Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):

Mr. Speaker, I was one of the nine members who gave this bill a measure of support in committee. Having lived in the province of Quebec for many years, naturally I was in sympathy with an effort to remedy certain conditions which frequently prevail. Fortunately, however, they do not prevail with all public utility companies. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Bell Telephone Company have been uniformly fair in this respect. Mention has been made of the Canadian National Railways, and some reflections were cast upon their management for not doing as other companies have done, but probably the utter condemnation which was directed against them is not wholly warranted. I believe that that company is now endeavouring to meet the public demand in the manner in which it should be met, and that in a very short time there will be no necessity, even in the province of Quebec, of a measure of this kind. I do not care much for legislation which is directed towards public utility companies dealing differently in one part of the country from the way in which they do in other parts, but I sympathize with the conditions which sometimes prevail in my own province.

I believe that a purpose has been served by the discussion of this resolution. I am not altogether in agreement with the remarks of the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret); I cannot completely adopt his point of view, and I feel that the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lacroix) has done a service to his province by bringing the matter to the attention of the house, by giving an opportunity for the airing of views, and that thereby he has served the purpose which no doubt he had in mind. For this reason I feel that, this purpose having been achieved, there is no further reason for referring the bill to committee of the whole, and that it would be much better if he would gracefully withdraw it for this session of parliament, in the hope of noting, in due course, an amelioration of the conditions in the particular sphere in which he is especially interested. I am sure that such an improvement will be forthcoming; that in a year or two he will find that a bill of this nature is quite unnecessary, and that his purpose has been amply served by the discussion in the committee and in this house.

3458 COMMONS

Railway Act-Language Requirement

Mr. WALSH:

I am predisposed to view this legislation with much favour. Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) I was a trade unionist at seventeen. I joined the textile union in the town of Valleyfield, and I presume I am still a member of a trade union, although we call it an association of teachers which is both provincial and dominion-wide in scope. Naturally I have a great deal of sympathy for labour unions and their aspirations. I feel confident that legitimate business will not oppose a provision of this nature, but I am afraid that in one respect legitimate business will view it with a question mark. For instance, more than one trade union may be operating in a particular plant or city. We have the international, we have the national, and in the province of Quebec we have the Catholic

Criminal Code-Trade Unions

trade unions; then there are the local trade unions which are confined to one shop or one city. Sometimes there is a conflict between these various unions, and the employer finds himself in this peculiar position, that after negotiating with one trade union a different trade union endeavours to come into the dispute and causes a certain amount of disruption. The presumption in this section is that that second trade union is a legitimate and recognized trade union and needs protection for its members under this clause such as the other trade union is getting. Yet the employer feels bound to give protection to the first trade union. So there is a conflict of opinion, and it is apt to lead the employer against his will into a certain amount of legal difficulty which he wishes to avoid, and to cause difficulty also within his own plant where the conflict of opinion is taking place.

As I was reading this clause I was turning over in my mind what would be my attitude as an employer if I found myself in a difficult situation of that sort, where two or three unions were endeavouring to secure membership from the workers in the plant and to force their desires on me as the employer.

I go one step further and say that sometimes labour leaders are not always discreet, not always willing to look at two sides of a question. An employee gets in a difficulty of some kind and is dismissed, we will say. Immediately he goes to his labour union and puts it before them that the sole reason for his dismissal was that he belonged to that union; he emphasizes that. The labour union discusses the matter with the employer, who tries to make the labour leader see his point of view, that dismissal was not for that reason but because of other difficulties. The question in my mind is this: If there is a prosecution, as there may be under this clause, on whom does the burden of proof rest to show that the employer has acted contrary to the law' under this section? Must the employer produce definite and absolute proof that he has not acted contrary to section 11? These are some of the points on which I have some difficulty, and which I should like to have cleared up.

So far as trade unionism is concerned, like the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), I believe that trade unionism should be fostered and developed along proper lines. I believe it is one of our best bulwarks against the advance of communism, nazism, fascism, or any other "ism" that may attempt to creep into this country, and for that reason

I welcome every opportunity to foster, develop and strengthen trade unionism in this country. At the same time I do not want to promote the possibilities of friction between employer and employee, and I should like to be assured that this clause will lead not to such friction but to a closer alignment between employer and employee.

It occurred to me as I was reading the clause that if employer and employee would only incorporate into their own personalities Christian doctrine and teaching-and I use the word Christian in the broadest sense of the term-we should not find it necessary to have a provision such as this. I am hoping, therefore, that along with this clause will go an educational program that will help to develop a better understanding between employer and employee.

I should like to have some of the points I have mentioned made a little clearer.

Mr. WALSH:

Is that 2 per cent a month on the balance or on the entire loan?

Mr. WALSH:

I understand that there is a government inspector on each dredge; that a great deal depends upon his honesty and integrity; that he in the final analysis is the judge as to what amount of rock is excavated and what amount of clay is excavated, and that upon his report the contractors' price is established. My information may be incorrect, but I am trying to find out whether it is correct or not, because if iwe are so dependent upon an inspector appointed by the government, a political appointee-I have not in mind this government in particular; he might be appointed by any government-it is rather a dangerous procedure to spend such a heavy amount of money upon the recommendation or the voucher of an inspector who, in the first instance, was not particularly well qualified, perhaps, for the position, but just happened to be placed there by the government which was then in power. I am concerned to find out whether the check-up was close enough, or whether the contractor was able to get prices for rock and clay excavated from the ship channel in quantities which were probably not as great as those recommended in the voucher.

Mr. WALSH:

Were they the balance

wheels?