July 11, 1947

HUDSON BAY MINING AND SMELTING

WORKS DECLARED FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF TWO OR MORE PROVINCES-CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 452, respecting the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company Limited. He said: Mr. Speaker, the mine and metallurgical plants of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company Limited are situated astride the Manitoba-Saskatchewan interprovincial boundary adjacent to the town of Flin Flon, Manitoba. The company is the second largest producer of copper and zinc, is one of the larger producers of gold and silver in Canada, and employs at present some 2,200 men. The mining shaft and railway operated by the company run across the interprovincial boundary. The mill, zinc plant and smelter buildings are also situated on both sides of the boundary. While the great majority of the employees are resident in Manitoba and are hired and paid in Manitoba, about one-half of them are working in Saskatchewan and the other half in Manitoba; and in the



Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting course of their work they move back and forfh daily across the interprovincial boundary. Throughout the war years, the company's operations were subject in matters of labour relations to P.C. 1003 and to the wage control order. The return of jurisdiction over labour relations and wages and working conditions to the provinces has raised a problem of unique difficulty both to the provinces and to the company with respect to the application of provincial legislation governing labour relations and terms and conditions of employment -notably holidays with pay and hours of work legislation-to the company's operations. This is particularly so as the legislation of the two provinces on these matters is not uniform. In matters of collective bargaining, neither the company nor the union are in a position to bargain with certainty on matters relating to terms and conditions of employment in view of the doubt and. difficulties as to application of provincial legislation. The company has discussed the question with the governments of both Manitoba and Saskatchewan and with the Department of Labour in Ottawa, and also made a submission within the last week to the industrial relations committee of this house. Manitoba and Saskatchewan, who are the only provinces interested in this matter, have requested that, with a view to meeting the admitted difficulties of the situation, the dominion should be asked to enact legislation to bring these mining operations of the company within the scope of dominion jurisdiction. Both governments have agreed on the procedure to be followed to effect this result, namely: (a) That parliament should declare these mining operations of the company to be works for the advantage of two or more provinces. (b) To provide that the rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment of employees of the company employed upon such undertaking shall be such as are established in collective agreements entered into from time to time between the company and the representatives of its employees but without affecting the application of provincial workmen's compensation *legislation. The unions representing employees of the company support the company's representations and the foregoing proposals. This bill is being proceeded with at this session and as the difficulties relating to the company's operations are represented by the company and by the provincial governments as requiring an early solution, the government decided it best to introduce this bill which gives effect to the request of the two provinces mentioned and the representations made by the company to the industrial relations committee of this house. I believe that members of this house will be in agreement and be prepared to support the provisions of the bill. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

Topic:   HUDSON BAY MINING AND SMELTING
Subtopic:   WORKS DECLARED FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF TWO OR MORE PROVINCES-CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. KNOWLES:

Next sitting of the house.

Topic:   HUDSON BAY MINING AND SMELTING
Subtopic:   WORKS DECLARED FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF TWO OR MORE PROVINCES-CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
Permalink
LIB

Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MITCHELL:

As this measure has been agreed to by the provinces, the companies and the representatives of the men, I would ask the house for unanimous consent to proceed with it now.

Topic:   HUDSON BAY MINING AND SMELTING
Subtopic:   WORKS DECLARED FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF TWO OR MORE PROVINCES-CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
Permalink
PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. ADAMSON:

As a member of the industrial relations committee, and knowing something about this bill, speaking for the Conservative party, I should be glad if unanimous consent were given to proceeding with further stages.

Topic:   HUDSON BAY MINING AND SMELTING
Subtopic:   WORKS DECLARED FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF TWO OR MORE PROVINCES-CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. MacINNIS:

I should like to know just how far the minister would want to go. Does he intend that the bill be given second reading only at this stage, and considered in committee later. If that is the proposal I shall be very glad to agree to it.

Topic:   HUDSON BAY MINING AND SMELTING
Subtopic:   WORKS DECLARED FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF TWO OR MORE PROVINCES-CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
Permalink
LIB

Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MITCHELL:

I would agree with that; give it second reading now and we will proceed with the committee stage later.

Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

Topic:   HUDSON BAY MINING AND SMELTING
Subtopic:   WORKS DECLARED FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF TWO OR MORE PROVINCES-CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
Permalink

MILITIA PENSION ACT

PENSIONS FOR LESS THAN TWENTY YEARS' SERVICE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS


Hon. BROOKE CLANTON (Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution: That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Militia Pension Act to provide that the governor in council may grant an annua] pension to a member of the forces who has contributed to the consolidated revenue fund under part V of the Act and who has served in the forces for ten years or upwards but less than twenty years, and who is certified by a board composed of not less than three medical officers of the forces as being disabled or incapable of performing his duties as a member of the forces. He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the subject matter of the proposed resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house. Motion agreed to. Royal Style and Titles Act


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS

ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE TO GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION LEADERS IN SENATE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 443, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.


?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

On division.

Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.

Topic:   SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS
Subtopic:   ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE TO GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION LEADERS IN SENATE
Permalink

ROYAL STYLE AND TITLES ACT


OMISSION OF WORDS "iNDIAE IMPERATOR" AND "emperor of India" Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 449, to provide for 'the alteration of His Majesty's royal style and titles. Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair. On section 1-Short title.


IND

Jean-François Pouliot

Independent Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I have just one observation to make, and that is with regard to bills which come from Westminster to the dominions. There is a particular way of drafting them, and when they are passed at Westminster ip certain language they are supposed to be passed by the dominion in exactly the same language. I consider this plain red tape, and I will tell you why. The title does not affect the king as king of Canada; it affects him only as former emperor of India. Because the description of His Majesty the King of Great Britain as emperor of India is changed, I do not see why we should pass a bill like this, which does not concern us any more than a change in the name of the Dominion of Canada would affect the people of India. This is only to give us the illusion that we have something to do with that business. We 'have nothing to do with it. What is done concerning India does not concern Canada any more than what is done in Canada affects India, with the exception of trade relations.

This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. I am a loyal subject of His Majesty the King. I 'have taken my oath of allegiance to him, and I have the greatest respect for the royal family. But I think this bill is just "blah blah", just to give Canada the illusion of having more importance than it has in interimperial relations. I protest against such legislation, which means nothing more than the consultation with Canada meant in

regard to the engagement of Princess Elizabeth. If Canada had said no, she would have got married just the same. This bill is just an illusion, just a mirage, and I protest once more against such legislation which is just a waste of the time of the house.

Topic:   ROYAL STYLE AND TITLES ACT
Permalink

July 11, 1947