740.00119 FEAC/7–2749: Airgram
The Chargé in Canada (Harrington) to the Secretary of State
A–311. Reference Department’s telegram No. 98 of July 231 on subject of Japanese labor policy.
Substance of introduction and six numbered paragraphs of telegram was embodied in memorandum left with External Affairs July 26. Memorandum was given first examination immediately, and in course of conversation External Affairs officer made extensive and quite frank remarks, summary of which follows:
The Canadian Government considers that it is the function of FEC to lay down the principles which shall prevail in administering the occupation of Japan. The Government feels it is the function primarily of SCAP to implement the principles laid down by FEC, but FEC itself is to a certain extent interested, beyond the mere formulation of policy principles, in observing in what manner SCAP effects implementation. Speaking quite frankly, the External Affairs officer [Page 813] said that the Canadian Government feels the principles formulated by FEC have sometimes been stretched by SCAP. He referred to action toward Japanese participation in ITU as a case in point (see Depcirtel March 11, 19492). With specific reference to labor laws, he stated that the Canadian concept of a proper long-term provision of law for Japan is that the Civil Service proper should be prohibited from striking, but that this prohibition should not extend to workers on Government enterprises such as railways, tele-communications, etc. He implied, but did not state, that this is the view initially adopted by FEC (Embassy is not informed on the point). As a parallel, he cited the fact that workers of the Government-owned Canadian National Railway system, as far as permanently effective law is concerned, are free to strike. At the same time, he freely acknowledged that a stoppage on the CNR would mortally wound the Canadian economy and should a stoppage seem imminent, there is no doubt that emergency action would be taken. The External Affairs officer made it clear that there is no Canadian objection to provision under Japanese law for similar emergency action to be taken by the Japanese Government (as set out in principle in Article 5 of FEC–045/5), but he expressed the Canadian preference for the principle that government workers, except Civil Service, should not be barred by permanent legislation from the ultimate means of effecting collective bargaining.
The External Affairs officer also pointed out that in the Canadian view, healthy activity on the part of Japanese unions in general would probably be beneficial to other countries, and he cited the cases of pre-war Japanese industry and ocean shipping, which were able to undercut foreign competition largely because of a big supply of docile labor which was not in a position to see to its own welfare. He felt restriction of union activities among government workers should be as narrow as possible not to discourage private industry unions.
Approaching another aspect of the matter, the External Affairs officer reverted to his earlier statement that from the Canadian point of view SCAP has sometimes stretched the principles laid down by FEC; and he said, speaking very frankly indeed, that to the Canadians it seems to be a regular method to present a series of faits accomplis, which have in most instances been accepted by FEC, and by the Governments represented in FEC, either because it would be impossible from the practical point of view to question the action taken, or because it would be embarrassing and damaging to the prestige of the occupation authorities to do so. The Canadians feel that the views of FEC and of its member governments are known, or could be known, in advance by SCAP, and they feel these views should be given more consideration before initial action is taken by the occupation authorities. [Page 814] The External Affairs officer continued by remarking that the administration of Japan has turned out to be a unilateral matter. He developed his theme by the statement that the Department of External Affairs would consider it most desirable if Japanese affairs could be discussed between Canada and the United States and views exchanged from time to time in advance of action being taken, either in the FEC or by SCAP. He pointed out the benefit to both countries which results from following this procedure in connection with matters coming before the General Assembly of the UN, and he admitted quite freely Canadian disappointment that Canada has not been consulted also with respect to Japan.
The above remarks were made without regard to the existing unusual and critical situation in Japan, and were an expression only of general views. The danger of the present situation is appreciated by the Canadian Government, and in view of it the Canadian position on the present Australian resolution in FEC will be reviewed, and the Embassy will be informed of the outcome.
The impression gained by the Embassy officer who left the memorandum is that the feeling of Canada having been “taken for granted again” (those words were used) underlies the whole Canadian position and may well be the most important factor in it. With regard to the particular question of the Australian resolution, it seems almost certainly a more important factor than the enunciated principle that only civil servants among Government workers should be deprived of the right to strike.