United States.
Hon. members will recall, for example, that when a joint committee on trade and economic affairs was established many years ago, a committee was established at that time for the very purpose of consulting with one another about wheat policies in order to stabilize the wheat markets of the world. I have no hesitation in saying that this is the purpose of the Canadian government as well as of the Canadian wheat board.
Now, there have been times when our two governments have not seen eye to eye on our respective policies.


Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: May I raise a point of order. I think a suggestion was made earlier that if this matter was going to be discussed it should be done by reverting to motions so the different parties might have an opportunity to present their views.


Mr. Speaker:: I am inclined to think the explanation is a bit lengthy; nevertheless there have been a series of questions which tend toward a long answer.


Henry Frank Jones: I wonder if the house would give permission to revert to motions? This is a very important matter.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Henry Frank Jones: Despite the "no's" from the Liberal side, I understand the minister has a statement prepared on this subject and would be delighted to give it. We asked him about this yesterday, and it is vital to know about the breakdown in the exchange of information between Canada and the United States. I think the minister is prepared to make a statement, and it is vital in view

of the fact a protest has been lodged by the United States government with the Canadian government.


Mr. Pickersgill:: May I speak to the point of order, which is an important one. However, it does seem to me it is not very reasonable for hon. members to read long statements which purport to be questions, and then when a serious matter is raised as a question, a minister, who was not reading but simply giving an answer, is prevented by procedural difficulties from making his reply. I suggest we get on with the business of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon.


Henry Frank Jones: In view of the lateness of the hour I will forgo my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the Canada-United States wheat information hassle. I shall wait until the hon. gentleman makes his statement.


Mitchell William Sharp: When other hon. members
asked questions of that sort I thought the best way of answering them would be along those lines; that was why I made the statement I did.



BULGARIA


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In view of the fact that Mr. Boudinov, Bulgaria's trade minister, wanted to negotiate in French for the purchase of wheat, was the agreement signed with Bulgaria written in the two official languages of Canada, that is in both French and English?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I say to my hon. friend that even though I am rather inadequate in the language I carried on negotiations in French with Mr. Boudinov. As to the document, this was placed before me in the customary way by the Department of External Affairs, and I assume it was acceptable to both sides.


Maurice Côté: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I asked the hon. minister if the agreement itself was drawn up in French.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these negotiations were in the hands of my officials, and so far as I know they carried them on in a lan-
Inquiries of the Ministry guage that was acceptable to both sides. I am really in no position to answer the question. The document was before me in Bulgarian and in English.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: I do not
have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question is addressed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I regret not having been able to give him notice of it. Having learned that yet another acting superintendent has been appointed for the Prince Edward Island national park, I should like to ask the minister whether he plans to revert to the practice of his predecessor and appoint a full time year round superintendent for this park which, as the hon. gentleman's departmental statistics indicate-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -has the second largest attendance figure-


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.



LOTTERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: I have a question which I should like to address to the Minister of Justice. Inasmuch as the Moncton Daily Times of Saturday last contains an eight column heading, a three column illustration and a front page box relating the 1,075 names of would-be moose hunters which were drawn by a minister of the crown from a huge barrel containing 15,459 tickets, would the hon. gentleman advise the house when the attorney general of New Brunswick granted the minister of lands and forests of New Brunswick the right to conduct this fourth annual lottery in contravention of section 179 of the Criminal Code?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a question for the order paper.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question.

Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the reports from Washington to the effect that the present differences between Canada and the United States on our wheat sales and our putting the shipping unions under trusteeship might very well result in a crisis between the two countries, can the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether a meeting of the Prime Minister and Mr. Kennedy has been planned for the near future?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to bring this question to the attention of the Prime Minister. Meanwhile, I say that the government, through the Minister of Labour and other ministers interested in the question, are spending most of their time seeing to it that such a situation as the hon. member mentioned does not arise.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the efforts just mentioned by the Acting Prime Minister met with success?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think that, under the present circumstances of the labour dispute, the answer is yes.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DAM COLLAPSE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, but in his absence maybe the Acting Prime Minister would answer it or take it as notice. It arises out of a report in the Globe and Mail this morning regarding the collapse of the Vaiont dam in Italy. As I represent a riding with a large number of Italian-Cana-dian citizens, I wonder whether the minister can make a statement as to the welfare and safety of the people affected by this disaster. I am sure that many other Canadians would also be interested.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member did not give me notice of his question I understand that he did refer it to the Department of External Affairs as did also, I must advise the house, the hon. member for Hamilton West. The answer is that I have, of course, seen in the newspapers the report of the collapse of the Vaiont dam yesterday and a message of sympathy is being sent by the Canadian government to the Italian prime minister. We have made inquiries from our embassy in Rome and expect to hear shortly as to the extent of the disaster and the welfare of any Canadians in the area.


ETHIOPIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Following the recent visit of the Emperor of Ethiopia to Canada, could the minister inform the house if diplomatic relations will be established between the two countries, to comply with a wish expressed by the emperor himself?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I had talks with the Emperor of Ethiopia and the question of diplomatic relations between our two countries did not come up. The Prime Minister also had talks with him but I am not aware of the matters they discussed. I believe the Prime Minister would be able to answer that question and I suggest that it be put to him when he comes back.


APPOINTMENT OF NEW AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
When does he think he will be able to inform the house of the appointment of a new Canadian ambassador to France, to replace Mr. Pierre Dupuy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Dupuy is at this time the ambassador to France. He is on retirement. When a replacement to Mr. Dupuy is decided on, an announcement will be made.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he is now able to answer the question I asked him on Monday, namely whether the urgent representations of the board of control and mayor of the city of Toronto that the winter works program should be extended have been dealt with by him or by the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member because I promised I would have an answer

for him earlier. I wanted to have a conversation about this matter with the Prime Minister, and it has not been possible to do that in the detail I should like. Just as soon as that is done I will be able to give the hon. member an answer.



CONCESSIONS TO FOREIGN COMPANIES MOVING INTO DESIGNATED AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry. Would a foreign owned company receive the same concessions as a Canadian owned company moving into a designated area?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is yes.


Percy Verner Noble: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would this not be contradictory of government policy as designated in the budget?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is no.



REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
A few minutes ago the minister announced that financial assistance was being given to certain areas recently devastated by a hurricane. Could the minister tell us why he was unable to do the same thing when numerous victims in Abitibi needed help last June?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as regards the question raised by the hon. member I believe our position to be quite clear. It has been explained in this house time and again, both by the Prime Minister and myself.
When a municipality or a region finds itself in a difficult situation, it must first ask for help from the provincial authorities and, if those authorities are not able to assist those who are suffering, they refer the request to the federal authorities. I do not know of any situation where the federal government, in such circumstances, has refused to act.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern
Inquiries of the Ministry Affairs and National Resources when the house may expect an announcement from him with respect to the study and report thereon as to the possibility of keeping the so-called Haines cut-off open on a year round basis?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, not only the Haines road is involved in the studies being made. As I indicated to the house recently, the report has not yet been received. When it is received I would hope that we could make some announcement in respect of general transportation requirements in that territory.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the urgency involved in this matter because of the pending closure of the Haines road at the end of this month for the coming winter season?


Arthur Laing: I am aware that there is a deadline, which I think is October 31.



NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwesf Territories):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and arises out of a statement he made yesterday on orders of the day to the effect that it will be government policy to allow crown corporations to engage in direct competition with private industry in shipping in the Northwest Territories. My question is this. Is the minister aware that the minister of northern affairs recently made a statement to the effect that it is government policy that the government withdraw from direct competition in the Northwest Territories?


Arthur Laing: If I may
intercede at this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to deny categorically that I made the statement which the hon. member attributes to me. I was in the Northwest Territories and so was he. I said repeatedly that I thought the future of the Northwest Territories rested in the encouragement into that area of more private capital and private enterprise. I did not make the statement that he says I made.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I raised this matter yesterday and the hon. gentleman gave me a good answer. Perhaps he could give me further details as to equipment. Is the Northern Transportation Company going to be in a position to put the L.S.M. into use?



Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: The maritime commission refused Northern Transportation permission to use the L.S.M., so they have not purchased the equipment.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
Has the minister or the officials of his department replied to the statements made by the spokesman of the Trucking Association of Canada, Mr. Chapman, who accused, on October 8 last, the federal government of ignoring the trucking industry in Canada by granting increased subsidies to the railroads? [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: This question, I am sorry to say, is out of order.



OTTAWA-TIMMINS    REPORTED DIFFICULTY IN OBTAINING RESERVATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport which could possibly help him solve one of the problems presented to him a few minutes ago regarding the railway layoffs. Would he investigate the apparent complete breakdown in transportation between Ottawa and Timmins which makes it impossible for one to get a reservation, either by T.C.A. or C.N.R., even when requested two days in advance; and having investigated, would he see if something could be done to correct this deplorable situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Could the question be put on the order paper?



PEACE RIVER-APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, on July 2 last the Minister of Justice, in response to a question from me, said that his officials were looking into the matter of whether the work proceeding on the Peace river dam under the authority of the British Columbia government or an agency thereof was in contravention of the Navigable Waters

Protection Act. Can the minister now say whether he has received an opinion from counsel on this question?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I did get a reply for my hon. friend. I had it before me in the house on a number of occasions. I am sorry I have not got it with me now but I will have it tomorrow.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister seen a copy of the October bulletin issued by William M. Mercer Limited, a private firm of consulting actuaries, in which reference is made to the report of the chief government actuary on the Canada pension plan as being comprehensive, highly competent and expert? Can she assure the house that when the revised Canada pension plan is brought before us she will obtain another actuarial report from the chief actuary?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member say another actuarial report?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister obtain another report from the chief government actuary to fit the revised plan that she will bring down, in view of this reference to the expertness of the report we have already had?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is already in process of preparation, Mr. Speaker.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietie-L'Assomption-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Why does the government reverse all of the B.B.G.'s decisions concerning the granting of licences to radio and television stations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe, sir, the statement is correct, but if the hon. gentleman wishes to put a question on the order paper I will endeavour to satisfy his curiosity.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio. Could the minister tell the house whether he intends to insist with the government on the construction of a branch line between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts, as requested by the chamber of commerce of Gaspe North?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the government is considering the matter and when a decision is reached it will be announced in the house.



MONCTON, N.B.  INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED LAY-OFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fair weather (Royal): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask what action the Minister of Transport proposes to take to avoid the lay-off of Canadian National employees in the stores department at Moncton, New Brunswick, which is scheduled to occur tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker:: That is a question for the order paper.


Mr. Fairweather:: If I may speak to the question of order, the lay-offs will take place tomorrow. Surely that is urgent.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say a word on the question of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you that under the former government when questions of this nature were proposed it was always stated by the then Speaker that questions having to do with Canadian National Railways, particularly with reference to unemployment or employment, should be put on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure that is not quite correct.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I know.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice, with his record with the Canadian National and in view of the expectation that he would accept the presidency, surely must think this is a matter of importance.


Lionel Chevrier: I must indicate my appreciation to the right hon. gentleman for such
28902-5-217
Inquiries of the Ministry personal remarks; none the less the ruling which was made on those occasions was as I have stated.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Since the question of order has not been settled and the lay-offs are scheduled for October 11, this is now October 10, surely I am entitled to an announcement about the action the minister proposes to take.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The day before yesterday the hon. member for Westmorland brought this matter to my attention and brought me certain telegrams he had received. I received also some telegrams from the local unions, so I immediately sent a telegram to the management of Canadian National Railways asking for full information on the subject. I will give an answer to the hon. member when I receive it.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: May
I ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. Is it true that all leave for the R.C.M.P. and the Canadian army in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario has been cancelled as of today?


Lionel Chevrier: If that is so I am certainly not aware of it. I spoke to the chief commissioner less than an hour ago, and I have no indication of that at all.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My question arises from a newspaper report concerning a move to separate the Quebec provincial Liberal organization from the federal party.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I want to ask the minister seriously whether this is one of the reasons for her hesitancy in forecasting the future of the Canada pension plan?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is obviously out of order.

Inquiries of the Ministry
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE	Mr. Graffley: Wait a minute-



INQUIRY AS TO COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the problems we have had in the last parliament and again during this session, does the minister anticipate setting up the committee on rules and procedures in the immediate future?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated, and I think I have also indicated to the house on several occasions, that the government would like very much to get this committee set up if it could be done with reasonable expedition without interfering with other more urgent business. But, sir, I question whether there is much point in considering the changing of the rules if there is not going to be some observance of the rules we now have.



INQUIRY AS TO CALLING OF AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman tell us whether the agriculture committee will be convened this session and, if possible, when?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The committee will convene this session whenever the chairman of that committee is in a position to call it. It will meet, I assume.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, that is to say to the Minister of Justice. Could the minister tell the house whether the officers of his department have initiated an investigation about the attack on Alvin Gunn, an inmate at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary? Does the minister intend to make a statement in the house on that matter?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford.


William Heward Grafftey: On a point of order, this question involves an attack on an inmate of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary by guards at the penitentiary. It is a very important question. I merely asked the minister whether his department is making an investigation and whether he has the intention of making a statement in the House of Commons. It involves a great and urgent question of human dignity which the house would like to be seized of.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no doubt about the importance of the question, but the attack is over and has been over for some days.


William Heward Grafftey: On a further point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: This reaction from the house in general-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this reaction from the house in general-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. What response, administratively, has he made, if any, to the strictures and criticisms expressed by a judge in a Montreal court about the beatings that took place at St. Vincent de Paul prison?


David Vaughan Pugh: That question must be out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: If I am allowed to answer the question, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the moment I saw the report in the press of the evidence, I asked the commissioner of penitentiaries to make an immediate investigation. That has been done, and I expect a report in due course.


Léon Balcer: Why didn't you say that a moment ago?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not get an opportunity. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi walked out.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Justice if this evidence of beatings was uncovered in the first investigation of the St. Vincent de Paul episode?


Lionel Chevrier: My information is that it was not, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that it would follow as a logical consequence that the last two questions should have been put on the order paper. I refused a question from the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). I do not think we should pursue that question any further.


Edward Nasserden: I wish to raise a point of order, and it has to do with what happened in the house today. With all due deference I believe an apology is owed to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


Mr. Speaker:: Apart from any other consideration, it so happens that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is an intimate personal friend of mine, and I do not think he took any personal offence at all. The question was obviously one for the order paper. There was no particular urgency about it, in that the attack mentioned had already taken place; one cannot recall an attack which is over. The details were details of a sort which the minister could not be expected to recall on the spur of the moment, and for these reasons I suggested that the question be placed on the order paper.
Then the issue seemed to enter a period of argument, and in order to save the time of the house and to prevent argument about the rulings or suggestions made by the Chair I indicated that the matter was over. I do not think there is much more to add than that. I am sure the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi who, as I have already said, is a personal friend of mine, did not take any personal offence. Certainly none was meant.


Edward Nasserden: I would agree with much of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, but I also think that what took place after the hon. member had left the chamber leaves something to be desired as far as his privileges in the house are concerned. If it was right for him to be cut off, then the other hon. member should have been cut off, too, and prevented from giving the answer he gave. The Minister of Justice answered the question which the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi had asked after someone else asked the question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: We are getting into a debate and I am sure none of us want to do that. But if the hon. member will check his Hansard he will find I said that in view of the fact that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi had been refused permission to press his question, questioning on that subject should stop, and it was stopped. In my opinion those answers should not have been made 28902-,')-217*
Inquiries of the Ministry by the Minister of Justice or anyone else, and the other questions should not have been asked. But it is not always possible to control proceedings on the spur of the moment.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Following a report from New York concerning the extermination of five million pigeons, have municipal authorities in Ottawa and Toronto requested the services of experts from her department to study the possible dangers of contamination in those cities by pigeons suspected of spreading mortal diseases?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the greatest difficulty in hearing some of these questions, and I wonder could we have a little more attention to this serious matter.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I submit that I was not referring to any hon. member.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to ask those people on the other side of the house to be quiet while other hon. members are speaking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that we have been on questions for a full hour now-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I hope I may be heard by the other side of the house. We have been on questions for a full hour here today-


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: -when a very extraordinary and urgent piece of legislation-


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: -which has been demanded for weeks by the opposition-


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: -is before the house for consideration.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order-

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking on a point of order, sir. I am simply drawing this matter respectfully to Your Honour's attention, and through Your Honour to the attention of the house.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not customary in the house when hon. members rise to address the Chair that they only have the privilege of doing so when they are recognized by the Chair? I would draw your attention to the fact that the Secretary of State continually gets on his feet, and without getting recognition from the Chair he continues to speak first.


Lionel Chevrier: He was on his feet first.


Malcolm MacInnis: It is time order was applied to that side of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I was recognized by the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I am inclined to admit that on occasion I have difficulties with the Secretary of State.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. Would he have some comments to make on the statement of the mayor of Ottawa, Miss Whitton, to the effect that there is an obvious lack of co-ordination between the management of the national capital commission and the Ottawa civic authorities?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I read that statement and I may say that the mayor of Ottawa is free to express her own opinions, specially concerning any organization which has to deal with the city of Ottawa.
As far as I am concerned, I take this opportunity to say that the chairman and the members of the national capital commission perform a remarkable job.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the city of Ottawa and the other municipalities located in the national capital region be represented on the committee which will consider the Parkin report recommendations?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher).


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, the minister was going to give an answer.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I will
take the question as notice and answer it in a few days.



CONSIDERATION FOR STAFF DURING WEEK END SITTINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the house is going to sit on Thanksgiving day, and in view of the fact that it looks as though we might have to sit on Saturday- and maybe Sunday as well and thus make it a long week end-to get some business done, can the minister say whether consideration will be given to making arrangements so that all the staff of the House of Commons does not have to be here all the hours that we may be sitting?
If perchance we are sitting on both Saturday and Monday, and another holiday later on, perhaps there could be some dividing up so the members of our staff get some of these days off even though we are here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure His Honour the Speaker and the officials of the house make every endeavour on all such occasions to do the best they can in the circumstances. The hon. gentleman has now brought the matter to their attention, and I have complete confidence that the views he has expressed will be their views.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the Speaker does not have any trouble with the Secretary of State on this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He will have none.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Can the Minister of Labour indicate to the house if there is likely to be any early announcement on government policy which would permit the Nova Scotia government to finance and build a heavy water plant, possibly within the hon. gentleman's constituency?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the Nova Scotia government is entirely responsible for this matter, as the hon. member suggests, why does he direct his question to the Minister of Labour of this government?


Malcolm MacInnis: The hon. member for Cape Breton South did not suggest that the Nova Scotia government was fully responsible for it. He said the government of Nova Scotia was prepared to build and finance such a plant. The only requirement from the federal government-and the minister is aware of this-is a statement as to whether Atomic Energy of Canada will buy the product, and he himself has stated publicly he is pushing to have this installation in his own constituency.



MARITIME TRANSPORTATION UNIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, October 9, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the placing of the maritime transportation unions of Canada under the management and control of trustees; to provide for the establishment of the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions consisting of a chairman and two other members; to provide for the payment of their remuneration and expenses and to authorize the employment and remuneration of such personnel as may be necessary for the carrying out of the duties and powers of the trustees under the said measure.
Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes which I had yesterday I said that the labour movement in Canada for historical reasons was opposed in principle to the idea of government intervention in the internal business of labour unions; but because of the record of violence and intimidation the executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress, having amongst its members the top officers of Canadian unions both national and international, met this week in Ottawa and reluctantly approved the proposal of the government of Canada to impose a trusteeship on the maritime unions, and particularly on the S.I.U.
It did so because in the opinion of the labour movement the S.I.U. is not a legitimate trade union. The labour movement in Canada is proud of the fact that in nearly every case the unions in Canada are democratic. They are being conducted honestly. They are keeping their members informed about what goes on and getting approval from their members of decisions which are made. The salaries paid to union officers are set by union conventions. Expenses for union business are carefully audited. In the history of the Canadian labour movement there has been little evidence of misuse of funds. Most of the unions in Canada, like the ladies garment workers, the steel workers, the packing house workers, have pioneered, in
Maritime Transportation Unions regular and frequent reports to their membership, the giving of full financial reports.
If we look at the report of Justice Norris we see how differently the affairs of the seafarers international union were conducted. Justice Norris reports that in the course of four years, namely from 1959 to 1962, Mr. Banks had expenses of over $80,000 for which he provided vouchers for just over $8,000. In that period of time Mr. Banks increased the salary paid himself and other top officials of the union without getting the approval of the membership and without reporting it to the members. No legitimate trade union in Canada or the United States would permit such activity and no legitimate trade union leader would be a partner to that. Mr. Justice Norris reports that thousands of dollars of union funds were spent on a lavish apartment for the personal use of Mr. Banks. He also reports that union funds were used for air travel for friends or relatives of Mr. Banks who had nothing to do with the business of the union.
This is not the way for any legitimate trade unionist to act, Mr. Chairman, and it is not surprising therefore that the labour movement has agreed to trusteeship. Mr. Banks was able to keep control of the union by the use of the "do not ship" list, and later by the "report of charges" cards. Thousands of workers were prevented by this method from working, although the whole system was declared illegal by the courts. But the workers knew that if they were put on this list they would lose completely their opportunity to work. Under those circumstances they had no alternative but to take orders from Mr. Banks and his henchmen.
Justice Norris has documented the use of violence and intimidation by the S.I.U. under the direction of Mr. Banks. In schedule 31 of the Norris report there are listed the acts of violence and intimidation, and hon. members ought to read this to see how people were beaten, how others were subjected to telephone harassment. There was the ransacking of offices, damage to property, firing with guns on ships and stoning of vessels. The power of Mr. Banks over the whole industry can be seen very clearly from a letter which a Captain Watson wrote to Mr. Banks and which I want to read into the record. It is to be found at page 208 of the report. It is dated October 7, 1954, and is addressed to Mr. Hal Banks, president, S.I.U., Montreal.
Dear Mr. Banks,
In regards to a letter I wrote about two months ago to the newspaper in Owen Sound, Ontario.
In this letter I made some disparaging remarks about you for which I now tender my sincere and humble apologies.
The main body of the letter I copied from a Toronto newspaper, but have since come to the

Maritime Transportation Unions
conclusion that the write up in the newspaper was an attempt to attack the union, through its leaders, and I was sucked in as probably some others were. However I was foolish enough to go into print with my opinions and must now offer my apology, this along with my avowal to refrain from any comments about you or anybody else is all I can offer to you in the way of reparation.
My job and my family's welfare depend now entirely on your mercy.
I hope you will accept my apology and in your benevolence allow me to keep my job so I can keep my family.
If there is anything I can do to square this with you I will most earnestly do so.
Yours very sincerely
J. M. Watson S.S. George Hindman.
I want to point out that this letter was written on the stationery of the Hindman Transportation Company Limited. Following that letter Justice Norris says, according to page 208 of the report:
Howard Hindman, the president of the company, was cross-examined by commission counsel, and he admitted that as a result of a telephone call from Banks, Captain George Hindman, then head of the company, "suggested" that Watson write the letter. Howard Hindman admitted that Watson "must have been in a frantic state when he wrote a letter like that".
In other words, so great is the power of Mr. Banks that the president of a shipping company with which Mr. Banks does business permits the captain of a ship to write this kind of abject letter. It is no wonder that Mr. Banks felt that he could do virtually anything in this country. Justice Norris has given a very short and descriptive impression of Mr. Banks which I think should be put on the record. He says, as reported at page 249:
Banks is capable, decisive, egocentric, intolerant and ruthless. He is of the stuff of the Capones and the Hoff as of whom the dictators throughout history, from the earliest times to the totalitarians, Hitler and Stalin, are prototypes. He is a bully, cruel, dishonest, greedy, power hungry, contemptuous of the law. In his mouth, the use of the word "democracy" is sheer blasphemy. For him the big lie" and the failure to remember are ever-ready weapons and shields.
Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Banks is not by any stretch of the imagination representative of the real labour leaders of this country. It is being suggested by some newspapers and commentators that somehow labour is responsible for Mr. Banks, that all labour should be tarred with the same brush. It is forgotten by many people that it was the C.L.C. which expelled Mr. Banks and the S.I.U. from the ranks of organized labour; that it was the C.L.C. which forced the former government to act on the cancer by closing the seaway. It was the C.L.C. which asked the government to take whatever steps were necessary to clear up the mess. It was the C.L.C. which urged Justice Norris to bring forward any recommendations necessary to [Mr. Orlikow.I
clear up the situation. The C.L.C. has also accepted his report, even though it is in principle opposed to trusteeship. But, Mr. Chairman, no gangster can get power and keep power unless the people he works with co-operate. Labour has acted on its own in so far as it could by expelling the S.I.U. from the labour movement. Mr. Justice Norris has made proposals with respect to controlling the unions in the industry and we are now being asked to act upon them. But despite the fact that Mr. Justice Norris has some very scathing things to say about the companies in the industry, we have not yet had any suggestion by the government that steps will be taken to apply the same kind of sanctions against the companies as will be applied against the unions concerned.
I think it should be of interest to the public to know something about the industry, and particularly about the largest company in the industry which Mr. Justice Norris has blamed for being responsible for the difficulties to a great extent, and for permitting Mr. Banks to continue as he did. I want to put on the record the names of some of the distinguished, shall I call them, directors of Canada Steamship Lines Limited. This information can be found in the directory of directors issued by the Financial Post. The president is T. R. McLagan and the vice president is H. A. Cresswell. The directors are D. W. Ambridge, G. C. Bateman, Hon. T. A. Crerar, J. H. Davey, A. O. Dufresne, Sir Philip Dunn, D. S. Holbrook, W. H. Howard, J. A. Mathewson, Gordon McMillan, K. A. Powell, R. W. Milner, H. A. Cresswell and T. R. McLagan.
Let us look at these people, because they are not only directors of Canada Steamship Lines. Mr. McLagan, besides being president and general manager of Canada Steamship Lines, is a director and member of the executive committee of the Algoma Steel Corporation, a director of Abitibi Power and Paper Company, British Petroleum Canada Limited, Canadair Limited, the Foundation Company of Quebec Limited and the Royal Bank of Canada.
Mr. Cresswell, besides being a director of Canada Steamship Lines, is vice president and director of Century Coal Company Limited and a director of Reliance Insurance Company. Mr. Ambridge, besides being a director of Canada Steamship Lines, is president of Abitibi Power and Paper Company Limited and a director of Canadian Petrofina Limited, the Montreal Trust Company and the Royal Bank of Canada. Hon. T. A. Crerar, besides being a senator and a director of Canada Steamship Lines, is chairman of the advisory committee of the Eastern Trust Company and a director of the Great West Life

Assurance Company. Mr. Dufresne is a director of Noranda Mines Limited and of Gaspe Copper Mines Limited. Mr. Holbrook is president and chairman of the Algoma Steel Corporation and a director of the Royal Bank of Canada.
I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but it is obvious that these people between them constitute a veritable who's who of Canadian business. I suggest they have some responsibility, and I want to put on the record some of the activities of the top officials who work for them, because their role in this sordid story is really an infamous one. Mr. Dunker-ley, the personnel manager of Canada Steamship Lines in charge of labour relations, is in my opinion a disgrace to legitimate business. He ignored the law. He conspired with Mr. Banks.
For members who may question my characterization of him, let me read from the report presented by Mr. Justice Norris. I quote from page 54:
In February of 1959, Dunkerley, personnel manager of the C.S.L. in charge of labour relations, advised Greaves that the C.S.L. had signed a collective agreement with the S.I.U. licensed division in spite of the fact that that company had a collective bargaining agreement with N.A.M.E. Greaves testified that when he pointed out to Dunkerley that the action of the C.S.L. in signing an agreement with the S.I.U. was illegal, Dunkerley said:
"Did you read the statement I made a couple of days ago before our management associations? There are no teeth in the labour laws. Have a look at the act. First of all you have to go to the minister and get permission to prosecute. That will take you a couple of months. We will kick it around in the courts here for a year and if necessary we will take it to the Supreme Court of Canada. This will take about two years."
Greaves swore that Dunkerley told him that there would be merely a fine if the company was found guilty.
"We have assurance from Mr. Banks of indemni-".cation. By this time you will be out of business if you do not get your dues coming in, you know that. That is the way of life."
I suggest this is conspiracy. Some time ago I put a question on the order paper asking whether the government was considering the prosecution of the officials of the company concerned. It may be that the directors whom I have mentioned did not bother with the day to day operations of the company and did not know the kind of operation Mr. Dunkerley was conducting, but surely they knew about it after the Norris report came out. But still there is no action against Mr. Dunkerley. I presume that if he comes to Ottawa he will be a welcome guest at the Rideau club, along with all the other members of the establishment who are welcome there.
It is a sad state of affairs when you look at the principles on which businessmen are
Maritime Transportation Unions basing their operations. What about the business ethics of Canada Steamship Lines? Let us turn to the Norris report again. On pages 142 and 143 there is a fantastic story by Mr. Banks in which he claims that Canada Steamship Lines, this great organization directed by some of the greatest and wealthiest businessmen in the country, had a plan to transfer their whole Canadian operations from Canada to Bermuda. Why? So they could get out of paying the legitimate income taxes which they would have to pay in this country.
Mr. Banks has been called a lot of things and he may have been lying on this occasion, but it is significant that Canada Steamship Lines did not take occasion, as I am sure they would have if Mr. Banks had been lying or exaggerating, to ask for the right to appear before Mr. Justice Norris to deny the story which Mr. Banks put on the record. Therefore I have to assume that this is an honest statement and that this is what their intentions were. The fact that they did not go through with it is a separate matter, but these are the kind of people who are running one of the biggest companies in an important Canadian industry.
Banks has been expelled from the labour movement but Mr. Dunkerley remains as a top official of Canada Steamship Lines. Mr. Banks' union is being put under trusteeship, or will be as soon as the legislation proposed is passed by parliament, I assume. I hope that one of the first steps the trustees will take will be to see that Mr. Banks is fired as head of the S.I.U. and that he no longer has any position or influence in the Canadian branch of the S.I.U.
What about Canada Steamship Lines? What about Mr. Dunkerley? No action has yet been proposed. To some of us, Mr. Chairman, it looks like we have one law for labour misdeeds and another law for management misdeeds, in fact, no law for management misdeeds, which makes it even worse. If we can devise a law to put the union under trusteeship, surely the very competent lawyers and other technical people in the Department of Labour and Department of Justice could devise amendments to laws such as the Canada Shipping Act, so that companies and their officers who break Canadian laws will be penalized.
But nothing has been suggested, Mr. Chairman. I for one wonder why. I think the Minister of Labour should give us the reasons why there has been no suggestion of any move on the part of the government to punish companies, which are just as guilty of offences against the Canadian people and against the law as are Mr. Banks and the S.I.U.

Maritime Transportation Unions
But, Mr. Chairman, we need not have waited until 1963 to act in this matter. We have heard a great deal from the former prime minister and the former minister of labour about the friendship of Mr. Banks for the Liberal party. I believe that has been and can be documented. However, it is not my intention to add to that criticism. The members of the Liberal government will have to answer for that themselves. The former government had an opportunity to act in this connection.
In 1959, Mr. Bernard Wilson, the director of industrial relations, Department of Labour, received a letter from Mr. Misener of Scott Misener Steamships Limited. I believe this letter has already been read into the record on several occasions. In this letter Mr. Misener informed Mr. Wilson that, despite an agreement which his company had with another union which had been certified, his company proposed to ignore the certification and signed an agreement with Mr. Banks' union. Along with that letter, there was a copy of a letter from Mr. Banks guaranteeing the company's indemnification if they were sued for damages.
Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wilson's reputation is well known in the Canadian labour movement. I cannot believe for one moment that Mr. Wilson did not consider that a violation of the Canada labour relations act was a serious offence. I cannot believe for a moment that Mr. Wilson did not report this case to the former minister of labour or that the former minister of labour did not report the matter to the then prime minister. We have to ask ourselves, therefore, why the former government did not prosecute the company and the S.I.U. at that time. Had they done that, Mr. Chairman, in all likelihood, we would not be faced with the problems with which we are now faced. We have a right to ask what pressures were brought upon the former government, and by whom. We can only speculate on this, although there are some rather interesting rumors in this connection.
It is certain, too, that the procrastination of the former government, as well as the failure of the Liberal government to deport Mr. Banks when they had not only the right but the obligation to do so, has cost us dearly and has contributed to the condition on the great lakes. We need to take action to clean up this unholy mess. While we are taking action we need to make certain that all the guilty people are punished, whether they are the so-called labour leaders like Mr. Banks, or business leaders, whether they be Mr. McLagan, Mr. Dunkerley, Senator Crerar or

anybody else. No matter who they are, what their power or influence, all of them should be brought to justice.
I should like to conclude by saying that we in this group are, in principle, opposed to government interference with the free labour movement. We do not like, we deplore, the necessity for this legislation. We deplore the idea of trusteeship. We think that five years is too long. However, we are prepared to accept this legislation. We are prepared to support this legislation. We are prepared to go back to our people, to the labour movement with whom we have a close connection, and to explain the necessity for this. But, Mr. Chair-man, I want to say to the Minister of Labour and to the Minister of Justice that it would be a lot easier to explain if we could tell the labour movement at the same time that the people on the other side who are just as guilty, but who may have a little more influence, will also be punished.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in so far as the allegations that were made in the penultimate paragraph of the hon. gentleman's speech, they will be answered by the hon. member for Ontario who will show conclusively that the action taken by the former government went as far as it could go under the circumstances, and in no way was dictated by any other consideration than that the law be administered equally and fairly. He will deal with that phase.
I rise, however, this afternoon to add something to the stand that was taken on behalf of the official opposition by the former minister of labour. I begin by pointing out the fact that while parliament is in session we have been endeavouring for a number of days to secure a declaration of policy from the government relative to the longshoremen's strike which, as I stated the other day, is connected very directly with the lack of action by the government to bring about trusteeship in the latter part of July. While we have waited for a declaration of policy in this regard, the Canadian Club in the city of Toronto received information that has been denied consistently to parliament.
I said a moment ago that I was going to deal with one or two phases of this matter which, as yet, have not received the attention of the house. Hon. members in all parties are agreed that this type of extraordinary legislation ought not to be passed except when the circumstances deny any other available course of action in the national interest. Ever since the Norris commission made its report, there has been a continuing series of disorders on the great lakes. The Norris report was clear and unequivocal. I say this, that what is taking place at this very moment on

the St. Lawrence river is directly attributable to, or indirectly the result of the failure of this government to act on the Norris report when it should have acted, that is, before the adjournment of this house in the month of August.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question?


John George Diefenbaker: I will take questions at the end of my remarks. I am going to give in some degree of particularity-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is not the kind of co-operation I gave yesterday to my hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: -the indications of the government's failure to act in this connection, in not bringing in legislation for the appointment of trustees. I repeat this has in considerable measure, if not altogether, contributed to the situation that now confronts us.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You have no evidence for that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman can deny it. I am going to refer to the arrival of a distinguished United States labour representative by the name of Gleason, the head of a union organization. I am going to refer to the degree to which throughout the years he and Mr. Banks have co-operated in illegal action, in intimidation, in international blackmail. Now, we find ourselves, as a result of the failure of the government to act, in a very dangerous situation economically in this nation.
There has been, as I said a moment ago, a long record of association between the longshoremen's union and the S.I.U. Today we face a situation on the St. Lawrence which, in my opinion, would be nonexistent if the government had acted as it should have, instead of adopting the attitude of indolence that has characterized it throughout the problem.
Nobody opposed the trusteeship, and in this connection I shall refer to the attitude of the great labour leaders of our country. They certainly did not welcome it as something they would like to have as a regular course of action; but recognizing and realizing something had to be done, and that the recommendation made by Mr. Justice Norris met the demands of the moment and the needs of the preservation of free international and national trade union rights, they admitted there was no other course available.
But what happened? The government played around with the problem as it has played around with others. The great labour leaders in Canada were prepared to accept this trusteeship, but the government stalled.
Maritime Transportation Unions Members of the government had briefings from Mr. Wirtz, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Hall and Mr. Meany.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the right hon. gentleman has said that the government had briefings from Mr. Paul Hall. That is quite incorrect.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. gentleman answer me in debate and not by interruptions of that kind? There is no privilege in that at all. So far as the minister is concerned I think he has tried, but somebody has tied his hands from action. The Secretary of State was one of those who had solicitude for Banks only a few years ago, and it is surprising the solicitude has continued.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the right hon. gentleman has presumed to make a statement about me which is a downright falsehood, and which I deny categorically. I have never had the faintest solicitude for Mr. Banks at any time whatever. I have never had any association with him, and have never seen him and never spoken to him in my life.


John George Diefenbaker: Solicitude does not demand personal acquaintanceship. Let me point out this fact-


John Whitney Pickersgill: How about your friend, Mr. Nixon?


John George Diefenbaker: On July 8, 1954, six or seven days after the hon. gentleman became minister of immigration, the order in council was passed to which I made reference the other day, and which gave to Mr. Banks the halo of governmental approval and denied us ever being able to deport this man who should have been deported.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the right hon. gentleman is a lawyer and surely he knows the statement he has made is not true. Any person can be deported who is not a citizen of this country if there are grounds for deportation, but the whole point is that in six years the right hon. gentleman never took any trouble to find any grounds for deportation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind questions of privilege, but that type of interruption indicates that the hon. gentleman is trying to break the rules. I simply point out that if what he says is true, then Justice Norris did not know what he was talking about because Justice Norris says that once the order in council was passed, deportation procedures were past.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read the law.

Maritime Transportation Unions


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and the law was changed a few days before the hon. gentleman became the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege-


John George Diefenbaker: It is not privilege now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -the statement of the right hon. gentleman is false. The law was changed when he was a member of parliament and I was not. The Immigration Act was changed before I ever entered the house, and the right hon. gentleman participated in the change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Chairman:: Order. I submit there is no real question of privilege here, and I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition be given an opportunity to continue his speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If he would stick to the truth.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the hon. gentleman became a member of parliament he was the eminence who controlled. We recall the control he had, and he utilized the change of the law that took place in June, before he took office, to join with the other ministers on July 8 in placing Mr. Banks above any possibility of deportation. I know how his feelings are hurt, I can realize that. But that is what they did; and Mr. Justice Norris says from that moment on this man Banks enjoyed an unchallengeable position and could not be deported.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, one thinks of the cuckoo in June when those interruptions are made. I point out that Banks had an unchallengeable position and no denial can take place. Regarding the order in council, they hid Banks' record, and hid his conviction for being in possession of smuggled goods. They gave him the status of a man who was above challenge, so long as thereafter he lived within the law. Over and over again we had this looked into, to see whether after that order in council-and following the change in the law which took place in June 1952, a measure introduced as I recall by Mr. Harris-there were any means whereby we could do anything to Banks; but he was above the law.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So long as he remained within the law.


John George Diefenbaker: He enjoyed an unchallengeable position, and now we have the delay, postponement, procrastination, indecision and confusion that have been the position of the government since the month of July. Why was there this delay? It was because the

government had an irresistible urge to seek a way out. It did not want to act.
The government could not blame our great trade union leaders. Mr. Jodoin, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, came out publicly in favour of the trusteeship. Mr. Smith of the Canadian brotherhood of railway and transportation workers supported it. No single voice of Canadian labour opposed it. All realized there was no other way of breaking the hold and the power of Banks.
The other day the minister said he was waiting because he believed in clean, democratic trade unionism. So do we. Does the minister say that clean, democratic trade unionism is unknown to Mr. Jodoin, Mr. Dodge, Mr. Smith and the other leaders who agreed to accept the trusteeship? However the government did not act. It had to see all these various people.
Mr. Jodoin, to his credit, remained firm. He did not welcome this kind of legislation but he realized the need for action being taken. Canadian labour refused to accept any kind of a cooked up deal that would have left Harold Chamberlain Banks in command of the Canadian seamen on great lakes. I say if Canadian labour leaders never do any more than they did on this occasion in connection with this matter, in standing firm in the interests of Canadians, they will do well for those they represent. But the government stalled, and I repeat what I said the other day, even though it has been denied, that what is happening today in Montreal is in fact in keeping with what one would expect would take place, if there is any co-operation as between Mr. Gleason and Mr. Banks. Mr. Gleason has just arrived in Montreal. What is he there for? He comes over from the United States. Has he been working in the past with Mr. Banks? Is the past past, and does he no longer work with him? The hon. gentleman who preceded me read from the record. I intend to do so also. On page 276 we read this:
The position of the M.T.D. and particularly of its international division has been dealt with. It is well to consider now the other organizations which are supporting the activities of Banks, the S.I.U. and the M.T.D., in the harassment of upper lakes vessels and in the interference with international and interprovincial trade.
The president of the teamsters is James R. Hoffa.
Then he says on page 277:
The president of this association-
Mr. Justice Norris is referring to the international longshoremen's association:
-is William V. Bradley; its general organizer is Thomas Gleason. These two have been closely associated with Banks.
Now I want to quote what Mr. Meany said about Mr. Gleason. He is the man behind the

man behind the strike on the St. Lawrence. Mr. Justice Norris says on page 278:
On November 19, 1953, a statement was issued by George Meany at the conclusion of a meeting of the board of trustees supervising the new international longshoremen's association:
"The racketeers who are trying to perpetuate their control of the port of New York failed in their attempt yesterday to camouflage their 'front' organization with a new look''.
Then he goes on to say:
"He exposed''-
This is referring to Bradley:
-"the true nature of his supporters when he credited his election''-
That is, the election of the new president: -"to the work of Thomas Gleason, a local union official who was cited in testimony before the New York state crime investigating committee for consorting with gangsters and accepting gratuities from stevedoring and steamship company officials.
"The actions at Philadelphia add up to one inescapable conclusion-the mob is still in complete control of the old I.L.A."
Then Mr. Justice Norris goes on to say:
It is to be noted what Mr. Meany said about Bradley and Gleason in this statement-the same Bradley and Gleason who now control the affairs of the I.L.A. and at the present time are assisting Banks in his lawless acts.
It was back in June or July when Mr. Justice Norris wrote this, that this man Gleason, who is now in Montreal, the head of the I.L.A., had assisted Banks in his lawless acts. Then he goes on to say:
The violence and excesses which existed in the operations of the I.L.A. under Bradley and Gleason and in the operations of the teamsters under Hoffa, are of a pattern with the acts of lawlessness which have occurred during Banks' regime and in connection with the dispute with Upper Lakes.
Bradley and Gleason of the I.L.A. and Hoffa's teamsters are the people who have, with the S.I.U. of North America, been assisting Banks to maintain absolute power on the great lakes.
There is the record. This is the man, Gleason, who now comes into our midst. This is the man who is going to see what can be done. Again I come back to what I have said on previous occasions, that what is happening in Montreal has a direct connection with Banks and his opposition to a trusteeship and the maintenance of law and order in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I go on to say this. The judge dealt with Banks, Gleason and Hoffa. What a triumvirate of lawlessness got together there. Hoffa, Gleason and Banks are together, dominating Canada, challenging parliament. The other day one of them said, "If the minister tells us to go back to work, we will not go. If parliament tells us to go back to work, we will go back but we will not work". What anarchy is this that they
Maritime Transportation Unions would perpetrate upon the Canadian people? Who are these demi-gods? Then Mr. Justice Norris concluded in this way:
The fact that these are the elements that are actively working together today as a federation, but lacking only the formalities of organization, in an effort to maintain a one-man lawless rule over shipping on the great lakes, is a threat to our democracy of the gravest kind.
There you have it. Here we have the I.L.A., with Gleason arriving in Montreal to see what he can do. The I.L.A. and Gleason are united with Banks, according to Mr. Justice Norris. No wonder men like Mr. Jodoin and other outstanding labour leaders have said that this action of appointing a trusteeship, while it is not something they would accept with alacrity, is something that must be accepted in the interests of the nation as a whole. I simply wanted to place this on the record because this triumvirate have been together before. I ask the committee to look at the Montreal Star of November 20, 1960. It is very interesting that on the left of the picture you have Thomas Gleason with Hal Banks having his arm around him in affectionate embrace.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: You begin to see the connection. Canada's economy is challenged by this type of person, Gleason and those associated with him; a man who has been guilty of lawlessness, in association with gangsters and in co-operation with Banks. That is why the problem that faces the government has been one of great difficulty. I repeat what I said earlier, that if the government had acted and given parliament the opportunity to appoint the trusteeship in early August before we adjourned, these things that are happening now, the challenge to the economy of the country, which denies people the right to travel here and there on the St. Lawrence, would not have taken place. Just imagine: this is 1963, and the Canadian weekly newspapers association people returning, together with the others who are with them, cannot get off a ship; they are imprisoned there by the lawlessness of the Gleasons who in the past have been the company and the associates of the Banks.
There you see the whole picture-Banks fighting against a trusteeship which will dethrone him from his arrogant position today of dominating above the law those that come under his control, and his friend Gleason arriving in Montreal to see what can be done. When Gleason was asked what he came for, he stated as follows, as reported in today's Globe and Mail:
Thomas Gleason, president of the international longshoremen's association, flew here from New York to have a look at the situation and to confer with the strikers.

Maritime Transportation Unions
While the government delayed and refused to face the situation, the tremendous volume of opposition to action set the scene for the mobilization of the Gleasons and those associated with them in an endeavour to defy parliament and the Canadian people.
I did not hear this broadcast last evening but I am informed that it took place. President Assslin of the international longshoremen in Montreal told a C.B.C. reporter that his union was friendly to the seafarers' international union. This was in answer to a direct question, whether the longshoremen's strike was being undertaken to bring pressure on the government to counter the imposition of the trusteeship. The reply he gave was, as I have said, that his union was very friendly to the S.I.U.
A moment ago I mentioned some of the operations of these people. In 1949, through 1950 and 1951, Banks coerced various great lakes companies to sign contracts. He did so by blocking United States ports such as Detroit against Canadian vessels importing newsprint or iron ore. He was able to do so by enlisting the support of the international longshoremen's association whose members, together with those of other waterfront unions in United States ports, would refuse to cross picket lines established by the S.I.U.
I think we are unanimous in support of the legislation which this government has introduced. I want to thank the minister for the explanation he gave in detail before this measure was presented. He mentioned a period of five years. I think that period could well be reduced to two years. But the principle, as I say, we support. We are in condemnation of the government for their failure to act courageously in July and August. We condemn them for following, as they did, a course of waiting, hoping, anticipating-doing everything but face the situation until circumstances took over and they were forced to act.


Mr. Regan:: Having had a long and close association with trade unions, I am anxious to express my views on certain aspects of this matter. First, let me say I was startled to hear the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. I thought there was a flavour of Alice in Wonderland attached to them. I could hardly believe my ears when the right hon. gentleman who headed the previous administration had the unmitigated gall to criticize my hon. friend the Minister of Labour for not having acted more promptly in this matter, when the whole problem of strife on the great lakes arose solely as a result of the prolonged procrastination of the former administration.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
A similar degree of procrastination has not been seen before. Though the situation on the great lakes was deteriorating steadily, nothing was done about it by the previous administration. I should have thought the Leader of the Opposition would have slouched low in his seat during the course of this debate and have taken no part in it at all. The hon. member for Red Deer suggested that the former administration had turned a blind eye toward the growing strife on the great lakes in 1961 and 1962. I suggest they turned two blind eyes toward this problem. How much, I ask the committee, did the power of Mr. Banks grow during the six years when the former administration was in power? How far did the tentacles of this octopus spread during all the years when the previous administration sat back and did nothing? Let me go further and say, as regards the feeble effort made by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon to find some connection between the strike presently under way in Montreal and the great lakes situation involving the S.I.U., that never since the miracle of the loaves and fishes has so much been made out of so little. We have the international president of a union which is holding a legal strike in Montreal visiting the city where this serious strike is under way. Out of this act alone, the Leader of the Opposition would conclude that there was a deep and dark conspiracy involving the tie-in of the two strikes. Certainly, this is a defence mechanism of the worst type, set up in order to avoid the blame which lies naturally on the shoulders of the former administration for allowing Banks and his power to grow and grow while they sat and sat and did nothing.
It is my intention to support this legislation establishing a public trusteeship over the maritime unions, but I did not reach such a conclusion as quickly as did some members of the official opposition. As a matter of fact, I did not reach it with the alacrity of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam who, as early as July, urged that the government press ahead with trusteeship legislation and advised it not to consider any alternative remedies.
So alien is the prospect of a government trusteeship over trade unions, in my philosophy of labour and concept of democracy, that I could not bring myself to support this legislation until all possibility of an effective alternative remedy had vanished. Even now, I support it, not with a glad heart, but with the knowledge that this incursion into the freedom of association of workers in our country and into their freedom to manage their own affairs must be reluctantly accepted in order to protect the greater and

more basic rights of those workers and, indeed, of all citizens, in order that they may carry on their lawful activities without intimidation, violence and corruption permeating those activities.
I sincerely hope that no province in Canada will consider this action by the federal parliament as a precedent to be followed in the future. I hope this parliament itself will not consider the action we now propose as a precedent except in a most serious situation such as we face at this time. My reservations concerning this legislation were heightened by a conviction that the trusteeship legislation proposed is not a cure-all and, indeed, that it may wholly fail to rectify the evils that exist. Nevertheless, with the proper support of parliament, the public and the seamen, it may succeed, provided a wise choice of trustees is made and, therefore, it must be attempted.
I would in part agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Red Deer who suggested that our federal labour laws need to be overhauled. Though I am sure I would disagree with some of the specific changes the hon. member might wish to make, it must be recognized that the growth of lawlessness and tyranny within the ranks of the S.I.U. was only possible because of the inadequacies of our labour laws. We must remove the inadequacies which allow such a situation to develop by bringing in new legislation, but legislation which still assures the independence and freedom of our trade associations.
Our outdated labour legislation recognizes no difference between industrial plant type operations and far reaching transportation activities. The hon. member for Red Deer, in speaking on this legislation, was extremely critical of the closed shop as a weapon by which the S.I.U. were able to impose their wholly unreasonable control on the livelihoods of so many sailors. I gather from the context of his remarks that he feels the closed shop should be outlawed. I would agree with the hon. member that there might be some merit in substituting a union shop arrangement for a closed shop for certain sea-going commercial activities, because this would remove the power of assignment from the S.I.U. union bosses and enable the company to determine what seamen they would employ subject, of course, to seniority provisions on recall and the provision that new employees would be required to join the union within a specified time. But the danger of generalization of the type indulged in by the hon. member, and further evidence of the need for legislation with varying provisions for different types of industrial activities is found in the fact that the closed shop
Maritime Transportation Unions has worked very satisfactorily in the construction industry, and it is indeed hard to conceive how the interests of the workers in that industry could be properly protected without closed shop provisions. I would hope that as soon as this trusteeship is firmly established the government would consider the legislation that is necessary to prevent the development of a similar situation in the emergence of another Hal Banks in some other union. I hope that the government will in time consider the possibility of other legislation, such as an examination of pension and welfare funds by a committee of the labour relations board, and review the amount of initiation fees and dues paid to the unions to determine whether they are realistic or for the purposes of keeping people out. I think that the whole role of the labour relations board should be reviewed, at all times keeping in mind that the independence of the trade unions must be protected.
While we in Canada admire much about our great neighbour to the south, I for one have anything but admiration for the lawless type of gangsterism within certain trade unions in that nation, and the seeming inability of the United States administration and courts to curtail such trends. We in Canada must here and now show that we have the legislative courage and the administrative ability to guarantee the workers of our nation that trade unions shall be operated for the benefit of the members and not for the enrichment of unprincipled, dictatorial leaders. If we are successful in reestablishing democratic trade unionism on the great lakes, then we shall have conclusively demonstrated to any other prospective gangster union czar that Canada is not fertile soil for this type of activity.
I note from the newspaper reports that the action of this parliament in establishing a trusteeship will not be accepted in good grace by United States labour leaders, and there are reports that the continuation of the export of this whole national matter may be marked by further harassment of Canadian shipping in U.S. ports. I sincerely hope that this will not be the case. Unfortunately, some United States union leaders seem more concerned with retaining membership in their operations than in distinguishing right from wrong. I would say, as a private member, for the benefit of these leaders, that continued interference in this wholly Canadian matter by United States union interests after parliament has acted would be most unwise. I feel that private members on all sides of this house, with the support of public opinion would, in these circumstances, press for a greater degree of autonomy for the Canadian branches of

Maritime Transportation Unions U.S.-based international unions, and I suggest there is a good possibility that legislation could follow. While United States unions financed and greatly speeded the organization of Canadian workers in the early years, the Canadian trade union movement has now reached a maturity sufficient to allow it to stand on its own feet, and if United States unions are to interfere in our disputes and continue to refuse to recognize our national existence as an independent state, then they may find that they are providing the catalyst for the early development of a wholly independent Canadian trade union movement.
Some officials of the United States government have been critical of our government's announced intention to proceed with this legislation. However, they make no realistic or constructive suggestion as to how they would handle a similar situation. Having observed their inability to curtail the Hoffas, one can only conclude that they are hardly experts in dealing with such situations. I feel, however, that the United States has a legitimate interest in this dispute, as the St. Lawrence seaway is an international commission and much great lakes shipping takes place between our two countries. So I am not sure that the United States government can be criticized, as it was by one speaker, for expressing its views on our proposed legislation, although I am not at all sure that they would willingly accept our criticism of lawlessness in their unions, which is of concern in this country because of international trade union affiliation.
Every praise should be given to the Minister of Labour for the manner in which he has dealt with this perplexing problem. Every praise should be given to him because he has exhausted every more palatable choice before introducing this trusteeship legislation. He acted in a forthright manner in all his dealings with those concerned, and I suggest he discharged the duties of the Minister of Labour in an outstanding manner at a time of unprecedented labour problems.
I should like, Mr. Chairman, to say a word or two on the question of the five-year term. The length of time of the appointment of the trusteeship has been criticized to some degree. I too would hope that there would be no necessity for this trusteeship to last a full five years; but I suggest that it is better that the trusteeship be set for the longer period of time, with every hope and expectation that it will be possible to dissolve the trusteeship before that time. Far better to do that than to have to get a further extension, should the situation not improve in a short period. I think the five-year term is an unduly long time, but I think it was set as an outside

limit with every hope and expectation that the trusteeship will be concluded long before that time.
I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam as regards the personnel to make up the trustees. I think they should be chosen with great care. I think they should be men who have had a thorough knowledge both of management and of labour. If we follow this trusteeship with legislation making our unions less attractive prey for gangster elements, then a great service will have been done the nation.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask a question of the last speaker. Did the hon. member put the same energy and excitement into the Nova Scotia election as he did into his speech-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: -and would he have expected the same result-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Would the hon. member please resume his seat. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether I might request unanimous consent to ask the committee which has been sitting to carry on with the resolution which was before it, and to suspend private members' hour for today.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Medicine Hat has requested that the five o'clock rule be suspended and that the debate which was taking place before five o'clock be continued. To do that would require the unanimous consent of the house. Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: We readily agree to the putting aside of private members' business, in order to carry on with the present debate, but we cannot miss this opportunity to assert, once again, that our debates would be more in order if all the rights and privileges of the members of the house were duly recognized.

Maritime Transportation Unions [Text]	is one that could have been avoided. How-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent or not?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Peters:: Before unanimous consent is given I should like to point out that we have been doing this on a number of occasions and while I do not intend to object today I think that the reasons put forward on some occasions for waiving and disregarding the rights of private members are not sufficient. I think that in the future great caution should be exercised in asking for this consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member and I am sure the point was listened to with great interest. It is a very good point. Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Mac-Eachen-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the placing of the maritime transportation unions of Canada under the management and control of trustees; to provide for the establishment of the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions consisting of a chairman and two other members; to provide for the payment of their remuneration and expenses and to authorize the employment and remuneration of such personnel as may be necessary for the carrying out of the duties and powers of the trustees under the said measure.
Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Chairman, I believe I had the floor to answer a question at five o'clock. I had been asked a question and I had not answered it.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It is my understanding that the hon. member had relinquished the floor and it was after he had relinquished the floor that I called it five o'clock. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I appreciate that he would like to reply to the question that was posed to him by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. The Chair did not think that the question was pertinent and I do not think it should be replied to.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the need for government action, extraordinary action to deal with an extraordinary situation. The problem of the Canadian seamen manning the ships on the great lakes has had public attention focused on it many times during the past 20 years. I think the sorry situation we have to deal with today
ever, I suppose it is easy to be wise in retrospect.
I do not intend, Mr. Chairman, to review all of the rivalry between the various seamen's unions because this rivalry, this raiding and what may even be termed war between the various seamen's unions, has been spelled out rather well in the Norris report. Furthermore, it has been discussed by many members preceding me in the debate.
I believe that setting up a trusteeship is one of the first essential steps that will be necessary to deal with a situation that has been festering for all these years. But, Mr. Chairman, I am also convinced that unless the government and particularly the Department of Justice are prepared to enforce the law of the land, even this trusteeship will fail in its desired objective. Had there been reasonably strict enforcement of the law of the land, those laws that give protection to life, liberty and freedom of individuals as Canadian citizens, whether they be engaged in the maritime shipping industry or any other occupation, the situation we have to deal with now would not have developed.
The Minister of Labour, in his opening remarks when introducing the resolution, stated that the government waited; that is to say, they delayed bringing in this bill to give an opportunity for some kind of interunion arrangement, which might have been a solution preferable to action by parliament providing for a public trusteeship. We may be able to agree that some delay was justified for that purpose, but I cannot agree that any delay is justified in enforcing those laws that are necessary to protect all Canadian citizens from intimidation and beatings or which are designed to preserve human dignity.
I should like to ask the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice for an explanation why the law enforcement officers of this country have not been ordered to take appropriate action when there is official testimony contained in the Norris report that Canadian citizens have been attacked, have been beaten and have been intimidated repeatedly. I could refer to a lot of documents, statements in the press and statements by various labour unions that have drawn to the attention of the government and the law enforcement agencies that this has been going on. We have repeatedly asked the Minister of Justice what he is prepared to do about it, but even as late as this afternoon he told us he is still studying an interim report which he has.
From the issue of Maclean's magazine of May 18 last I should like to quote the following:
A man who wants to sail on a Canadian lake-ship faces more than the domination Banks exerts

Maritime Transportation Unions through ROC cards and other weapons within his own union. He faces the chance, if the joins the Canadian Maritime Union, the only other union that is now open to him, of getting his head beaten in. Witness after witness at the Norris commission testified about terrible beatings. One of them appeared on the stand in August still wearing a cast from a beating suffered in April. At least one appeared still woozy. Some of them had been beaten by as as many as seven men. Some had been struck by baseball bats. One had been nearly killed on his own front lawn. The victims included women.
As Norris himself said after only 12 days of testimony: "Without at all at this time deciding who is responsible for these attacks, these cowardly attacks, it is very difficult for me to understand how in this state of our so-called civilization things of this sort could happen in Canada. We have heard, day after day, witnesses coming here and telling us of these most cowardly attacks. That is why I referred to them as a pack of jackals."
The magazine article continues:
In all the 107 days of hearings, no one ever proved that the beatings were inflicted by the S.I.U. Certainly Banks, the central figure, was never even accused of being directly involved.
This is the most important sentence, Mr. Chairman.
Yet all the victims of the beatings had one thing in common: they opposed the S.I.U.
I do not want to take the time now but I should like to refer hon. members, if they have not already read it, to the evidence contained in the schedules that were submitted by Mr. Justice Norris. Schedule 31 gives details of the beatings, and the interesting thing is that in the right hand column of the schedule which indicates the action taken, if any, there is very little indication that the law enforcement officers tried to protect these people from these attacks, nor did they try to apprehend the people who were doing the attacking. So, Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, I think that the enforcement of the law, whether or not we set up a trusteeship, is by far the most important aspect, t believe that the main reason this situation has deteriorated to the point it has today is the lack of law enforcement. I want to emphasize that law enforcement to protect Canadian citizens against this kind of treatment is not confined to seamen's unions or to the difficulties connected with labour unions. It is, rather, a universal right of all citizens, whether they be part of the labour union movement or not.
Indeed, the right of a citizen to protection from this kind of lawlessness by the full strength of the law enforcement agencies is spelled out in some Canadian statutes. I refer, for example, to the bill of rights, which is an act of this parliament. We all know, Mr. Chairman, it was one of the favourite pieces of legislation of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition when he was prime minister. I should like to quote from this statute:

It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,-
I am not going to refer to all of them, but I should like to refer to two that are applicable to this situation. Paragraph (b) reads as follows:
(b) The right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
Paragraph (e) reads as follows:
(e) Freedom of assembly and association;
Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it is obvious that there has been flagrant and open violation of these laws. What is more, Mr. Chairman, there is an international law to which Canada has subscribed and which also guarantees protection of our citizens.
I refer, for example, to article 23 of the United Nations charter which reads as follows:
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment.
Article 20 reads:
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
The next sentence reads:
No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that all of this lawlessness that has taken place under that tyrant, and the organization that he heads, has been a violation of these laws, international laws and national laws, to which the Canadian government is committed. If there is a problem as to whether it is up to the provinces to enforce these laws, then we must recognize that new laws must be written and, furthermore, that perhaps there needs to be a redefinition of responsibility. Unless and until the government is prepared to enforce the laws that protect citizens against intimidation, no matter what provisions are written into this trusteeship legislation it will fail to remove the tyranny and lawlessness from the waterfront and on the great lakes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Maritime Transportation Unions
In the early spring of 1949 representatives of the shipping companies and prominent trade union officials requested Mr. Harry Lundeberg of the United States, international president of the S.I.U., to provide a leader for the S.I.U. in Canada. They went to the United States for a leader, and here is the second reason for these difficulties. Mr. Justice Norris' report clearly outlines Mr. Banks' history in Canada since his arrival.
The final destruction of the independent Canadian seamen's union was as a result of action by the Canada labour relations board in 1959 which revoked the union's certification with one company because, as the board stated, "being communist dominated it was no longer a trade union". This is where the board got on very sticky ground.
Strangely enough, in 1959 the Canada labour relations board, the same board, rejected the claim that communist affiliation or domination was a sound reason for decertification of an otherwise properly operated union. The fact of the matter is that the government, the companies and the union leaders concerned wished to get rid of the C.S.U. and replace it with the seafarers' international union, and the result of their success can be found in the pages of Mr. Justice Norris' report.
First of all, they wished to obey the wishes of the S.I.U. to give these seamen to the United States union's jurisdiction, and second, some of them used the pretext that some of the leadership were communists. Let me say without any hesitation that any man in public life whose chief stock in trade is anti-communism, and with little else behind it, will support an3r form of dictatorship when he gets in a corner.
As I have said, the result of their success can be found in the pages of Mr. Justice Norris' report and also in the disappearance of Canadian ships from the high seas. There is no doubt a relationship between these two incidents.
Before proceeding further I wish to give full credit to the officers and members of two exceptions, must share some responsibility for developing the hysteria and political smokescreen that surrounded the activities of Mr. Banks in Canada. The only daily paper I know of that opposed Banks irregular importation was the Victoria Colonist, and the only other papers I know of that editorially attacked Banks for his day to day activities were the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Telegram. These last two were promptly sued for libel, and Banks was able to collect $3,000 damages as a result of

a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada because his so-called good character had been somewhat tarnished.
All this was going on while the government smiled benignly and the police stood by inactive. At one period I had 25 seamen, most of them fellows who had served during the second world war in the Canadian merchant fleet and the Royal Canadian Navy, in my office to protest against the frightening state of affairs which existed, but they could not get a hearing in those days. One could hardly get a hearing in this house, and certainly the press did nothing to inform the public of this unfortunate state of affairs. At that time the newspapers in general lauded Mr. Banks' version of democracy at work, and as 1 say, so far as I can remember there were only these few papers which took a stand.
Before proceeding 1 want to deal with an interesting editorial entitled "Newshawks Goofed on Banks Scandal" which appeared in the July 18 issue of the Northern Daily News published in Kirkland Lake, Ontario.


An hon. Member:: What year?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This year. It states:
Mr. Justice Norris' stern indictment of the seafarers' international union regime on the great lakes marks a long overdue judgment.
In fact it has been overdue since the day S.I.U. boss Hal Banks first stepped across the border with his thugs to take over control of jobs on Canadian ships.
At this point one can be permitted a little sardonic laughter at the virtuous tone being adopted by Canadian authorities and newspapers as they hasten to step in line behind the Norris report of skullduggery on the lakes.
Because authorities, police and particularly the country's newspapers, stood solidly behind the importation of Banks to this country and hurrahed almost to a man while his goon squads beat up legitimate Canadian seamen and forced them off the nation's ships-
So what's the story now?
Excluding great lakes vessels, instead of 100 ships there were at last count, two deep sea freighters under Canadian registry. The trained seamen are long since dispersed and forgotten, including the ones who risked death to transport supplies and fuel across the wartime Atlantic.
Can't blame Banks for all this, but it's a coincidence.
Before proceeding further I wish to give full credit to the officers and members of the Canadian brotherhood of railway transport and general workers and the national association of marine engineers, and of other unions, as a valiant band of trade unionists fighting under most difficult circumstances to restore democracy in the operation of maritime unions. These men deserve a great deal of credit. They did not get much encouragement to start with, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude. Because of their

courage and persistence they were mainly responsible for the Norris inquiry, with its shocking revelations of the rotten fruits that have ripened from the seeds that were sown in 1949. There is where the trouble started. Without a doubt, Mr. Chairman, there is a growing demand among trade unionists for more autonomy and control of their own affairs. I can tell that from mixing up with trade unionists. When I want to find out what labour is thinking, I meet with the rank and file. I am only a simple old backwoodsman, but I go around and speak to these people; I address them at their meetings. They always receive me cordially, especially when I tell them that I have never enjoyed the net income of a village plumber, or something of that sort. Therefore they realize we have a great deal in common. These are the people I talk to. I talked to the unions in my constituency about this matter when I went home. I have addressed them about this. I addressed them, in fact, with one Scottish labour M.P. just before I came to Ottawa. He was actually horrified at the suggestion of a trusteeship over Canadian trade unions. But then they have a different situation over there; Britain is a unitary state and they have not experienced these international problems, and gangsterism. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, without a doubt there is a growing demand among Canadian trade unionists for more autonomy and control of their own affairs. While promoting the spirit of fraternity with all democratic labour organizations, they wish to be master in their own house.
1 want to illustrate this development, and I rejoice in it. I have had a hand in it. In my constituency the workers in the Castlegar pulp mill became members of the paper workers union something over three years ago. They decided at the end of the contract, at the end of two years, that they were not getting satisfactory service, so they had a vote. With the exception of three or four employees, some hundreds of men voted to join the Canadian section of the international union of pulp and sulphite workers. What was the result of that? They were acceptable to the C.L.C. at that time. The international president of the pulp and sulphite workers union was compelled by Mr. George Meany to return a charter issued to the workers in the Celgar Corporation which, as I said before, had been accepted by the C.L.C. Mr. Meany ordered that the papermakers had jurisdiction over this plant and said that this matter had been decided in Washington. As a result today, I am proud to say, they have local No. 1 of a
Maritime Transportation Unions Canadian pulp and sulphite union and three or four other pulp mills in British Columbia have followed their example.
In the very near future they are about to form the national union of Canadian pulp and sulphite workers. I give that as an illustration of this outcropping of a desire for more autonomy. Mind you, they want fraternity, co-operation and things of that sort. This sort of action on the part of leaders in the United States only promotes and develops the desire for autonomy.
I wish to bring to the committee's attention another document which I have here in my hand. It is an agreement drafted, but not signed as yet, between the B.C. hydro authority and an organization known as the Columbia Hydro Contractors Limited. This draft agreement is intended to cover all the workers who will be employed in the erection of dams, the construction of generating facilities and transmission facilities on the Columbia river, should that development go ahead. This draft agreement is not the result of a consultation with Canadian citizens. This agreement, covering years of work that may be undertaken by Canadian workers, was drafted as the result of a meeting between the officials of the British Columbia hydro authority and Mr. Keenan, an A.F. of L. official of the building trades section in Washington. You have no idea what a storm this is creating among some of our Canadian trade unionists. This draft agreement establishes conditions under which Canadian workers will obtain employment on government projects on the Columbia before a man is ever hired on the job or work is commenced.


An hon. Member:: How is this relevant?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You will find out as I go
along. I am also informed-I got this from a well known Canadian trade unionist-that all senior Canadian trade union officials who wish to function as members of executive boards of international unions-that is, the international executive in the United States 

have to sign United States Taft-Hartley affidavits. I obtained that information from an official; I have no personal knowledge of it.
Surely the issue of Canadian sovereign rights and the sovereignty of the Canadian parliament was offended when a Canadian minister had to go to Washington to deal primarily and firstly with this question, and when Mr. Claude Jodoin, president of the C.L.C., travelling to Washington on the same mission was met with what amounted almost to abuse from certain United States union leaders.

Maritime Transportation Unions
Everyone knows my attitude to Mr. Banks. We have never been a bit chummy throughout the years. I have never been a guest in his house. He has never taken any moving pictures of me either, to my knowledge. But he has had literature distributed around my riding because of my statements about him in the house. He had one of his men go up to my constituency and spend two weeks going to people all over the place, to little stores, Legion branches, trade union headquarters, and so on. This literature was distributed everywhere with the headline, "Kootenay West mortified by C.C.F. M.P." and then it went on to tell about all the untruths I had told in the house about his violence, ruthlessness and so on. Who has been proven correct, Mr. Banks or the member for Kootenay West? Hon. members can understand that we are not exactly in love with one another, so they must not think that any of my reservations with respect to this legislation are a result of any affection for Mr. Banks or any of his ilk.
I fully appreciate the deep concern of all hon. members of this house in their efforts to find a solution of this unfortunate and unusual situation. However, I must say that I cannot agree with the principle of this resolution for several reasons. I have given this a lot of thought. I am a chap who is inclined to listen to what other people say. I was brought up in a very democratic home where there was a tremendous respect for the rights of the individual. My old father used to defend the revolutionaries, the members of the I.W.W., when they came to speak in our district. Men came whom people wanted to toss in the lake, and that sort of thing. On one occasion a meeting was to be addressed by a Mr. Stirling. He was going to speak on the coming social revolution. He was a member of the legislature later. The meeting was to be held in a small village. The board of trade arranged for a group of first world war veterans in 1919 to go down to the boat to throw him into the lake. He could have gone on, but if he got off he was to be thrown into the lake. My father rushed down to the wharf. He went down there with his whiskers drooping down, like the characters you see on the stage on occasion. He went up to these men and broke up the gathering. He said, "This country has been established on British democratic principles and under British democratic institutions, and this man has the right to talk all the bloody rot he wishes provided he is not rude to Her Majesty and does not abuse the law of the land".
I have tried to live in that way ever since. That is why I get into trouble at times. I go to meetings that I should not go to and I
[Mr. Herridge.l
address other forbidden meetings. I do this in the Hyde park tradition which gives every man an opportunity to say what he thinks as long as he remains within the law. This background and belief causes me to give this legislation a great deal of thought. I respect the views of those who do not agree with me. I am sure there is no one who is happy about this situation. But I cannot agree with the principle of this resolution which proposes to establish a trusteeship over the unions for five years without there being any mention of the companies concerned. I agree with what our leader had to say about that. Why establish a trusteeship over the unions without bringing the companies, which have been guilty in many respects under the same jurisdiction and control? I know it is possible, since shipping comes under the jurisdiction of the national government, for the government to draft legislation which would provide for some supervision over these steamship companies.
Second, I am of the opinion that the legislation contemplated will provoke and increase international incidents both at government level and at international union level. I was interested in the speech made by the hon. member for Halifax. I wish to congratulate him; I thought he made an excellent contribution to this debate. He had some doubts about the wisdom of the course we are following. He said the legislation might fail. I am of the opinion that it will bring about serious complications on the international scene.
My third reason for objecting to this legislation is that a large section of the rank and file of the organized labour movement in Canada is opposed to it. I do think the truth should have been given to these people far earlier; there should have been an opportunity for a further discussion on this whole situation. Fourth, I oppose this measure on the ground that it completely overlooks and underestimates the democratic strength and understanding of the Canadian labour movement and its ability to mobilize the support of the rank and file. I think this is a great opportunity for labour to act, first, in defence of Canadian sovereign rights, second, in the defence of democratic principles and institutions and, third, in the development of the complete control of Canadian unions by Canadians for Canadians, operated in the Canadian way.
I have given this subject some thought. It is not easy for me to differ from my colleagues, because I am a sensitive soul. But I do urge the government, as did the leader of our party, to give consideration to the reduction of the period of trusteeship and to incorporate in this legislation provision for

the supervision of the companies directly concerned. With this brief outline of my views, I will conclude. It is my intention to outline some alternative proposals on the second reading of the bill.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take much of the time of the committee to discuss the resolution before us. However, I am interested in it for two reasons: first because I am a member of the house, and second, because I had the opportunity for several years of my life to hold positions in labour movements, that is I was president of labour locals for a number of years. So I am well aware of the justification for labour unions.
I know that labour unions were born because of a great need, the need for workers to protect themselves against employers who went too far and were unfair to them in many ways. Hence it was employers who compelled the workers to unite in order to obtain together what they could not obtain separately. That was a very good reason to set up unions.
It was also the best means for workers to defend themselves, but on one condition: once established, those unions should be free, have their autonomy and the most complete freedom for workers to use their rights and establish their own rules, provided of course the rules are in accordance with the law of the land.
That is why I have always been and still am in favour of a very great freedom for unions.
Obviously, it is a privilege of democracies that people be their own rulers, that workers and professional people control their own business, and together try to find the best ways to achieve the highest possible degree of welfare.
But liberty and freedom do not mean licence. There are limits to these words. If I understand them correctly, they mean the right to choose as long as the use of a right does not interfere with the liberty of others. That is exactly what is going on now in the seamen's unions whose actions, with their possible disastrous effects we are now discussing. What I mean is that those people, at a certain time, acted somewhat like employers did in the past.
Workers have been forced to unite against employers because of injustice committed by the latter, but this freedom to unite does not now give workers the right to be unjust toward the rest of society outside their unions.
That is why I am not far from approving the measure introduced now by the government, precisely because I am against the abuse of freedom which has been committed, if I
Maritime Transportation Unions may say so, in such a glaring way by the presidents of the seamen's unions, especially the S.I.U.
The situation which we have to deplore at the present time has not developed overnight, but gradually, due to several causes, and I think one of them rests on the fact that we have for too long been allowing our unions to Americanize.
I realize that at the beginning, it was quite difficult for Canadian unions to organize and to administer themselves, but now that we have become an adult nation, I think it is high time that workers, if they want to be the masters of the situation in their own country and not be forced to obey orders coming from outside the country, should unite and realize that our unions must not be international unions any more, but Canadian unions. And that is only one reason among thousands of others.
That we are right in our contention, and we deplore it at the present time, is quite obvious in the seafarers' unions. And it is not a unique case in Canada.
There are other fields where the same situation is brewing. The government should not wait until it is too late before acting, otherwise we shall be faced with the same situation in railway unions.
There again, those unions are under American control.
The same thing exists in the field of entertainment. I should like to read part of a letter from one of my constituents dealing precisely with this matter:
I am not too familiar with labour matters, but there is a field that I know comparatively well, that is show business, more particularly variety entertainment. I can assure you, sir, that in the last ten years or so, French-Canadian artists had to pay over one quarter million dollars, that is about $25,000 a year, to a foreign organization called "The American Guild of Variety Artists" (AGVA), which has its headquarters in New York and a branch in Montreal.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I ask the hon. member how and to what extent he can relate his remarks to the resolution now under discussion?


Mr. Beaule:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Charlevoix raised a point, namely the control of Canadian unions by outside people.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: The relation between the point I am trying to make and the resolution now before the house is that disturbances are going on at present in another Montreal union which is entirely under the control of Americans. I wish to prove that it is not the only organization where such a situation exists.

Maritime Transportation Unions
Now, those $250,000 sent to New York were paid by French-Canadian artists who performed in French, in the province of Quebec, such as Jean Duceppe, Doris Lussier, Denise Filiatrault, Michel Louvain, etc. That organization with an office in Montreal has no legal recognition as required under the law.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to remind you of standing order 59 which states that a member must keep his remarks relevant to the issue under discussion.
I submit that the hon. member for Charlevoix, when he starts making a speech on international unions, does not comply with that standing order. He is talking about radio and T.V. artists.


Mr. Lachance:: In my opinion, the members of this committee must not create problems.
We are at present considering a specific situation. The hon. member for Charlevoix should limit his remarks to the resolution and not deal with a problem in a latent state.


Lucien Lamoureux: Further to the remarks of both hon. members, I should like to remind the hon. member for Charlevoix of the second paragraph of standing order 59 which reads as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion.
In other words, the contribution to the debate must be strictly relevant to the resolution or item under consideration.
Since his attempted analogy is over, he should revert to the subject under discussion and keep his remarks strictly relevant.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I find it most unfortunate that some members who are citizens not only of the city of Montreal but of the province of Quebec, dislike the mere mention of the dangers which threaten our province at the present time or of any suggestions to prevent trouble.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It is not a question of determining whether hon. members like or dislike what may be happening in another field. The important point is to do constructive work and that is why both the hon. member for Jeanne-Mance (Mr. Lachance) and I rose on a point of order.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I feel the question has been settled and the hon. member for Charlevoix may continue with his speech.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I was just trying to point out what is wrong with unions at present. I was saying that the government should try to convince our union members not by force but by every possible means of

persuasion, to organize themselves on their own, so that they may understand that they are citizens of an adult country which can look after its own affairs without any foreign assistance, contrary to what is happening now within the seamen's union. In fact, if the latter had been under Canadian leadership, we would probably not have to deplore the unfortunate situation we have at present.
Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of what the government proposes to do by this resolution, but I am afraid of the aftermath precisely because I advocate the freedom of unions, as I said at the outset.
Of course, the precedent that the government is going to create should not be used as an excuse to interfere in every labour dispute. In fact, this legislation should remain in force no longer than necessary.


Jean Robert Beaulé: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about this legislation, but I would not want to be blamed for delaying its passing.
The resolution under consideration is one that I am reluctant to support because the right of association is a sacred one, and the workers have the right to join a union which is the best way to present their claims through collective bargaining.
The selection of a union is a personal right. Workers are entitled to choose the union which will assure them the best working conditions, that is marginal benefits and a decent salary.
In the case in hand, that is to say the case of the S.I.U., the government was obliged to step in, after the investigation of Mr. Justice Norris had shed light on certain unsavoury facts.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Jean Robert Beaulé: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, when I pointed out that it was six o'clock, in the present case, that of the S.I.U. the government is compelled to act on account of the abuses disclosed by the Norris investigation.
Hal Banks came to Canada for the sole purpose, in co-operation with some shipping companies, of violating and breaking existent collective agreements as well as using any available means to destroy other unions and thus consolidate his own position.
We also know that there were some irregularities in connection with hiring, pension

funds, etc. The Norris report clearly indicates that the situation will not be settled on the great lakes as long as Banks remains at the head of the S.I.U.
It is with reluctance that we must resort to legislation. But, all the same, this legislation is a little better than the lawlessness prevailing at present.
I hope that the minister will give us an idea of the people he intends to appoint to this board. He shall have to act very carefully, because one of its members will necessarily have to mix with workers in order to find the best way of helping them to regain control of their union.
If the trusteeship is administered properly, it will ensure the future of the labour movement, but if the reverse happens because of bad appointments, the future of the S.I.U. will remain very doubtful.
One has only to read the Norris report about the strife on the great lakes to realize that labour legislation is in an alarming situation.
I know that all those conflicts between unions should open our eyes wider and lead us to ask ourselves if the time has not come for the government to set up a commission of inquiry on union activities in Canada and especially those of American unions in our country. That does not mean that unions are not good, but some union leaders should be put in their place.
Such a commission would enable the government and especially the Department of Labour to tackle the job of providing the labour movement with a federal code, a code which should be prepared with the co-operation of the unions, the provinces and representatives of industry, so that we may not be faced again with a situation such as the one which forced the government to put the S.I.U. under trusteeship.
I know that when we come to problems involving the workers and union activities in particular, we must take all the necessary precautions to avoid disputes between governments and trade unions. But if, for a number of years, the government had not accepted the abuses of some union leaders and if it had taken a stand, with positive action defining clearly its role towards the unions, we would not have today to take compulsory measures against union members. We have no choice. We must take the necessary means to ensure peace and security on the great lakes.
However, a government trusteeship has some good points: first, it will be useful to get rid of Banks and his gang; then it will promote a closer watch on collective bargaining, thereby ensuring that the union members regain control over their unions.
Maritime Transportation Unions
I support this legislation because it will allow Canadians to regain control of their business; but this does not mean that by passing that legislation all problems will be solved.
I hope nevertheless that all this will be a lesson to the government and, as I said earlier, the setting up of a commission of inquiry on union activities in Canada and especially those of American unions in our country would permit us to get a labour code in order to give Canadian workers the security and justice to which they are entitled.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I think it is most unfortunate that Canada has reached the state where it is going to have to impose compulsory trusteeship on a number of unions. I believe this is not only a reflection on the Canada labour relations board and the other agencies set up to project the workers and to allow them free association in the great union movement but there has also been a complete failure of the legal procedures available to the average citizen to correct things that have nothing whatsoever to do with unionism. I think this is a very sad state of affairs, particularly when today we hear compulsory arbitration and trusteeship being referred to by some members and being given somewhat the same kind of support.
There is no need to go into the history of Banks. I called him a gangster many years ago in this house. I know he has a number of henchmen who are completely dependant upon him and who have made it possible for him to maintain his position. I do not know, and I am not even going to hazard a guess, whether a trusteeship will correct this situation or will not, but I think it is generally understood that throughout the world the free trade union movement is destroyed initially by the implementation of trusteeship and compulsory abitration. I mention them both because it would appear that if any difficulty should arise in the labour movement in the near future one or the other is going to be recommended by every reactionary employer in the country. I hasten to add that I do not think this will happen with the present Minister of Labour, nor would it have with the previous minister of labour. I think these two gentlemen have done a very good job in administering the operation of the acts which are their responsibility. I think it is very foolish for the Canadian public to be given the impression that they did not do all that was within their power to solve the problem as they saw it. I feel that this is all they have to do, and that they have done it.

Maritime Transportation Unions
There are improvements that must be made in our laws in order to make the settlement of many of these problems easier. This may mean that we shall have to take a look at some of the things that have caused this matter to reach the stage it has. One of these things is the hiring hall, Mr. Chairman. If you were to eliminate the hiring hall you would probably eliminate a great many of the problems facing this particular union, as well as other unions that are in almost the same category.
This afternoon the house was made aware of the fact that there is a union in the process of negotiating a contract in the Columbia river area in connection with the building of a dam that we have not considered yet.
I do not believe anyone is in a position of knowing who the principals are going to be in connection with that construction. I believe, therefore, this whole problem is being repeated there and also must be faced. I do not believe the way to face it is the establishment of a trusteeship, because this will be a crutch on which the people in the labour movement, management and many others will lean, especially if we make it a popular and acceptable thing. Many totalitarian countries throughout the world have used similar methods to destroy the free trade union movement. I think most rank and file trade union members are violently opposed to trusteeship in any form. Certainly, they must be opposed to legislative trusteeship because, for many of them, this eliminates any democratic rights they may have.
Now, Mr. Chairman, what was the real reason for the recommendation of Mr. Justice Norris to take over five unions rather than one? I ask this question. Would it not have been better if this one union were to be taken over? This would still allow the workers along the seaway and the great lakes to join another union of their choice in that field. Nothing wrong was found in connection with these unions, and yet they have been asked to go into trusteeship voluntarily, along with the union in which we are trying to correct the problem. I ask, is this being fair to the membership of these unions? Most of them have had no opportunity of deciding for themselves whether or not they want to accept voluntary trusteeship. Is this the price the labour movement in general is going to have to pay for the next four or five years to get peace on the great lakes? Has justice reached the stage where Banks cannot be removed in any other way than the application of a trusteeship?
I have had something to do with unions in the past, and have had something to do with communist dominated unions. We found that

in those unions you had two or three communists, or a half dozen at the outside, per 100 members, and yet they were able, in many cases, to dominate the union. When the other 95 out of 100 members decided to stand on their two feet and fight back, then usually what we are trying to accomplish here was accomplished by the working people themselves. It is for this reason I say the labour relations act itself must be overhauled. Obviously, this type of machinery is not available to the workers on the great lakes, and particularly those who have been made captives by the S.I.U. We are all aware of the abuses that have been made of certain procedures, such as the hiring halls, "do not ship" lists, the accumulation of vast sums of money through the operation of pension plans, and vacations with pay plans, which have been improperly administered. I wonder if there are not many other forms of assistance that could be given in this field without the imposition of trusteeship?
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have heard of the fact that the S.I.U. is a bad union. In my opinion, a bad union really does not exist because it has bad leadership alone. It is bad because it has bad leadership in conjunction with bad management. Unless a deal could have been worked out between Mr. Banks and the personnel agents of Canada Steamship Lines, no deal would have been made. Because these two people were evil in character, the deal they made was bad. However, I believe it is obvious to everyone that there was another deal made by a union on the great lakes in which the company cooperated with the union in making this type of arrangement, but it was not bad because of the people that were involved. I suggest that if we had the legal machinery, we would have been able to ask for a report from Mr. Robinette and Mr. Martineau, which would have indicated in all probability a course of action for the solution of this problem by due process of law.
Many people have spoken on this subject. There have been some good speakers from all parts of the house. However, I do not believe I stand alone in opposing trusteeship. I believe most people who have had anything to do with unions know that trusteeship is highly undesirable if it is put into effect in any way, shape or form, but probably the worst form is through the introduction of legislation. Trusteeship by government takes away the rights of the workers. Often a union has to be put under trusteeship because of the inability of the membership to look after their affairs, but when somebody else does this the situation becomes even worse. Has the committee really considered what this

trusteeship is going to accomplish? Have they really considered what the results of this are going to be? Anyone supporting this legislation who thinks it is going to be an immediate success should really consider all the implications.
I have no objection to the Canadian Labour Congress going to some of the officials of the United States government and requesting assistance, because certainly the United States government has come up against this problem that we are facing. The United States government has tried everything possible to dispose of Mr. Hoffa, but every time they do something to him they make him that much stronger. I wonder if we have really considered this matter? I presume the trusteeship legislation will go through because there appears to be no alternative. I am not in a position, Mr. Chairman, to offer any alternative. However, I believe the committee would be well advised to seriously consider the possibility of an alternative. I would think that the house would have been very wise to call the industrial relations committee of this house together to try to find some solution. Other countries have found solutions for this type of problem. I believe many of the members have failed to look towards tomorrow to see what the results of this action are going to be.
I am not saying that a government trusteeship imposed on unions will mean the repeal of the Rush-Bagot treaty, but I am just asking the committee to remember what happened when a Canadian ship was sent down into Chicago to ascertain what the climate would be. That ship has now limped back into Canadian territory and another one has been dispatched in its stead. I only hope we do not have to send down a front line frigate to protect the second ship. It may be a good experiment, but I do not see why this shipping company should keep a ship at Chicago when there are many cargoes to be obtained in other areas. This will be in the history of Canadian shipping when the government sets up a marine corps.
Have hon. members really thought about it? I know the labour movement in the United States is very much opposed to what is happening here as is, in the main, the Canadian labour movement. If the two movements are as strongly opposed to it as they appear to be, then this is not going to be an end to the strike on the great lakes. It will only be the beginning.
We should consider the problem fully, because the international free trade union movement stretches across the world, and we have to consider the possibility of a boycott when we endeavour to get rid of five or six people by means of trusteeship. We may even 28902-5-218
Maritime Transportation Unions have to apply martial law in order to get rid of them; but no matter what the circumstances, we may have to face the problem of delay to Canadian ships operated by government imposed trusteeship.
Have we really thought of all the alternatives? I am not suggesting I know them all, but I do know this is not a solution that is acceptable to many trade unionists throughout Canada. Indeed it is not generally acceptable to trade unionists throughout the world. Although the minister is to be congratulated on all the avenues he has explored so far, I do believe trusteeship is not the answer.
We will get the Canadian trade union movement into a very difficult predicament by proposing legislative trusteeship. I am not familiar with the full situation in Montreal today regarding the longshoremen's strike, but the union involved is a responsible one. It has gone through due process of law. It has asked the federal government for mediation, and this has been provided in the person of a judge. However, I am shocked to see that already hon. members have stood up in this house and talked about compulsory arbitration for this union because it is causing some discomfort in parts of Canada. This is true, and looking at the over-all picture it may have many ramifications; but hon. members should consider the position of the longshoremen who have negotiated through the normal channels of law, who have asked for mediation, and who now find that the general public and many members of parliament are crying for their scalps before they, the workers, have concluded the mediation process.
It would be less than reasonable if the longshoremen did not pick a time to negotiate when the shipping season was at its height. I see nothing wrong in what has happened to date in that situation, but because of gangsterism and the low character of many of those in high places in the S.I.U., the general public is inclined to lump many labour problems into the one basket.
I am not prepared to support compulsory trusteeship. I would certainly be the first to admit something has to be done about this particular problem. Its existence has been known for several years, and for a long time we have been saying Hal Banks was a gangster and should be deported or eliminated from the Canadian labour movement. We should ask ourselves why, through due process of law, in a democratic country and in a democratic manner in the operations of a democratic trade union movement we have not been able, in a judicial manner, to clean up this unholy mess which has brought us to the sad state of affairs we face tonight.

Maritime Transportation Unions [Translation]


Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Chairman, in taking part in this discussion tonight, I am most conscious of the difficulties and problems parliament is facing at the present time in connection with the establishment of a trusteeship for the maritime unions on the great lakes.
Since I am a worker myself and since I have contributed to the establishment of a union, some may think that in contributing to this debate I may be biased; but, Mr. Chairman, we are undertaking today the consideration of a resolution which, in my opinion, has no precedent in the labour history of Canada.
This proposal of the government to establish a trusteeship over the various maritime and stevedores unions on the great lakes and along the St. Lawrence raises many points of principle which we should study with the utmost care.
This legislation for the establishment of a trusteeship is, I am sure, a precedent and that is why we must try to find as clearly as possible the reasons why the government was led to introduce this measure so that, in future years, we may not have to rely on the government or any trusteeship legislation to settle problems which should be settled within the ranks of the labour unions.
This decision results from the unions helplessness in solving a serious problem in the administration of the union concerned as shown by the royal commission appointed in July 1962.
This investigation proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the allegations of the Canadian Labour Congress to the effect that terror and gangsterism have ruled over these unions, among which the seafarers' union, and that the government had therefore an obligation to intervene, first to safeguard the economic interests of Canada and its good name abroad. Second-and this is not the least important reason-to preserve also the rights of the workers and to free them from a reign of terror which kept them in an atmosphere of continuous fear, while their dues were put to dishonest use.
I think the situation we are now facing shows clearly the degree of vigilance the workers must exercise in watching over their interest so they will not be tricked.
Having been exploited for a long time by heartless employers and enterprises, they united and had to fight relentlessly, and it is only after tremendous sacrifices that they were recognized and respected. But nowadays, they have to face other enemies who have infiltrated their ranks so as to take advantage

of the structures and the strength they built and use them for their own illegitimate purposes.
It will be said that loss of control over their union by members is due to the fact that those unions have become too big, too powerful, too complex in their administration and that there, as elsewhere, centralization has prevented the members from retaining contact with their leaders and the management.
I admit that this is one of the causes of the troubles we are now going through. But why do we need those powerful and centralized unions if not to fight against large industrial trusts?
A few decades ago, we had small employers but the situation has changed and, nowadays, we have colossal industrial empires grouping the best administrative brains, assisted by almost every banking and financial system in this country, and even outside.
Mr. Chairman, giants must be opposed by giants and so the conflict resulting from their confrontation inevitably jeopardizes the very basis of our economy and the society in which we live.
Yesterday, I heard the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) suggest that the government refer to a parliamentary committee the problem of amending the country's labour legislation which allowed a situation like that of the great lakes seafarers to develop. I wholeheartedly support this proposal, but I would add that it is just as urgent to review also the legislation providing for the incorporation of companies and the setting up of industrial empires and trusts, in order to eliminate the serious abuses it allows.
Let us consider the part played by the Canada Steamship Lines as mentioned by Mr. Justice Norris in his report.
If we are permitted to judge Mr. Hal Banks severely, I think we must come to the conclusion that those who co-operated with him in that company must also be judged.
They claim that they were forced to act that way, but I am not so sure. If that is the case, they had means available to make the situation known and to ask that an investigation be made.
And what about the part played by the government in this matter? Is it not the government that amended the citizenship and immigration legislation, especially to allow the permanent admission of Hal Banks to Canada?
What about Mr. Jodoin, president of the C.L.C., who strongly endorsed the application of Mr. Banks? However, he admitted having made a mistake, and since he too is a giant in a certain sense, he rightly said that he makes enormous mistakes.

What part was played by American interests in this matter?
The present situation shows, more than ever, the urgent need for all our country's organizations to become autonomous.
Dominated by American unions, dominated by American industries, dominated by American policies, dominated by American defence, the situation is almost hopeless.
And those who listened to the news tonight, heard that the American secretary of labour, as well as president Meany, today declared themselves violently opposed to the setting up of the present trusteeship by the Canadian government. They especially blamed the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Jodoin, and accused him of being the first responsible for this legislation which will soon be put into effect.
Mr. Chairman, I think that we have here further convincing evidence of American interference in a field which belongs to us alone. And I urge the government to reply and request the Americans to stay in their own field, because if we are faced today with that problem, it originated with them. Indeed, if they had opposed in time the lawlessness which prevailed in some American labour organizations, that gangsterism would not have been imported into Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the government intends to impose upon the unions concerned a trusteeship of no longer than five years. I hope it will not take that long to settle the problem.
Three people will be entrusted with the delicate and serious task. I am happy to see that four or five of the unions in question have already accepted the trusteeship. That undoubtedly proves that the legislation under consideration has already been endorsed by those who are mainly concerned and we must proceed not only with haste but with extreme care.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) made a statement which I found rather strange, coming as it did from the leader of a party which advocates strong government control over our national economy.
In fact, as reported on page 3380 of the English version of Hansard for October 9, 1963, he said:
Naturally public trusteeship is unpalatable.
Mr. Chairman, these words sound wrong coming from the leader of the New Democratic party. The same words were repeated this afternoon, this time by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who opposed rather strongly, while making important reserves, the establishment of this trusteeship. He stated that he would accept it as a makeshift.
28902-5-218J
Maritime Transportation Unions
Mr. Chairman, circumstances may, at a given time, force or justify the government to take action concerning a labour movement. In such a case, I believe we ought to accept that measure on a temporary basis.
Now, if the followers of a certain socialistic philosophy claim that the government has the power, the greatest capacity, the only authority and competency to administer the economy and the industry of this country, they should, I believe, also recognize to that government the right to put some order into the affairs of certain labour unions, if the members have lost control.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we ought to call the attention of the general public to this point, so as not to stir up the workers who could see in such a measure some kind of infringement on their liberty. In fact, should anyone conclude that the enactment of this legislation is tantamount to a loss of freedom, then I believe that freedom no longer exists.
When there is disorder, dishonesty, and no longer any possibility for an organization to amend itself, then in my opinion, it is our duty not to criticize the government but to second it, to make to that government suggestions concerning the legislation presently introduced.
The government was very reluctant to take such a step and to some extent I believe it was right, since this state of affairs is altogether unusual. We all hope that one of the results of such trusteeship-and I particularly stress this point-will be to give our unions a true Canadian make-up so that they may be administered by Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, there is also the fact that the contributions of our Canadian workers are being exported to a foreign country through certain labour unions. If we are faced with those problems, it is not only the workers who are to blame; we should also try to find the origin and the cause of those problems.
The powerful Canadian unions, which are now controlled by Americans, came to Canada from the United States at the time when American industries first became established in our country. I think that this was done in order to interfere with a policy followed at a certain time by some American companies which, by setting up branches in various countries, tried to prevent the development of labour unions.
In this connection, I remember a case in particular. If my memory is correct, it concerns the Singer company which manufactures sewing machines and which in order to check the development of the labour movement and deny its right and fair demands has built plants throughout the world, plants

Maritime Transportation Unions which it used to rotate its production from one country to another. Thus, as soon as unions became strong enough in a country, by rotating its production, the company has been in a position to check the labour movement.
Nevertheless, it seems that Providence has avenged the workers since that company by its dealings has forgotten its original purpose and has since been outstripped by its competitors.
Canadian workers are powerful because we have strong industries.
If, by means of a trusteeship, we want to eliminate some serious faults that we find in the labour unions in Canada, we as well as the government itself will probably have to see to it that American companies become themselves Canadian companies, so that the government does not have to suffer the same indignity its ministers suffered recently when they had to deal with some American officials. In fact, five ministers of the Canadian government, supposedly independent and sovereign, had to meet some American officials and ask them permission to increase the production of automotive parts in Canada; and what did they get? A firm refusal, a definite no.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, that fully illustrates the seriousness of the problem with which we are faced now. It does not concern only workers' unions; it has become a general cancer which affects our industry and the whole of our economy.
I feel that the present legislation may be a partial solution. I hope it will open the eyes of the parties concerned and that the latter will not wait until the public authorities are forced to impose solutions before they take action.
American owners of industries situated in Canada will have to realize that they are working against our democratic regime by their present behavior. Canada cannot keep on being a satellite of the United States and all of us must stress this fact.
It is quite out of the question for us to quarrel with the Americans in this connection. But I think that if they respect the autonomy of some South American, Caribbean, African and European nations, they should first of all respect the autonomy of their main ally and next door neighbour, Canada.
I believe that if Canada and the United States get together to iron out those problems which are not only Canadian problems but international problems, we can, not under

any coercion, but in a great spirit of justice, resolve the difficulties facing the nation at the present time.
I should also like to emphasize that the French fact is practically ignored by American unions in Canada. I wish to point out that particular aspect in order to show that the problem is very complex. I trust that when control over Canadian unions reverts to Canada now that the English speaking Canadians increasingly realize the advantages of recognizing both cultures in Canada, our Canadian unions, from Vancouver to Halifax, in their negotiations and in their relations with the French Canadian group, will manage to display comprehension and especially justice for that group. This, Mr. Chairman, is not a plea for sympathy but simply an appeal to reason and to common sense.
I also wish to call the attention of the house to another problem which I think is closely related to the one now under consideration, that is the strike which has been going on for several days in seaports along the St. Lawrence seaway in the province of Quebec. This is of particular concern to us in Quebec. I heard that we might have to impose compulsory arbitration. That would amount to an act of despair.
I am of the opinion, Mr. Chairman, that if we were to review all legislation concerning unions and collective bargaining, we would find that to be the source of the problems facing the government in its relations with labour.
It is rather important to note that, each year, in the province of Quebec alone, thousands of collective agreements are signed for which workers did not have to go on strike. To my mind, that shows that workers recognize they have more to gain by negotiating objectively and by respecting the rights and privileges of each and every one than by going on strike indiscriminately. It is also an indication, Mr. Chairman, that legislation now in force in the province of Quebec is better suited than the one now to be found in the federal statutes to solve that problem.
We find that the federal government's area of operation in the field of labour is not very large-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret I must interrupt the hon. member for Lake St. John; the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight because I am a little suspicious of the unanimity-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman-

Maritime Transportation Unions The Deputy Chairman: Order. I called on arrangements were not made. I am inform-the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, ing him of the order in which I have seen The hon. member for Cape Breton South will the speakers, according to the information be next.	given here.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; at roughly 4.30 this afternoon I approached the Chair and arranged to speak on this particular resolution. Following that I was called to the defence committee in order to establish a quorum, and that can be easily verified. Upon returning after the supper recess I find that one of two things has happened in this house. Either the government has given official recognition to both wings of the Social Credit party or it is discriminating. When I arrived back in the house a Social Credit member was speaking. Then a New Democratic party member spoke, followed again by another Social Crediter. I say that one of two things has happened this evening; either the government has given recognition to both wings of this party, or the discrimination that went on this afternoon is continuing this evening.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If the hon. member for Cape Breton South feels that the Chair has been unfair to him, then I apologize. The order of debate I had when I came into the chamber was that the hon. member for Quebec East would speak, followed by the hon. member for Timiskaming, and then I had no one until the hon. member for Lake St. John asked if he could speak next. That made three members to my left. I have now recognized the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George on my right.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, in order to save a little time I would be willing to relinquish the floor.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I shall be very pleased to recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton South next.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a question of privilege, it is not a question of when I can say something, because there has been so much repetition in the discussion of this resolution that I do not suppose that I would be able to say much without repeating a lot of what has been said. But what I do want to say to the Chair is this: Am I now being told that the arrangement I made at the table this afternoon about four or four thirty is not noted at the table, and you are now informing me that I did not make those arrangements?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Herman Maxwell Batten: No, I am not informing the hon. gentleman that those


Malcolm MacInnis: You had better get back and check your list.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, in pursuance with your order I will continue my speech although I was willing to yield. However, if the hon. member opposite can contain his patience, I will try not to be too repetitious and we can wait for his originality in about ten minutes.


Malcolm MacInnis: I also spend week ends here too.


John Napier Turner: I was speaking about the happy unanimity of the house in connection with this resolution, and I hope that the accident of two members rising at the same time has been forgiven. However, there has been a certain blindness arising from this unanimity, I suggest, and perhaps the committee, as the hon. member for Timiskaming suggested, has not looked carefully enough into the future consequences of this trusteeship. I say that for this reason. The Minister of Labour has exercised, through his versatility and courage, every virtue he could be expected to exercise in this role. He has explored every opportunity. He has probed the basis of a possible private trusteeship. He has tried to negotiate with every possible party to the dispute, and only as a last alternative is he presenting to the house legislation to create a public trusteeship which, repugnant though it may be, has met with the support of every party and every group in this house. So we have a resolution with public opinion behind it. The committee is unanimously behind it, and in the days which follow I think the minister will be entitled to call on the support of the house to implement this trusteeship if it runs into heavy weather, as I believe it is bound to do.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, two reasons why the public trusteeship will encounter difficult times. The first is that a public trusteeship cannot work unless it has the support of the members of the union or unions over which the trusteeship is imposed. I think no better example of that can be cited than the history of the monitorship over the teamsters union in the United States where, in terms of the ultimate vote, Mr. Hoffa retained the support, and the overwhelming support of the union. No matter how the vote was garnered he retained the ultimate support of the union, and against that support of the union the monitorship appointed by the courts was

Maritime Transportation Unions powerless. In decision after decision they were forced to yield power, control and jurisdiction over the teamsters back again to Mr. Hoffa. I come from Montreal and have had some experience of the waterfront there. Not being as innocent perhaps as some members,
I have met Mr. Banks and dealt with him across the table.


An hon. Member:: Oh, his picked friend.


John Napier Turner: No, I was not invited to those flashy evenings that Mr. Banks seems to sponsor, but I can tell you I have met him over the cold varnish of the bargaining table.


Erik Nielsen: Or under the table.


John Napier Turner: What I want to suggest is that so far as I can gather, and this opinion is shared by many who have experience on the waterfront in Montreal, Mr. Banks still has considerable support among the rank and file of his own union because, whatever else may be said, under his leadership the average worker, the average stevedore, the average seaman, has enjoyed an improved standard of living which has blinded him to the lack of democracy in his own union. Because of the subtle propaganda and the subtle yellow journalism used by Mr. Banks and S.I.U., the average member of that union conceives of a trusteeship as something evil that is to be imposed on him.
I suggest to the house that the remedy of a public trusteeship will be difficult and can be rendered impotent unless the real cancer, Mr. Banks, is operated on. Unless he is removed by legal process from the direction of that union, unless he is removed from the country, the trusteeship cannot be as effective as I am sure every member of the house wants it to be.
The second point I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members is that this public trusteeship, because of the negotiations that have preceded it, is going to prompt a certain tension on the lakes between the American and the Canadian authorities. It already has. The statement tonight by Mr. George Meany will, I am sure, prompt every Canadian union member, every Canadian worker, to wonder whether or not at last he should not have control over his own affairs. If this public trusteeship is the result of anything, it is due primarily to the lack of co-operation of the trade union movement in the United States to help to implement on the Canadian side of the border a private trusteeship such as was sought by the Minister of Labour and those who were negotiating on his behalf. So because of the nature of commerce on the great lakes, which is international, we do have a

problem of tension on the lakes that this public trusteeship will not solve, but may provoke.
I say this to you, Mr. Chairman, because of the difficulties of a trusteeship over the membership and because these men are not yet convinced of the necessity for it, and because a trusteeship is inherently repugnant to the average workingman just as it is repugnant to most of us. In addition, because it is going to breed tension between the United States and Canada, it will be a difficult piece of legislation to implement.
I would call upon all members of the house to support this legislation with the same unanimity tomorrow with which they support it tonight, because I think we are convinced tonight that the trusteeship proposed in this resolution is the only remaining alternative. It is not the best type of solution we would want but it is the only reasonable alternative. Surely, Mr. Chairman, memories will hark back to the reasons that have been advanced by all parties tonight so that, when the trusteeship is at the stage where it must be implemented, the government and the minister will have the same unanimous support from the House of Commons that they have received this evening.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, to begin with I indicated when I was putting forward a point of order before that it would be very difficult to be original and I do not suppose I will be. However, the last speaker has given me the opportunity to say that I have at least one thing to say that is original. There is not the unanimous support about which he speaks, and I think that is original enough to take care of his statement about being original.
The government under the sponsorship of the Minister of Labour has brought forward the resolution preceding the legislation for one purpose, to clear up the situation on the lakes. It is designed to bring in a trusteeship which is to be given authority to expel the union bosses, and those members of the union executive who may be closely enough associated with Mr. Banks that they should go with him. To me, Mr. Chairman, this is the long way, this is the expensive way to deal with this matter. I cannot understand why the government has not resorted to deportation, or whatever you want to call it, from this country of Mr. Harold Banks. Recalling what the Secretary of State said this afternoon, namely that it could be done directly, I cannot understand why the government does not have the courage to get rid of Mr. Banks, just as they had the courage to bring him in here to do exactly what he is doing today- fight other unions. He was brought in for

that purpose and he is now being put out of office for the same reason; so why not put him out of the country?
I fully agree with the recommendation of a trusteeship in the Norris commission report. For reasons of my own I cannot refer to the Norris commission report this evening, but if my memory serves me right there is another recommendation on page 311 of that report. Some questions have been asked the Minister of Justice in the house as recently as this afternoon involving one approach which, if followed through, would provide us with the answer, I think, to the trouble brought on us by Mr. Banks. It would not be a matter of deporting him, because I believe what Mr. Justice Norris had to say in that regard.
The deportation of Hal Banks is not going to solve this problem in any way, shape or form. However, if the prosecutions that the Norris commission report also recommends were followed through and if the courts in Quebec and Ontario were to press these matters, it is quite possible that Mr. Banks might wind up where he belongs-behind bars- where he would do nobody any harm.
It is very interesting to me to listen to the speeches from different parts of the house, especially from the far left. This evening one member speaking on behalf of the New Democratic party continually said that that party had referred to Mr. Banks as a gangster. I can stand here and say that I used the word "gangster" with regard to Mr. Banks in the house some years ago and, as I recall, only one member of that party, the hon. member for Kootenay West, consistently spoke against Mr. Banks. I do not recall any others. In fact, when I was condemning Mr. Banks and the type of union he was running I myself was condemned for doing so on many occasions.
I have taken a stand where necessary against union leaders, and this does not apply only to the S.I.U. It strikes me as very strange that some members should get up and complain about something the previous government did not do. I would remind each and every one of them that when the former minister of labour and the former government were called upon by the Canadian Labour Congress, the former government set up the Norris commission. But can you imagine what would have happened if that government had tried to move in and impose a trusteeship at that time upon unions that were having their problems within the Canadian Labour Congress or, if not within the congress, then among themselves? They were trying to settle something among themselves. Can you imagine what repercussions there would have been if any government had
Maritime Transportation Unions stepped in at a time like that and tried to impose any kind of legislation on them?


An hon. Member:: All they had to do was
enforce the law.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Malcolm MacInnis: Yes, in about 20 minutes. It is a well known fact that when members of this house were criticizing the activities of Mr. Banks a few years ago, none other than Claude Jodoin, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, came to his defence in the courts and said that he would make a valuable citizen. I have reason to believe that today the same Mr. Jodoin would like to back away from the position he has taken. I say this strictly on my own and I could be entirely wrong. However, I have reason to believe that the Canadian Labour Congress regrets this hasty action. I believe that the union men can see far enough ahead, and in this I agree with the last speaker, to realize that ridding the S.I.U. of Mr. Banks is not going to help the situation. I think it will be a case of going from the frying pan into the fire, as has been indicated by the last press release by the United States. We can look forward to a lot of trouble in United States ports.
Now, this whole situation developed, first of all, because two unions could not get along. They fought for the right to represent the seamen on the lakes. Then, from there we step up into another category, and we find that the Canadian Labour Congress cannot reach an agreement with the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Then, we have one more step, Mr. Chairman, and that is the step to government. We find that the Canadian government cannot reach an agreement with the United States government. I believe that the two governments should get together. Everyone in the house has said this is a responsibility of government, and the government should do this or that. I believe it is now the responsibility of both governments to get together and assure one another that if this trusteeship legislation is put into effect, Canadian ships will receive proper service and proper protection while they are in United States ports and vice versa. I believe this is the responsibility of the two governments.
I do not believe there has been a speaker, at least from the opposition parties, who has not said that he feels this is a government responsibility. Many of them have said it was a responsibility of the former government. Nevertheless, it is still the responsibility of this government. They talk about trusteeship. The Canadian people gave them a trusteeship to run this country, and yet the government is now asking some individual citizens to take

Maritime Transportation Unions upon themselves the responsibility of the trusteeship. I say set it up within your own cabinet; show some leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: You can laugh; go ahead and laugh. You laughed this afternoon, but you are not going to laugh me off the floor of this house. I say it is the responsibility of this government to get together with the United States government in order to ensure that Canadian ships will get proper protection and service while in United States ports. Only then is a trusteeship of any kind going to work. I do say to the government that there is no reason this trusteeship cannot be set up within parliament itself, from within the government ranks. This would be the best way for the government to keep an eye on what is happening. If this is not done, questions will be asked in the house from time to time about what the trustees are doing in relation to cleaning up the union, and ministers will be saying, "I expect a report on that in a few days, and I will advise the house later." This will go on for weeks and months. As the leader of the N.D.P. said, the government proposes a five-year term in order to get this union cleaned up. The same hon. member said that this was almost like giving the trustees an absolute dictatorship.
Now, if you cut the period back from five years to two years or even one year, that same description applies. Why does this government feel duty bound to put the responsibility on three private citizens if this legislation goes through? It is the government's responsibility. The first step in connection with that responsibility is on the road to Washington. They are the great friends of the United States. They are the ones who were going to bring this country back to its proper level in international affairs. Let them go down to Washington now and reach an agreement with Mr. Wirtz, if they are duty bound to put in this trusteeship, so that Canadians will receive the proper protection. I think this is properly the first step to take. Before the government imposes any responsibility on others, let them get their own business done.
One thing that surprised me was that everybody talked about a solution. When I was listening to the different speakers and heard everyone say he was against trusteeship but would have to support it, I was surprised no one thought of another solution. This is all nonsense. As long as there are any blameless members of the S.I.U., they should not suffer for the sins of Hal Banks and his executive officers. The last speaker referred to Mr. Banks getting the support of his union. He said, don't you realize how this support is gathered in from all around the country? As

I said a number of years ago, I know the gangsters. I am not standing up in this house to take credit for what somebody else did. Again, I refer to the fact that while we were doing this there were individuals who were clearly criticizing us. At the same time, as I say, Mr. Claude Jodoin of the Canadian Labour Congress was standing up on behalf of Mr. Banks before the immigration committee. Then, too, a former C.C.F. member in this house championed Mr. Banks' cause as legal counsel. This was done by a member of that party which is closely associated with the Canadian Labour Congress.
I have belonged to unions for many years. I have union support. I can get down there and understand the feelings of the union men as well as anybody else in the house. I tell you this, gentlemen, the trouble with our labour unions and labour congresses in this country is that there are too many professional men, and the union membership does not have a chance to voice its opinions. They have, in Mr. Banks, a professional. He is a professional import. There are many other professionals in unions throughout this country. These are the same professionals who, years ago, stood hand in hand with the same Mr. Banks whose scalp they are now after.
Let us return to that solution I mentioned and which I was surprised was not suggested by the N.D.P. They have said they are against the trusteeship, but they have to go along with the government in principle. However, I fully agree with the leader of the N.D.P. when he said that there was another party equally to blame in this affair. What about the steamship lines, the executives of these companies? They are just as responsible for this situation today as the union men. Is the government just going to slap their wrists for being naughty and, at the same time, condemn the unions and the union men who may have been blameless? Why does the government not go after Mr. Banks? You do not have to impose a trusteeship on every man in the country to accomplish that. I refer again to the words of the Secretary of State when he said it could be done directly. Why does the government not go after these steamship companies and slap them around, as I hope they will do with Mr. Banks?
Let me return now to this solution that I was surprised no one mentioned. This is where the N.D.P. surprised me. Apparently this plank is missing from their platform now. I thought they were going to make the suggestion that since we were taking over the unions under trusteeship, they would advocate that the steamship lines should be nationalized along with the unions. This was another way they could once again have got back at

the shipping companies for their part in the fiasco which is taking place today.
When hon. members opposite talk about unanimous support I do not intend at any time to stand here and allow a speaker, especially in another part of the house, to speak for the whole house, particularly when I have no intention of supporting something that is going to be imposed on the labouring man, and something which is being imposed upon him because of a gangster dominated union. I say to the government, deal with the problem directly rather than through this long and expensive route to reach the same end.
I could be wrong, but I am quite sure I heard the Secretary of State say this afternoon that it could be done directly. If so, let the government have the courage to do it. Let the members of the government pack their bags, go down to Washington, and ensure that we get the protection we need.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Will the hon. member permit my question now?


Malcolm MacInnis: Yes.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Inasmuch as the hon. member was very original in his speech, and if it is so simple to get rid of Banks, why did the former administration bother to appoint the Norris commission? Why did it not just get rid of Banks?


Malcolm MacInnis: I covered that very simply in my opening remarks. I said that at that time the unions themselves were struggling for power on the lakes, and no government could move into such a situation.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: You say "oh." I will tell you why it was not done. The government acted when it got the request from the Canadian Labour Congress to set up a commission to look into this matter. It acted immediately upon getting that request. Now, I did not say it was a simple matter. I referred to the remarks of the Secretary of State who said it could be done directly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to take part in this debate, and my intervention at this point will be brief. Although I feel very strongly about some of the things to which I shall refer, I shall keep quite cool. In fact I think that is something we are going to have to do in this field of labour relations, particularly in the labour relations between this country and the United States in the months and years that lie ahead.
I shall not repeat the elements of our position that have been expressed so effectively by the leader of this group, the hon.
28902-5-219
Maritime Transportation Unions member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and later by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. There is no question but that we stand, as does the trade union movement of this country, against the principle of government trusteeships over free trade unions.
Surely it is clear, however, that what we are faced with now is not the problem of dealing with a free trade union but the problem of dealing with a gangster outfit in a situation where there is no alternative but to bring in the force of law. In so far as, for a limited period of time, a trusteeship is being imposed upon four other unions, which have been declared by Mr. Justice Norris to have a clean bill of health, let it be quite clear that those unions have indicated their willingness to have this trusteeship placed on them, in order that the mess on the great lakes might be cleared up.
However, as has already been said by others of this group, the one feature in this legislation that we feel should be changed- and which we hope will be changed before it goes through all its stages-is the provision for the trusteeship to last for five years.
We feel that this job can, and must be done, in a much shorter period, and it would be far better to have the legislation provide for the trusteeship to last for two years or three years at the most. If the government would like to amend the bill by providing that at the end of that period it could be extended by resolution of both houses of parliament, rather than going through all the stages of the bill again, perhaps that would be appropriate and might be considered. However, apart from making that point, I do not wish to repeat what has been said by those who have already spoken for this group.
Rather, I felt that from this corner of the house something should be said tonight to express our regret at the two statements which have come out of Washington today, the statement of Mr. George Meany, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., and the statement of secretary of labour Wirtz. As a matter of fact Mr. Jodoin, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, has already issued a statement in reply to what these two gentlemen have said, and I am in complete agreement with what Mr. Jodoin has said.
So far as Mr. Meany's comments are concerned, I go along with Mr. Jodoin's generosity to Mr. Meany in suggesting that he must not have all the facts in his possession and must not know what is going on in Canada, or he could not possibly come to the defence of Hal Banks and his S.I.U. as though he were defending a free union.
When Mr. Meany complains about the C.L.C. going along with government action to

Maritime Transportation Unions deal with a matter of this kind, it is a bit strange that coincidental with his press release there is a release by secretary of labour Wirtz that suggests there is almost an understanding, if not something stronger, between Mr. Meany and the United States department of labour. I find this inconsistent with the position he has taken with regard to the decision made by the Canadian Labour Congress.
I also agree with Mr. Jodoin in his remarks about what secretary of labour Wirtz has done by way of releasing information about the private negotiations that went on, the negotiations that did not succeed. Surely it is the height of indiscretion for a cabinet minister in another country to reveal afterwards what some of those private negotiations were. In all probability he has not told the whole of the story. In all probability there are other aspects of that story that should be told by the C.L.C.; but when this sort of thing goes on it does no good.
As a trade unionist I object very strongly to the statements made today by Mr. Meany and Mr. Wirtz. I know that the officers of the C.L.C. and the executive council of that congress will deal with their counterparts in the United States through the usual channels, to try to get back to a reasonable understanding of these matters; but I call upon the government of Canada, through its usual channels, to take up with Mr. Wirtz his indiscretion in saying the things he has today. These two gentlemen should not be interfering in this Canadian problem. They should be spoken to, Mr. Meany by the Canadian Labour Congress and Mr. Wirtz by the government of this country.
May I make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that the statements made by Mr. Meany and Mr. Wirtz will not in any way change the views of the members of the executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress who, to my knowledge, have wrestled with this problem over many weeks and many years. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I might note that there are people in this chamber who have been denying they ever met Hal Banks, and there are others who have told of their associations with him. I am one of those who has met Hal Banks. I know the kind of person he is. I met him when I was a vice president and a member of the executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress. I am one member on the floor of this house who has voted against Hal Banks. I was a member of the executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress which, after having him before us, after hearing the evidence, expelled him not only from the Canadian Labour Congress but from the house of free labour in Canada. That was done by an executive council of 21 
members in 1959, and that executive council today is still a body of 21 members. I ask hon. members to realize that of those 21-I am checking in my memory as I go over the names of them; I know them quite well -not more than four, and I think only three, are members of distinctively Canadian unions. The other 17 or 18 are members of international unions; some of them are high ranking officers in those international unions.
If there is anything to the supposed influence of the United States connection, surely it would reflect itself in the attitudes of these members of the executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress. But no. Despite the fact that they are members of international unions; despite the fact that many of them are high ranking officers in international unions, with their international presidents being Americans, they approach this question from the standpoint of Canadian interests, from the standpoint of the interests of free trade unionism in this country. They have taken their stand as to what should be done to clean up this situation. I know them very well. They are not going to be deflected from the stand they have taken; they are not going to change their decision because of the statements that have been issued today from Washington by Mr. Meany and Mr. Wirtz.
I said I wanted to keep cool about this. I feel pretty strongly about it, because what Mr. Meany has done is not in the best traditions of North American international trade unionism. I was at the founding convention of the Canadian Labour Congress in Toronto in 1956. I was a delegate to it from the Winnipeg local of an international union. I remember Mr. Meany being at that convention. I remember his speech to that convention in which he welcomed wholeheartedly the setting up of a Canadian national labour centre that had within its ranks the great majority of the trade unionists of Canada. He asserted that at that point any residual remains of United States control over aspects of the Canadian trade union movement were to be turned over to the new Canadian Labour Congress. There was established at that point something that was an advance over what had existed in previous years, namely a recognition of equality of the two centres, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in Washington and the Canadian Labour Congress here in Ottawa.
When Mr. Meany made that statement in 1956, in my view he was speaking in the best traditions of North American international trade unionism. In my view this has to exist. We have to get back to it. I stand here tonight, not shouting at Mr. Meany, not complaining, not condemning him, but pleading with him from my place in this Canadian

House of Commons to leave the solution of this problem to the Canadian trade union movement, to the national unions in Canada and to the Canadian sections of the international trade unions in this country, which have worked well through the years, which will continue to work well.
The sort of thing that has now happened must be straightened out. As I see it, it can be done. The Canadian Labour Congress will, I am sure, play its part in straightening this matter out with Mr. Meany. But the Canadian government has also got to straighten out with Mr. Wirtz what he has done in disclosing the partial information he has released today.
I have already said that I am a member of an international union, the international typographical union, and I have been an officer of the Canadian Labour Congress. I was its executive vice president for four years. I know a little bit about the operations of the trade union movement from the viewpoint of its national centre. Those of us who have been at that level know that Canadian trade unionism has a place for, and needs within its ranks, both kinds of unions, some that are distinctively national and some with their international connections. I recognize that it is very popular today, particularly in the light of the kind of things that are happening, to say, "Let us break all these connections and run everything here in this country". Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if our good relations on the North American continent in other fields are to be upheld-in business, commerce, art, culture, industry and all the rest of it-it is not possible for us to live in complete isolation north of the 49th parallel. We must have our relationships of one kind and another. When you are dealing with huge industries like steel or auto and many others I could name, it just does not make sense to say that our workers in Canada must deal with United States employers through their branch plants in Canada in isolation from their fellow workers south of the line. I think there is a place for both kinds of trade unionism in Canada, national and international. This is part and parcel of the constitution of the Canadian Labour Congress. The C.L.C. was set up on that basis. This has produced strains. There is hardly ever a meeting of the executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress, and there is never a convention of that body, that does not have strains with which to contend in these situations. But it was set up on that basis and it is on that basis that in my view it has to be continued. But it will continue and it will succeed in so far as the international unions are concerned only if the international conventions 28902-5-21PJ
Maritime Transportation Unions deal only with matters of policy that are common to the workers in both countries. By the same token, there must be left to the workers in the separate countries complete control of their own affairs.
This is the way the members of the international unions in this country-and please remember that about 65 per cent or 70 per cent of the organized workers in Canada are members of international unions-want it to be, because of the strength it gives to them. But they also know it will work in the long run only, in so far as Canadian affairs are concerned, if these affairs are left to our workers here in Canada. It is on that basis that I am satisfied the executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress made the decision that it made some weeks ago to accept trusteeship as the only alternative. Yet despite the fact that it made the decision some weeks ago, it has wrestled with the proposition; it has tried to find an alternative; it has listened to the suggestions of those who have asked them to consider various alternatives. But they came up with the final decision, in the light of the mess on the lakes, in the light of the gangsterism of Banks, that there is no alternative but to accept this trusteeship, voluntarily accepted by four of the maritime transportation unions but necessarily imposed on the one of which Banks is the head.
Having accepted that, they will give the government their support in seeing that this trusteeship is administered effectively, and they will look, as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said, for support not only from the government but from all parties in the house, the majority of whom at any rate are in favour of the step that is being taken tonight. So I say that I welcome the idea that there should be more Canadian autonomy over Canadian affairs. This should be true in all aspects of our life, economic, industrial, intellectual, educational, cultural and all the rest. We must have it.


An hon. Member:: And military.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody says military; and defence as well. Yes, add those areas also because they are areas in which we have to live. We cannot separate ourselves completely and our relationship must be maintained. It must be maintained in all of these fields,-but I am speaking particularly of the trade union field. If we are going to have international unions and they are to succeed, there has to be mutual respect on both sides. Claude Jodoin and his fellow officers of the executive council of the Canadian Labour Congress must not interfere in policies or problems which are distinctly American. George Meany must not interfere in problems which are definitely

Maritime Transportation Unions Canadian. This is a Canadian problem. It is a sordid one and we have to deal with it. I think the members of the Canadian Labour Congress and its executive council should be commended for the way they have wrestled with it and for the courageous decisions they have taken in connection with this matter.
I shall not bother to answer some of the charges which have been made in this house tonight and on other occasions against certain of the individuals concerned. Remarks have been made as to the position which Claude Jodoin took a couple of years ago. It was said that a couple of years ago he was defending Hal Banks. I myself was a member of the council four years ago when Claude Jodoin and the others expelled Hal Banks from the congress. As I say, I am not here to answer those allegations. They are answered by the facts. I believe those concerned are to be commended for having accepted this trusteeship, though only because it is absolutely necessary. I am asking tonight for two things. The first is that the government should cut down this five year provision, making it two or three years at the most. If the government wishes, let them make it possible to continue the trusteeship by resolution of both houses. Let it not go on and on automatically. Let us provide that as soon as the mess is cleared up it will be done away with. The situation which has arisen because of these statements from Washington is a serious one. I am fully confident that the officers of the C.L.C. will deal with their counterparts in Washington. I call on this government to deal with its counterpart in Washington, particularly with the issue raised by secretary of labour Wirtz.
Another thing I have to say is this. I regret that so many hon. members have sought to find a relationship between what is happening with regard to the imposition of this trusteeship and the strike on the St. Lawrence by the international longshoremen. I deplore the demands being made on the government for "big stick" action, demands which render no help in the settlement of that dispute. The thing that ought to be said-and this would really help the situation-is that there is not going to be compulsory arbitration. This is the place where a clear statement of that kind ought to be made. The workers are engaged, now, in a legal strike. It is up to the parties concerned to reach a settlement. The government has done its part by providing mediation, and the companies should know that they cannot, simply by dragging their feet, cause a situation where compulsory arbitration will be brought in, simply because of some of the things which have been said by the Leader of the Opposition.
There are five or six outstanding issues. One involves the payment of time and a half

for work done on Saturdays. Any employer in this year 1963 who refuses to grant time and a half for work on Saturdays is, surely, in an untenable position. Another thing the workers are demanding-or, at least, they were the last time I was informed-is pay for at least four hours of work when they are called in to work and there is nothing for them to do. This happens under present conditions on the St. Lawrence. Men are called to work at eight in the morning, but if when they get there there is no work for them to do they are sent home without a nickel of pay. The question of the wage rate has been more or less settled, and the men have given their executive officials power to deal with details of the kind I have mentioned. I suggest that what the companies and the shipping federation of Canada need to know is that this parliament believes in its own legislation- that it believes in free collective bargaining, and that parties to a dispute who have gone through the due processes of the law have the right to continue efforts to reach a settlement through mediation without threats of "the big stick" being used. The government, it is true, has not tried to wield a big stick, but the Leader of the Opposition has certainly suggested that it should. This is precisely what should not be done.
The imposition of a trusteeship on a gangster union, agreed to, because it is necessary, by four other unions which have a clean bill of health is a different thing from suggesting that a big stick should be used on a union which has complied with all the processes of the law and which is engaged in a legal strike, according to the Minister of Labour himself. Let us keep these two things separate. Let us go along with the Canadian Labour Congress. Let us cut down the period of time during which it is proposed the trusteeship should continue. Let us do all we can, with cool heads and understanding, to have the best possible relations we can with the United States in the trade union field, as in all others, for this is our only hope on this North American continent.


Mr. Clancy:: I should like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a question. Have the president of the Canadian Labour Congress and his senior officials agreed, on their own initiative, or have they been invited by the government, to play as active a part in the current longshoremen's strike as they did two years ago when the railway unions were negotiating new contracts? I should like to point out to the hon. member that all the unions mentioned are, of course, members of the Canadian Labour Congress.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I had the great privilege of being an officer of the Canadian Labour Congress for four years but I am not an officer now and I do not know what goes on between the government and that body. For this reason, I do not know the answer to the hon. member's question. Even if I did, it would not be proper for me to give an answer.


Michael Starr: It had not been my intention to speak twice in the debate on this resolution. It was our intention that only three members of my party should speak on this occasion and we had hoped that the resolution would have passed through this house last evening.
However, that has not happened. Other hon. members have taken part in the debate on the resolution and in the course of the discussions certain allegations have been made, particularly by the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which oblige me to say a few brief words in respect to them. I hope the committee will allow me to complete my remarks, even if they go a few minutes beyond ten o'clock, so that we may be able to pass the resolution this evening. In any case it is necessary that I make some comments in respect to these allegations.
The hon. member for Kootenay West said this afternoon, if I heard him rightly, that there were certain people in this house who thought at one time that Mr. Banks was a good character. I think a number of these people must have been in the former Liberal government, because they thought so highly of Mr. Banks at that time that they sent him to Geneva, to the I.L.O. conference, to represent the Canadian labour movement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is it not a fact that the representatives sent by workers organizations to the I.L.O. are nominated by workers' organizations, in the same way as employers' representatives are nominated by employers' organizations, and that such nominations are usually accepted by any government?


Michael Starr: The Minister of Labour has answered his own question. Nominations are sent to the government and the minister of labour approves them. If he did not approve, then that representative would not represent labour. But in this instance the government thought enough of Mr. Banks that they felt that they should approve him as the right type to represent labour in Canada.
The allegation has been made that the government of the day and myself as minister did not perform our duties, and we have been charged with inaction with respect to the
Maritime Transportation Unions signing of two agreements, the agreements with the N.A.M.E. and the S.I.U. I do not mind the charge directed at me personally. After all, I have been in the political arena for some time and during my 11 years in this chamber, of which I am very proud, I have had many allegations made against me. When one is in politics he certainly learns how to take that sort of thing. But I do resent the allegations made against Mr. Bernard Wilson, the industrial relations officer, who is a very capable, sincere and experienced man in the labour department. The labour department is very fortunate to have him in their service; let me say that. He has been visited with the same charge as the government.
Anyone who is familiar with the whole history of the involved affairs of the N.A.M.E. and the S.I.U. knows the terrific confusion which developed because of successive officers of the N.A.M.E. who joined with Mr. Banks, until such time as they broke with him. The whole history of this matter is outlined in the report of Justice Norris, commencing at page 51. The fourth paragraph at page 51 says:
From the evidence, it appears that in 1954 and 1955 Banks seduced the executive of the great lakes and eastern district of the N.A.M.E._
Then the whole story of this confusion unfolds itself. All the time this was happening the S.I.U. was an affiliate of the Canadian Labour Congress.
This question was brought before the courts. Action was instituted by the N.A.M.E. in self-protection, but even the courts found it difficult to sort out the status of the N.A.M.E. During this time the Department of Labour and the Canada labour relations board took the position time and time again that the N.A.M.E. was a legally certified bargaining agent for the Canadian labour relations board, and I am sure hon. members know that the Canada labour relations board found that the
S.I.U. had gained control of the marine engineers by fraud. Mr. Norris refers to this on page 51, and on, in his report.
As far as my own responsibilities are concerned, I took all possible steps under these conditions to see that the marine engineers were protected. When a strike occurred over this situation I ordered Banks by telegram to get his men to resume work. I said in that telegram that if he wanted to represent the marine engineers he should make a proper application to the Canada labour relations board. Banks did this and several of the applications which he made to that board were rejected as fraud, as I have said. All this time I might point out that he was affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress. Because of his raiding of the N.A.M.E. he

Maritime Transportation Unions and his union were thrown out of the Canadian Labour Congress. He was putting the ship owners, by threats and otherwise-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is no reason to break the law.


Michael Starr: The Department of Labour told them that it was illegal.


An hon. Member:: Why did you not prosecute then?


Michael Starr: I said that the matter, was brought to court by the N.A.M.E., but the situation was so confused that even the court *could not make head or tail of it and no action was taken in this regard. From then on the situation built up-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that he address the Chair.


Michael Starr: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was trying to refer this whole situation to the members who made the allegations. From then on, Mr. Chairman, the situation built up until it was possible to launch an investigation. 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. From then on the situation built up to the point where an investigation was made. That step was taken with the full co-operation, knowledge, and at the request of the Canadian Labour Congress, and 1 felt that that was the proper way to proceed.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made references to statements which have been issued in Washington by Mr. Wirtz and Mr. Meany. I think it is important in this situation that we keep a cool head, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. However, I also think it is important that we put on record the tremendous interference by United States citizens and the United States government in Canadian affairs. When we were the government we were charged with bad relationships with the United States time and again, simply because we stood up for the sovereignty and the right of Canadians. The situation as it now presents itself today shows that the interference from the other side of the border is far greater than ever it was during the five and a half years we were in government. If you want to compare the present relationship of Canada and the United States with the relationship the United States had with the former government, we would be termed bosom pals during the time we were in office.

In Washington the United States labour secretary Willard Wirtz said according to a press report:
Canada-United States negotiations to establish a private trusteeship over Canadian maritime unions collapsed because the Canadian Labour Congress insisted that the proposed three-man trusteeship be composed of two Canadians and one U.S. citizen.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the reason they collapsed. Can you imagine the nerve of Mr. Jodoin of the Canadian Labour Congress asking for two Canadians on that board.
Wirtz told a press conference that the A.F.L.-C.I.O. had agreed that the proposed trusteeship be composed of one Canadian and one American with the third party to be named by a Canada-U.S. committee of four officials.
That is a matter that affects Canada and Canadian shipping, and the negotiations collapsed because they did not have their way. This press report continues:
"But the C.L.C. was insisting that the third party would have to be a Canadian", Wirtz said.
I said yesterday that Mr. Wirtz came here to plant the seed of disruption and not to clean up the situation in Canada. Now the cat is out of the bag. That is why he was here and that is why Reynolds, the under secretary of labour, was here following his visit. At the same time the A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, George Meany, issued a statement bitterly attacking the Norris royal commission which had condemned the leadership of the seafarers' international union in Canada. "The S.I.U. deserves the support of all A.F.L.-C.I.O. affiliates in its fight against the destruction of free trade unionism in the Canadian maritime industry", Meany said in opposing the Canadian government's proposal to establish a government trusteeship over the S.I.U. of Canada.
This was the finest hour, Mr. Chairman, of Mr. Jodoin and the Canadian Labour Congress. But I want to point out that this is the same Mr. Meany who in 1953 kicked Mr. Banks' friend, Thomas Gleason, out of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and at a convention in Philadelphia called him the associate of hoodlums and gangsters. Now he is backing Banks and Gleason.
I want to submit to the house that the Wirtz and Meany statements bring Canada and Canadians to this realization. First, here is an undisguised challenge to Canadian sovereignty. Second, here are American attempts to discredit this parliament and an outright appeal for defiance of its laws. Third, here is a statement designed for outright warfare along the whole maritime front unless wiser and cooler heads prevail, as the member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed

out. Fourth, here is an indictment of this government's indecision and its subservience to Washington.


Mr. Byrne:: Who wrote that?


Michael Starr: I want to point out again that this government has done nothing to cement relationships between Canada and the United States. The Hyannis Port meeting was a nice social affair. Let us get on and pass this resolution.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. MacEachen thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-102, to provide for the placing of the maritime transportation unions of Canada under the management and control of trustees.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time? Next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.

members' travelling expenses


Mr. Speaker:: Before the house adjourns may I ask leave to table an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the commissioners of internal economy held on Thursday, October 3, 1963, with reference to members' travelling expenses.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Churchill:: Will the house leader inform us as to the business for tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tomorrow we will start with the second reading of the bill respecting the trusteeship which has just been given first reading. In the event it is completed during the day we will then take the two bills which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has been patiently waiting to bring forward since September 30. We will then go on with the resolution stage of the vocational training measure, and if there is any time left during the day we will make a beginning on the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the trusteeship bill does not pass the house tomorrow, is it the intention of the government to ask for a sitting on Saturday to deal with it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As hon. members will have noticed there is a notice in Votes and Proceedings which will come up tomorrow. I intend to confer with my colleagues and also with hon. gentlemen opposite and will endeavour as early as I can tomorrow morning to indicate what the government's intentions are. It might be that one can get an indication from hon. members opposite that the business suggested for tomorrow might be dealt with expeditiously. Certainly the government does not desire to ask hon. members to sit on a Saturday if that can be avoided and the public business done.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 11, 1963