Mr. Chairman, what about the rule of relevancy? What about the rule on the expenditure of money? This amendment could cause the expenditure of money and such an amendment is only supposed to be moved by a member of the Cabinet. In any case, I notice that there is some general opinion that the House is ready to vote on this motion so I will not hold it up for more than about another two minutes.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw suggests that what I said about the head of the international union is false or wrong. If I had known he was such a doubting Thomas, I would have brought some newspaper clippings with me. On August 11, the beginning of the strike, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board said there was no worry, no strike and the grain handlers in the International Longshoremens Union would continue to work. The grain handlers intended to continue moving grain, but the head of the International Longshoremens Union, whose head office is in Los Angeles, stated quite categorically that he would not allow them to move Canadian grain. Perhaps he wanted more traffic to move through the port of Seattle which is south of Vancouver. Perhaps that is what motivated him. I really do not know.
It is high time that we examined the whole question of unions. This legislation deals with two international unions, one with its head office in Chicago and the other with its head office in Los Angeles. They control the economy of a great part of western Canada. If this amendment is in order, surely the government will accept it, set up the inquiry and decide whether Canada could have its own union which would have a responsibility to the economy of Canada and not to some foreign empire builders who control the unions. I believe that this amendment is out of order, but as Your Honour has ruled it to be in order, I am prepared to vote for it.
Subtopic: WEST COAST PORTS OPERATIONS BILL