REPORT FROM PARLIAMENT HILL

MPs warned ‘saving clauses’ of
Bill 7 in reality save no one

OTTAWA
\ Wee Bill 7 (the revised Crim-

inal Code) now before the
House of Commons, many MPs
from industrial areas who receiv-
ed visits from trade union delega-
tions during the Christmas recess,
are taking a second look at what
are now commonly referred to as
the anti-labor sections: 52, 365
and 372.

A number of MPs are no longer
content to accept Justice Minister
Garson’s “assurances” and are
viewing these amendments as
having a most damaging effect
on the life of trade unions.

These particular sections came
under such heavy fire on the life
of the three trade union con-
gresses a year ago that the gov-
ernment was compelled to add a
somewhat dubious “saving
clause” (“face-saving” would. have
been the better term) at the end
of each section, which gave the
outward appearance of protecting
what big business sometimes re-
fers to as “legitimate trade union
activity.”

The Canadian Congress of
Laber, supported by the Cana-
dian and Catholic Confederation
of Labor, rejected the so-called
“saving clause” on the grounds
that far from protecting, it
“would have the effect of impos-
ing punishment in the field of
industrial relations in addition to
the penalties provided for in ex-

isting labor legislation.”

In a letter to the Special Com-
mittee which considered Bill 7
_ last spring, Donald McDonald,
CCL secretary-treasurer, stated
the congress’ objection to -the
“saving clause” in section 372 in
these terms:

“The government would ap-

ply the penalties under this
section only to illegal strikes. But
who defines ‘illegal’? In most
cases, the provincial legislature.
So the government’s proposal
would leave workers in most in-
dustries completely at the mercy
of the provincial legislature. A
provineial legislature which chose
to make all strikes illegal could
thus impose on the strikers not
only its own penalties but the
additional and very heavy penal-
ties provided by the Criminal
Code. Even if a legislature did
not go as far as that, it might
surround the right to strike with
so many conditions, limitations
and restrictions that for all prac-
tical purposes it would cease to
exist, and once again the addi-
tional and very heavy penalties
would apply.

2 “The effect of this is that

parliament would be prescrib-
ing penalties for undefined of-
fences. It would be saying to
the provinces ‘Here’s the penalty.
Now you decide what it applies
to. This is a flagrant breach of
the most elementary principle of
justice.

“The minister is reported to

have told the committee that
he did not see how the Dominion
government could interfere in
the province’s wide field of labor
jurisdiction. But in effect that
is precisely what it is doing. In
effect it is saying to the prov-
inces that when they passed their
labor relations acts, providing for
specific penalties against illegal
strikes, they didn’t know what
they were doing; that the penal-
ties were not heavy enough; that
_ they must be steeply increased.

“The government has repeat-
edly said that this bill is for
the sole purpose of consolidating,
condensing, clarifying, existing

laws ‘that it is not intended to
make new law; that no proposals
for changes in the existing law
could be entertained.’ The gov-
ernment’s proposal on this point
is new law. It does very. ob-
viously change the existing law.
All the Canadian Congress of
Labor is asking is that the exist-
ing law, the law which has pre-
vailed for forty-nine years, should
be maintained.”

Recent developments in a num-
ber of provinces, notably Quebec,
tend to confirm the soundness of

the argument advanced by Mac-

Donald at that time, though some.

disappointment has been express-
ed in labor circles over the fail-
ure of the CCL leadership to fol-
low up its ease.

Further consideration of the
matter during the intervening
months, has caused many trade

union leaders to conclude that
Garson’s real, though concealed,
aim is' to. bring about a situation
where organized labor will be af-
forded minimum protection un-
der provincial labor codes and
subjected to maximum penalties
under a new and stiffer criminal
code. :

The growing suspicion that the
government is moving in the di-
rection of hamstringing the trade
union, found expression in the

arks of Stanley Knowles (CCF,
anfiipeg North-Centre) during
the second reading of Bill 7.

“We feel,” he said, “that this is
no time to bring what belongs in
the field of labor legislation into

the Criminal Code. We have labor -

laws in this country—we have our
federal labor code and each of
the ten provinces has its own labo:
legislation. We feel that the

‘handling of labor matters should

be left to those labor laws. To
import into the Criminal Code
sections that affect the rights of
labor is putting in the hands of
some people a club against organ-
ized labor. We are opposed to
any move in that direction.”

(it is generally accepted here
that Duplessis’ new tough labor
laws, which openly intervene in
the internal affairs of the union,
have the unqualified blessing of
the Ottawa government.)

Among the material being stud-
ied by MPs is the analysis of Sec-

tions 52, 365 and 372 prepared
by the League for Democratic
Rights.

In its study the LDR charges
that these sections, as amended,
“constitute a dishonest attempt to
undermine the. position of labor
in Canada and turns back the
clock 200 years, to the time when
coal miners and other workers
were imprisoned for quitting
their jobs.”

Dealing specifically with Sec-
tion 372 (4)—the “mischief” sec-
tion—the LDR points out that it
is impossible to conceive of any
strike which is not “an inter-
ruption of the lawful use or oper-
ation of property.” The penalty
for this is five years in jail.

The league’s point of view has
been upheld by Senator Arthur
W. Roebuck who has, had long
years of experience in the handl-
ing of labor codes in the courts.
“No strike ever took place in
this country,” said the senator,
“that did not do one or the other
of the things mentioned in sec-
tion 372.” “That,” he added, “is
usually the very purpose of a
strike.”

This advance in understanding
of what is involved in Bill 7 re-
flects great credit on organiza-
tions like the LDR and its affili-
ates which, under the leadership
of R. S. Rodd, QC, did a mag-
nificent job in making the facts
of the bill known through its
several publications whose circu-
lation has reached into the hun-
dreds of thousands.

Equal credit is due to trade
union leaders who. have alerted
their members to the dangers in
the bill in good time and thus
helped to create a powerful move-
ment of opposition to its anti-
labor and anti-democratic sec-
tions.

The government has already
received what ought to be con-
vincing evidence, that Canadian

' trade usmions will not supinely

submit to being Taft-Hartleyized
by Justice Minister S. S. Garson.
Still more evidence of that deter-
mination to remain unshackled@
must be registered with the MPs
whose vote will shortly determine
the fate of Bill 7.

@ During the next few days
pens and postcards can be
mighty weapons in the fight
to be free — the address is
your MP, House of Commans,
Ottawa. No postage stamp is
required.

°

The need for a Canadian Bill of Rights is emphasized by the

federal governments

Bill 7, now before the House of Commons,

sections of which endanger the entire fabric of Canadian liberties.

By WILLIAM KASHTAN

Workers who wouldn’‘t
be laid off show way

Te working class has often dis-

played considerable ingenuity
and initiative in finding and de-
veloping those form of struggle
which would advance its inter-
ests. For example, during the
height of the big drive to organ-
ize the mass production indus-
tries in the U.S. when the auto
barons moved heaven and earth
to prevent these citadels of the
open shop from being organized,
the workers, rather than going
out on strike, developed the sit-
down strike inside the plants and
forced the companies to negoti-
ate. Before long the sit-down
became a popular form of strug-
gle not only in the U.S. but in
most capitalist countries.

The Italian working class has
recently adapted the sit-down to
the fight for jobs and named it
“strikes in reverse.” Faced with
layoffs, the workers refused to
leave the plants. They went fur-
ther and either continued produc-
tion in these particular plants or
undertook a number of public
works which were badly needed
and then demanded payment
from employer or government.

These “strikes in reverse” cap-
tured the imagination of the
working class and won the sup-
port of wide sections of the com-
munity which realized that, in
fighting for work for themselves,
these workers were simultaneous-
ly fighting for a new direction in
Italian economy in which policies
would be directed towards the
expansion of industry, peaceful
construction and full employment
policies beneficial to the majority
of Italian people.

The majority of these “strikes
in reverse” have been successful

thanks to the leadership of the.

OPEN FORUM

Thanks for donations

M.B., Upper Lynn,.$1; A Friend,
Winnipeg, $1; E.0.S., Victoria,
$2; M.Z., Kamloops, $2; F.H.,
Kamloops, $2; P.P., Garibaldi, $2;
L.C., Victoria, 40c; A Friend, Van-
couver, $7; R.B., Vancouver, 25c;

J.B., Moose Jaw, $1; J.L., Van-

couver, $2;

H.K., Galiano, $1; Mr. A., Van-
couver, $15; V.S., Vancouver,
$1.50; T.M., Vancouver, $1; M.H.,
Cumberland, $2; G.K., Celista, $1;
A Friend, Vancouver, $20; B.H.,
McMurphy, $2; J.I., Okanagan
Mission, $2; S.0.V., Ladner, 40c;
W.H., Vancouver, $2, H.P. Sas-
katchewan, $1.50;

S.W., Fernie, $2; J.S., Vancou-
ver, $2; E.O., Brilliant, $2; F.P.C.,
Vancouver, $10; J.B., Woodfibre,
$2; L.G., North Vancouver, $2;
R.R., Vancouver, 40c; S.R., Van-

couver,; 50c; J.D., North Burnaby,

40c; J.E.A., Wells, $2; D.A,,
Fernie, $1; A.C., Grand Forks,
CY Cas

..-E.J.T., Grand Forks, $1; Mrs.
H., Vancouver, $3; J.N., North
Burnaby, $2; J.C., Ocean Falls, $2;
C.Z., Vancouver, $10; M.Z., Kam-
loops, $2; R.J., North Burnaby,
$1; P.G., New Westminster, $2;
E.M.M., Vavenby, $1; H.D., Van-
couver, $2; A.E.W., Saskatchewan,
$1; P.M., Pioneer Mines, $2; M.H.,
Alberta, $1; A Friend, Vancouver,
$10. -

A Doukhobor writes

N. KANAGAN, Appledale, B.C.:
We read your paper regularly
and are very grateful for your
efforts to try and publish our
opinions—the opinions of Douk-
hobors.

Our government’s. actions
against our religion, and especi-
ally the way in which they raid
our homes and take away our
children, should be known to all
the people.

“The authorities overlook that
when we came to Canada we were
promised freedom of religion.
But during our 50 years here we
have been continually oppressed
and our material wealth has been
taken, away twice by the same
democratic government,” says a
statement signed here by several
members of the Christian Com-
munity Brotherhood of Reform
Doukhobors. :

“We are making our appeal to
all men in authority to stop lay-
ing hands on our children.

“We have spoken in free spirit
and do hope it will be accepted
likewise.”

’

‘Struggle these

«down of plants.

CGIL, which Communists, Socia}-
ists and Catholics share. From
the very beginning the militawt
unions and the workers refused
to accept the viewpoint of e-
ployer and government that up-
employment is an “act of God” er
of nature and that maximum pre-
fits of monopoly is inviolate,
sacred and untouchable.

By ‘carrying through correet
tactics, by seeking the support ef
all other sections of the popula-
tion equally affected by the ecen.-
omic policies of monopoly, by
their militancy, unity and active

workers won em-
ployment.

e

There is an object lesso
for the Canadian Poivaee,
faced now with mounting unem-
ployment and the threat of an-
ate jp eopegnle crisis.

all the anti-national lici
of monopoly and poveninent wid
vail with all its serious conse-
quences for the Majority of the
Canadian people, in the first plaee
the working class? Or will the
trade union movement begin tak-
ing action directed towards
achieving full employment in a
Peaceful economy?

The lesssons of the Italiax
working class will be serioushy
studied by all workers who are
concerned with fighting layoffs
and achieving gainful employ-
ment. Workers will correctly
ask: “If the sit-down can be used
successfully in organizing an up
organized plant why can’t it’ be
equally successful in the fight: for
the right to work?”

e a al :

Certainly workers cannot amé
will not remain indifferent in
face of layoffs and the closing
This is a form
of sabotage on the part of mon-

opoly aimed at lowering living:

standards and breaking ‘the’ back
of the organized labor movement.

Neither will they remain silent
when company after company car-
Ties through a Policy of shifting
entire plants to new. areas
maintain and if possible. increase
its maximum profits.

They will insist and fight fer
the right to work.

The workers and the trade
union movement are absolutely
correct in opposing layoffs and
the closing down of plants, They
must insist that employer and gov-
ernment keep these plants open
and provide employment for the
workers concerned.

_ And they will be strengthened
in this fight if they hammer out
an over-all program designed te
achieve full employment in
peace economy. ;

In the conditions prevailing
today, mass pressure can compel
the government to act. The times
demand \ that the trade union
movement evolve policies, pro-
posals and tactics to adequately
cope with the new situation we
now face.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — JANUARY 29, 1954 — PAGE 4