October 10, 1968

PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Woolliams:

There may be other institutions in the province of Quebec because in that province there are many kinds of credit unions. In view of the fact that the minister can always designate the financial institutions, and surely that was intended in the resolution, I would ask Your Honour to give my point serious consideration and upset the chairman's ruling.

Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:

The question before the house is an appeal to Mr. Speaker from a decision given by the chairman of the committee of the whole pursuant to section 4 of standing order 59.

In the committee of the whole on Bill No. C-lll the hon. member for Crowfoot proposed an amendment to clause 1 of the bill as follows:

"To add after the word 'society', line 12, and before the word 'that' in line 13 the words 'and other financial institutions' ''.

The question is to determine whether the proposed words of the amendment go beyond the terms of the resolution. My view is that if the words proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot by way of amendment do not enlarge the words "financial institutions" used in clause 1 of this bill, then the amendment is redundant and superfluous. If they seek to enlarge the terms of these words, then we have to determine whether the amendment is consistent with the detailed provisions of the resolution preceding the bill. In my view, when a resolution preceding a money bill sets out in detail the terms of the bill, as this one does, we have to be very cautious about amendments which might enlarge upon these terms.

I have to refer hon. members to citation 246 in the fourth edition of Beauchesne at page

DEBATES 1049

Farm Improvement Loans Act 207 subparagraph (3), which reads as follows in part:

The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.

I suggest to hon. members, with respect, that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot does affect the conditions and qualifications set out in detail in the resolution approved by the house and preceding the bill.

For this reason I feel I have to sustain the decision of the learned and wise chairman of the committee of the whole.

And the house having resumed in committee:

On clause 1-Bank.

[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)

Topic:   AMENDMENTS EXTENDING PERIOD, RESPECTING INTEREST RATES, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

James Hugh Faulkner (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The Chairman:

Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-lll. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.

Topic:   AMENDMENTS EXTENDING PERIOD, RESPECTING INTEREST RATES, ETC.
Permalink

PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Depuiy Speaker:

It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer)-Agriculture, biological effects on chickens of microwave tower radiation; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie)-Communications, co-operation with France in space and satellite research.

It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, public bills. As there are no private bills on today's order paper the house will proceed to the consideration of public bills.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
Permalink

CRIMINAL CODE

PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY

NDP

David Orlikow

New Democratic Party

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih) moved

the second reading of Bill No. C-5, to amend the Criminal Code (company-censored housing).

October 10, 1968

Criminal Code

He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious that it is public policy, both in the federal and provincial jurisdictions, that workers shall have the right to join trade unions and, having so joined and given proof as required under federal and provincial labour relations acts that the union represents a majority of the workers concerned, shall have the right to bargain collectively and in good faith with the management of the enterprise for whch they work.

The rights of workers to join unions have been spelled out in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and in various provincial labour relations acts. I want to quote a couple of sections from the federal act, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Section 3 (1) provides:

Every employee has the right to be a member of a trade union and to participate in the activities thereof.

Section 4 (1) provides:

Subject to subsection (2), no employer or employers' organization, and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers' organization, shall participate in or interfere with the formation or administration of a trade union, or contribute financial or other support to it.

The number of workers both in private industry and in government enterprises in the latter part of 1968 who belong to trade unions of various types amounts to approximately two million. Relationships between labour and management are, in my opinion, on the whole quite satisfactory. It is true that on occasion there are strikes. It is also true that many people think there are too many strikes. All I can say is that the number of days lost in the course of any year, even in the course of this year when there has been a relatively large number of strikes, is very small compared with the number of days lost because of unemployment, over which workers have no control, accidents on the job and sickness.

I think that this is the direction in which most Canadians have wanted labour-management relations to develop. Proof of that can be found in the fact that recently in this parliament we introduced legislation giving those who work for the federal government the same right to belong to a union, indeed to strike if they so desire, that workers in private industry have enjoyed for many years.

The reason for this bill, which essentially proposes a very simple amendment to the section in the Criminal Code dealing with trespassing, is that in certain sectors of our industrial society management has been less

than ready to accept what I have indicated I believe to be the clear intent of parliament and the legislatures of Canada. I am referring to workers working in isolated areas, usually in the northern parts of Canada, who are engaged in the woods industry, the mining industry and the steel industry.

As far as I can tell, Mr. Speaker, in every province there have been instances where these workers have been forced, because they have no choice, to live in bunkhouses on company property, and the management has frequently exercised its right under the provisions of the section in the code dealing with trespassing to pick and choose who can and who cannot visit the workers in the company bunkhouses. I am sure the members of the house would be surprised to know that frequently managements have refused union organizers who wish to go on to company property, not to the work site but to visit the workers in their bunkhouses during their free time, access in order to speak to the workers. As a result, I suggest that the clear intent of the law has been violated by employers and management representatives.

I am sure the minister of forestry could tell us about many cases of this sort in the years when he was head of the Confederation of National Trade Unions in the province of Quebec, cases when he and other representatives of his union were forbidden access to various work sites in order to speak to workers there. I know that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) could spend hours telling the members of this house of the difficulties encountered by union representatives when they wanted to organize workers at the Kitimat plant of the Aluminum Company of Canada. I know that in northern Ontario mining and lumber camps have been declared out of bounds to union organizers. In some instances the unions have had to hire a helicopter to fly in their organizers and members because they could not use company-owned roads.

There has also been a number of such cases in the province of Manitoba. A power plant was built for the hydroelectric system of Manitoba at a place called Kelsey. It took almost three years to build this plant and there were anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 workers at the plant at any one time. Not until the plant was completed and turned over to Manitoba hydro were the construction unions able to talk to the workers at the plant and get them to become members of the union so that they could get certification and bargain collectively.

October 10, 1968

[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)

What has happened as a result of this practice? I have in my files sworn affidavits from workers to the effect that in a period of six months they worked more hours than most workers who put in a 40-hour week work in a whole year. I have sworn affidavits saying that these workers worked an average of 100 hours a week, for seven days a week, six months at a time, and that they sometimes worked from 24 to 36 hours at a time without a rest. Why did they do that, Mr. Speaker? Not because they wanted to but because management said, "If you do not work these hours under these conditions, you will be fired." I suggest that any union would immediately have prevented that kind of exploitation. Yet union members simply were not permitted to enter that site.

Similar situations exist in the city of Thompson at the International Nickel Company's site. Because that company controls several hundred square miles of property in the area and because it had control for about two years of the railway link extending from the Hudson Bay line to the site of the company operation, it told the Canadian National to whom it could sell tickets to come to the property and to whom it could not sell tickets.

What was the result? For almost three years union officials from all unions were prohibited from entering the site and talking to workers. As a member of the legislature I was told I could not go to Thompson and talk to some of my constituents working there about the working conditions they had to endure. When at last I was able to go I was told I could not stay overnight because the local town administrator would not allow strangers to camp or otherwise stay on the site overnight. Not until I told the local administrator that he was free to call the R.C.M.P., that he was free to charge me with trespass, that I was willing to appear before the magistrate and if a fine were imposed I would refuse to pay it and go to jail instead, not until then was there positive action. The company permitted me to visit the site but not to move around on it. I was told that the company would send to me anyone I wished to see. Of course I knew, the company knew, and the workers knew that anyone visiting me would lose his job the next day.

That kind of thing has been going on and will continue to go on as long as employers have the right to abuse the provision of the

Criminal Code

Criminal Code dealing with trespass. I propose in this bill to introduce a simple amendment that will permit those living in rented accommodation on private property to receive visitors they want to receive. Such visitors might include union organizers who might wish to discuss with workers the question of joining a union.

I do not suggest that workers must join unions. I only suggest that existing federal and provincial legislation spells out the right of workers to join unions if they so wish. If this amendment to the Criminal Code were to obtain passage through the house, a long standing abuse of a section in the Criminal Code would be ended.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink
LIB

Colin David Gibson

Liberal

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilion-Wenlworih):

Mr. Speaker, as a new member rising for the first time in the house may I congratulate you sincerely on your appointment as permanent Speaker. It is obvious that Your Honour is especially well qualified for such a great task. I also congratulate Mr. Deputy Speaker on his appointment and compliment him for the fine manner in which he is carrying out his new responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to extend to you as well as to the Chairman of the committee of the whole my sincere congratulations.

The bill before the house today presents many problems. I suggest it creates more problems than it solves. In my opinion its effect would be to create confusion in a clear and concise section of the Criminal Code. The bill before the house seeks to amend section 41 of the code. Section 41, subsection 1, reads as follows:

Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

Subsection 2 reads:

A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.

The amendment reads as follows:

(3) Except where a landlord would be therein justified under a covenant with a tenant for quiet enjoyment, nothing in this section shall be deemed

October 10, 1968

Criminal Code

to justify an employer in using force to prevent any person from having ingress to, regress over, or egress from a dwelling house or real property in or upon which the employer houses an employee or to remove any person therefrom.

In the first place, the pith and substance of section 41 of the Criminal Code is protection from trespassers and control of trespassers by any person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house or by any person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority. In short, the code provides an extension of normal rights to those against whom a trespass is committed. It extends the law of assault to include a trespasser who resists eviction.

The bill before the house makes an unnecessary exception to this sound law which is sensibly worded and suitably phrased. The intervention of an amendment like this would confound the courts; it would bring upon them utter confusion. There is no reason to limit the rights of employers, as a class, in assisting in the ejectment of trespassers. Employers, like all other citizens, are bound to obey the civil law of landlord and tenant. That law is a provincial matter under section 92 of the British North America Act.

If this bill were passed the law would prohibit an employer from assisting an employee who sought his aid in ejecting a trespasser. Surely nothing could be more absurd. I recognize the humanitarian motive of the hon. member for Winnipeg North in moving this amendment and I have some sympathy for those who have the problems he spoke of. But to translate the hon. member's desires into an amendment to the Criminal Code would, in my submission, cause much expense to be incurred and frustration to be felt. Many innocent people would suffer. The courts would dismiss charges and this part of the Criminal Code, as amended, would be considered void because of uncertainty and ruled out of order. It would give rise to endless cases. The dockets of magistrates throughout Canada would include subjects such as this which would raise difficult problems of interpretation.

[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)

For example, the words "quiet enjoyment" have various meanings attached to them, but I have checked the Criminal Code and there is no definition of "quiet enjoyment" to be found in it. "Quiet enjoyment" is a term used in English common law, especially in real estate and landlord and tenant law. It has a long history, but I submit it has no relevancy in Quebec where landlord and tenant law is

governed by the Civil Code and other statutes. A magistrate struggling with words which are not applicable to that province would be lost for a definition. They have no meaning in Quebec. The object of the Criminal Code is to standardize the law throughout the country, not the reverse.

I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is a humanitarian one and I do not quarrel with his thoughts and worth-while suggestions, but I submit the subject matter of his proposal ought properly to be placed before the legislatures of the various provinces.

At such a time in our constitutional development as the present enactment of a bill of this kind would invite the justifiable wrath of provincial legislatures. I am thinking in particular of the great province of Quebec. It would be considered an unwarranted invasion of a provincial sphere of legislation. In any event, it would probably be ruled out by any competent court as void for remoteness, or declared to be null and void for uncertainty.

Apart from the constitutional arguments against this bill, it appears to defeat its own purpose because it would prevent a helpful employer from assisting an employee to evict a trespasser. This could happen. It is not the case that employers and employees are always enemies. It is a notion which seems to be fostered by hon. members of this house who belong to the New Democratic party. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there are many happy and successful companies-I am thinking particularly of the Dominion Foundry and Steel Company in Hamilton-where relations between employees and management are extremely good and where there is no need to worry about interference with employees by employers, because they work in partnership. This is what we are striving for. We are not trying to isolate people by class groups and distinctions; nothing is further from the desire of this house, I am sure. I am also sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) did not realize the implications of his bill.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink
PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Woolliams:

Oh, he is a fairly bright fellow.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink
LIB

Colin David Gibson

Liberal

Mr. Gibson:

In the days when trespass is not an uncommon invasion of a citizen's rights, it is utterly unthinkable that such a garbled and incoherent amendment should be permitted to slip into the Criminal Code. The idea behind the bill is in the wrong context altogether and the bill itself is self-defeating.

October 10, 1968

It infringes on the employees' rights to have assistance from their own employer. Perhaps the bill itself is an example of the futility of careless words.

If this house were permitted during the private members' hour to spend one hour a week hearing speeches by six members of parliament lasting a maximum of ten minutes each on controversial subjects, I respectfully submit that a great deal of time would be saved, time which is now wasted, and that a more interesting debate would result. I suggest that rather than discuss bills of this nature in every private members' hour it would be better to allow more latitude for the discussion of current topics such as bilingualism and national unity, the procedural advancement of parliament from the outdated shackles of the past, or the thought behind the legislation which was under consideration earlier. If we were to proceed in this way I suggest that private members' hour would be far more interesting to hon. members and to the public and that the attendance in this house would increase.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink
LIB

James Hugh Faulkner (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr, Deputy Speaker:

Perhaps the hon. member would like to return to the subject under discussion and make his suggestion to the procedural committee.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink
LIB

Colin David Gibson

Liberal

Mr. Gibson:

I will take the hint. Bills such as the one before the house today lead us nowhere. Ideas such as this are stale and out of context, and discussion of them is a senseless waste of time. The taxpayers are not paying us to deal with a bill which will never get through and which was never intended to get through, such as the one before us today. I therefore wish to express my sincere desire that this measure be defeated as a verbose and badly phrased mixture of words and phrases which would only create complete chaos. There is an old saying that an Englishman's home is his castle. It is certainly true that an Englishman's home is his home, whether it be a rented apartment, a trailer, a house, a tent or hotel room. In each case the occupant is given some protection by the Criminal Code, and the only result of the passing of this bill would be to restrict those rights and freedoms which are so precious to us all.

So let us reject this bill and, once again, resist the trend to cut down the individual's right to be protected from trespass in the just society. Let us guard against relaxing the law of trespass, a word which has changing meanings from generation to generation. With

Criminal Code

eavesdropping devices mushrooming in our technological age should we not consider a wider definition of trespass to include unwarranted invasion of privacy? We cannot discuss this fully today in the context of this debate but I feel we should be constantly on our guard to protect the individual's right to justice in a free society.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit a personal note. My father was a cabinet minister in the King and St. Laurent governments from 1940 to 1949.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink
PC

Thomas Miller Bell (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Progressive Conservative Party)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Bell:

Who was King?

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink
LIB

Colin David Gibson

Liberal

Mr. Gibson:

I hope you will permit me to say how proud I am to follow in his footsteps in this parliament.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink
PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my friends are behind me tonight because it always gives one a good deal of comfort when one is still unaccustomed to these matters.

I was very interested in the maiden speech of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) and in the attitude he took toward these private bills. I think he will find after he has been here a while that private members' bills do provide an opportunity to express a point of view on things which are sometimes left undone by busy governments. In my experience very few private members' bills have passed the House of Commons, but many of them have greatly influenced public opinion and the attitude of the government of the day. Many changes have come about as a result of private members bringing in resolutions and bills. The hon. member said it was a waste of the taxpayers' money to discuss these measures. In the past we used to get a dinner break from six o'clock till eight. Now we sit until seven, so it really does not cost much more of the taxpayers' money. Members are paid the same salaries whether they stay here and listen to me or not, and I note that some have not stayed to listen.

[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)

What the hon. member for Winnipeg North is saying, in a nutshell, is this. Many large companies in Canada, particularly mining and lumber companies, own the land upon which the homes of their employees are built. As I gather from the hon. member's argument in proposing this bill, whether he lives in an

October 10, 1968

Criminal Code

apartment or any other kind of home, every man believes his home is his castle. People who need employment with these big companies rent their homes on the employer's property, but they believe those homes are still their castles. The hon. member is complaining about the fact that companies have laid down certain rules and regulations which prevent union people who come on their property from visiting their employees in their homes, for the purpose of organizing unions.

I feel it is an inherent right of everybody to have any visitors he wishes in his home to discuss his personal and business problems, without interference from anyone else. That is an inherent right of every living Canadian. What the hon. member is saying, in a nutshell, is that section 41(1) and (2) of the code protects all but those who would be affected by this proposed measure. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is really talking about a situation similar to that dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Eskimo case.

The hon. member says there is some discrimination with respect to property rights and the enjoyment of those rights in a case where a person working for a lumber company or a mining company has only one place to live, that is, in homes owned by the company. He is saying that if this is part of an employer-employee contract, then the employee should have the same rights as any other Canadian. With that I am in full accord.

Every man working in Canada has the right to strike and the right to arbitration. We have accepted that for a long time in Canada, and this party goes along with it; but I do believe we have come to a time in the industrial development of this nation when disruption in certain industries disrupts the whole economy of the country. That is why we were privileged in this house recently to have one of those love-in speeches by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), when he expressed his affection for all members on all sides of the house, and regretted the departure of some in the last election. He went on to point out he had taken all necessary steps in reference to the two strikes on the Great Lakes that held up shipments of grain, and cost this nation our grain markets, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) admitted.

Dealing with the question of the right to strike and its effect on the economy, I have been rather surprised to see certain members

[Mr. Woolliams.l

of the N.D.P. from the province of Saskatchewan, who represent farm ridings, remaining so silent of late in reference to those problems which held up shipments of grain. It may be that they are interested in a very important by-election in B.C. and do not want to disrupt or interrupt the thinking of the working people there, upon whom they are relying for support.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink
LIB

Raymond J. Perrault

Liberal

Mr. Perrault:

That is imputing motives.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink
PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Woolliams:

I am not imputing motives; the fellow isn't in the House of Commons yet. I know your party appreciates having two leaders in the House of Commons; and now we have this third one, this rump leader, who is one of the greatest interrupters of all times. He is carrying on here as he did back among the rustics of the legislature of British Columbia. I believe that is why he has been placed at that end of the chamber.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR ACCESS TO PEOPLE LIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Permalink

October 10, 1968