Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the strike at Oshawa and the concentration of federal and provincial police at Toronto, and the urgent necessity of government mediation.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave so to move?

Some hon. MEMBERS: No.Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.And more than twenty members having

risen:

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

At this late stage in the session I have no desire unduly to delay the house, but I think we are all convinced that a grave situation is developing at

Oshawa. I recall only too well having had to take up two years ago the matter of the unemployed advancing on Regina, and I then urged upon the house the necessity of discussion before there came bloodshed. I welcome the opportunity to-day briefly to bring this matter to the attention of the house.

As to the situation, statements have been given us pretty clearly by the various people

Labour Dispute-Oshawa Strike

concerned. I read from this morning's Montreal Gazette just one paragraph which indicates the position of the company:

The issue is clear cut. General Motors of Canada, Limited, is not opposing organization by labour, but will not, under any condition, negotiate with any person or organization, other than their own employees' committee, and with them they will confer at any time. In fact, conferences have been carried on for the past week and many of the points at issue have been settled thus satisfactorily. Rather than see any violence, no attempt is being made to operate the plant.

There is a clear cut statement that the company will not negotiate with any general trade union body, but merely with their own employees.

Mr. BENNETT:

Does the hon. member think it is quite fair to take a newspaper report as an accurate statement?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

That is the only information yet available. What I have read appears to be the statement of the company. I wish to quote also what appears in the papers with regard to the attitude of the organizer.

Mr. BEAUBIEN:

Last session the hon. gentleman objected to any reading from a newspaper. I submit that he is out of order.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

The objection I took to the reading of articles in newspapers was the quoting of newspaper opinions on certain matters before the house. I am quoting facts now. The organizer, Hugh Thompson, said:

We are not going to break any laws. We are going to abide by them and see they are executed.

There we have pretty clearly stated what seems to be the attitude of the man representing the workers.

There is also an extraordinary statement and apparently a quite impartial one from the mayor. In his reply the mayor said he was not taking sides in the dispute, and continued :

Some people consider that if you are not one hundred per cent with them, then you favour the other side, but I intend to keep an impartial attitude.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not think the hon. gentleman is in order in quoting from newspapers.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I do not know of any rule that prevents me from quoting from a newspaper. It is being constantly done. Newspaper accounts are made the basis for questions again and again and I know of no rule that prevents me from quoting facts as reported in the press. I do not see why I should not be allowed to read any statement

with regard to the attitude of different individuals. However, if the house rules against me I shall have to desist.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Could not my hon. friend state his case without quoting?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I will do that. Briefly, the mayor takes the ground that it is the responsibility of the mayor of Oshawa to maintain law and order, and that he is opposed to the introduction of any police. He states that the employees are maintaining law and order and he hopes they will continue to do so, but he does resent the interference of Premier Hepburn in this matter. We come then to the statement that has been made by Premier Hepburn, and again I would refer to the morning newspapers. Apparently Premier Hepburn has placed himself unreservedly one hundred per cent behind General Motors.

Oh, no.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

According to the morning newspapers that is what he has done. If hon. gentlemen wish me to do so I will quote again from the newspapers. I reiterate my statement that according to the morning newspapers, the only information we have to go on, he is quoted as having placed himself one hundred per cent behind the company and is prepared to use all the resources of the province to maintain law and order.

Mr. DUNNING:

And that is right.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Further, he speaks very strongly against the Committee for Industrial Organization, It seems to me we should have a clear statement regarding the dominion government's policy in this matter. Again, if I may refer to news dispatches, the only source of information so far, the mounted police have been sent to Toronto by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on the request of Premier Hepburn. We should know quite definitely from whom the request came and whether the situation in Oshawa is sufficiently grave to warrant the sending of a large force to Toronto.

Several important considerations immediately emerge. First of all we hear a good deal about the sit-down strike. It is quite true that in the United States the Committee for Industrial Organization has made use of the sit-down strike on various occasions, but I would say that the C.I.O. and the sit-down strike are by no means identical. The sit-down strike may be, as the Minister of Justice said the other day, illegal in Canada. Under our present legislation it certainly seems to involve trespass.

I would draw to the minister's attention an excellent article in the New Republic of

Labour Dispute-Oshawa Strike

two or three weeks ago, which suggests that at least American law needs some revision along this line, because great bodies of workmen have certain claims that cannot be so lightly set aside. In our more modern development of industry, where there is not a single individual employer engaging a single man called an employee, but a great corporation, with shareholders scattered all over the world with the factory under the direction of a manager, that manager cannot simply dictate to thousands or tens of thousands of men who have been drawn from all parts of the country, who have their interests, and equity if you like, in the business because of their special training, the location of their homes and so on-under these circumstances the situation is radically altered. This New Republic article goes on to state that we must come to a realization that the sit-down strike, in view of all these circumstances, is not quite so illegal as it would seem to be on the surface.

Mr. DUNNING:

In the United States but not here.