Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):

Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the orders of the day I rise to ask leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the taking of a strike vote to-morrow, November 8, in certain mines in the Kirkland Lake district in the province of Ontario. The vote has been ordered by the Minister of Labour under the provisions of order in council, P.C. 7307, dated September 16, 1941. The application of the provisions of this order which has been proposed by the minister in this case will, if carried out, further intensify industrial unrest in this industry and threaten industrial peace throughout the country, with consequent harm to our war effort.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think the hon. member ought to state why he considers the subject matter of his motion to be of urgent public importance and therefore requiring immediate discussion by the house.

Mr. MacINNIS:

The question is urgent because the vote is to be taken to-morrow. I cannot say any more without making a short speech, which I possibly am not entitled to do at the moment, and if I did, I would be taking advantage of the house. The employees who are interested in this matter are of the opinion that the order is so wide that the result will not give a true representation of the will of the employees in the plant.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, having regard to what my hon. friend has said, I am inclined to think that the point he wishes to raise could be more properly raised when the house is in committee and we are discussing labour matters. It is quite true that the vote is to be taken to-morrow, but in order to have something considered a matter of urgent public importance it should be something that has recently occurred. As yet no vote has been taken, and I submit therefore that the matter is not one of urgent public importance. The minister's action is one simply of carrying out the law of the land, and I do not think the carrying out of the law of the land is a matter of such urgent public importance as to require the house to adjourn to debate the subject.

Mr. SPEAKER:

With regard to the question raised by the hon. member, I must decide as to its being a matter of urgent public importance. I refer the hon. member to standing order 31, paragraph 3, which reads:

He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.

My ruling must be that this matter is not of urgent public importance requiring discussion

Labour Conditions-Kirkland Lake

at this moment. When the house has reached the discussion stage in committee of the whole, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) is dealing with his department, the hon. member will be at liberty to bring up the matter to which he refers. I therefore rule his motion out of order.

Mr. MacINNIS:

Mr. Speaker, am I permitted to say a word on your decision?

Mr. SPEAKER:

At the moment I do not think the hon. member would be in order, but when we are in committee of the whole and the statement of the Minister of Labour is before the committee, it would be in order for him to make whatever observations he wishes.

Mr. MacINNIS:

Would Your Honour grant me the privilege of asking a question of the Prime Minister in regard to the proceedings to-day?

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has a

right to ask questions on the orders of the day, and we are still on orders of the day.

Mr. MacINNIS:

I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will bring up the statement of the Minister of Labour first. If we go beyond to-day a vote will be taken tomorrow, and the consequences of that vote cannot be rectified by any discussion or action that may be taken in this house. Therefore I would ask the Prime Minister to permit discussion of the statement which the Minister of Labour made last night. That would serve the purpose as well as the procedure I suggested.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friend was one of the leaders who met with myself the other day to decide on the procedure to be followed while the house was sitting in committee of the whole to discuss different matters pertaining to our war effort. He as well as the other leaders agreed that the best procedure would be to have the different ministers make their formal statements and then have a discussion on those formal statements very much in the order in which they were presented. The danger in departing from any agreement of the kind is that one exception leads to endless requests for other exceptions. Last night I was asked to make an exception and allow hon. members at this stage to make speeches of any nature, instead of confining their remarks for the time being to the subject matter of the particular statement that might be before the committee. It appeared to me at the time that my action would be misconstrued if I were to press unduly the desirability of holding to the agreement as made. I therefore yielded to

the extent of saying that if hon. members of the house, knowing what the agreement was, wished to make speeches on their own account without waiting until the procedure suggested had been complied with, that I, for my part, would not object and that they might proceed if they so wished. But I think I have gone as far as I should like to go in the matter of permitting exceptions to an agreement made to further the convenience of all. What is happening now illustrates the unwisdom of departing from an understanding or agreement once reached, and I am inclined therefore to feel that the matter should be left where it is at this stage.

Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):

I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the question which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) tried to raise, there is considerable confusion in the ranks of both organized labour and those who are attempting to organize, with respect to the election to be held in Kirkland Lake. There are two points at least which I should like the minister to clarify. First, who is eligible under this order in council to vote in that election? Second, what provision is made for members of the union for scrutineers in the taking of the ballot and in the final count of the ballots?

Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):

With regard to the question of the hon. member, and also in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East, I can answer the second part of the question by saying that provision is made for the union or the proposed union to appoint scrutineers at each balloting place. In connection with the former part of the question, about half an hour ago a delegation from Kirkland Lake waited on me and made certain representations as to classes which should be entitled to vote. As to the first question, I appointed a committee of three from the Department of Labour to work out regulations which they thought would be in accordance with the order and would be fair to both parties. Certain representations have been made to me; I have asked the committee to reconvene this afternoon, and, if for a few minutes I can be relieved of my duties in the house I intend to discuss the matter fully with them. For that reason I am unable now to answer the first part of the hon. member's question.

Wheat Board