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

On Friday last the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked me a question with regard to the distribution of

Labour Conditions-Strikes

reparations from Germany, as to the channels that would be used for that purpose. At the time I said I was unable to give an answer offhand but that I would give the hon. member a reply at the earliest possible moment. The answer is as follows:

The question of the distribution in Canada of reparation which may be received from Germany is at present under consideration by the interdepartmental committee on reparation. Information has been sought as to the procedures employed in other countries for the distribution of the proceeds from German reparation, but the committee is not yet in a position to make firm recommendations to council on this subject. As regards German industrial equipment, a subcommittee of the interdepartmental committee on reparation has been set up to deal specifically with this problem. The Canadian Manufacturers Association is represented on this subcommittee, and a close liaison is being maintained with Canadian industry in order that the government may be in a position to bid for German equipment most, necessary for Canadian economy.

The final disposal of the German ships Huascaran Tiefland, and Weserwehr has not yet been decided, but the authorities in the Department of Transport are arranging for preliminary inspection of these ships.

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, of which I have not been able to give him notice. Has the controller in the steel dispute the duty of negotiating a reasonable settlement between the parties to the dispute-both parties-or, in the alternative, of negotiating on behalf of the companies an agreement for submission for approval of the war labour board or boards? [DOT]

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):

Mr. Speaker, in replying to the hon. member I am speaking from memory but I shall do my best to answer his question. In the first place, a controller was appointed as I announced in the house last Wednesday. Prior to that we had appointed as commissioner Mr. Justice Roach of the Ontario Supreme Court. He was to act as conciliator. In this case the controller is the employer. The department felt-and I think most hon. members agree- that this was the rational approach to a most difficult situation. This was the form of conciliation which has been peculiar to Canada in

these days. It was the form which worked successfully in the packing house dispute, in the dispute connected with the American Can company in Vancouver, in the lumber industry of British Columbia, in the Montreal street railway company dispute, and in the dispute on the inland lakes which took place recently. Unfortunately in this instance however the commissioner did not have a chance to conclude his labours, because the strike in question took place this morning at seven o'clock.

That is a bald statement of the facts. I believe an agreement could have been made. If I might say so, you cannot have things all your own way; everything is on a basis of conciliation. As I have said before, I think we shall live to regret the attitude which has been adopted by certain people. I am not calling any names. There are properly constituted boards composed of employers and employees to settle disputes.

Mr. COLDWELL:

I asked my question for the purpose of clarification. The order in council states in section 3 that the controller shall have the authorities and rights of the board of directors of each of the said companies. In section 11 it says that the controller is hereby authorized to apply on behalf of each of the said companies to the appropriate war labour boards for an immediate increase in the wage rates of employees. There seems to be some misunderstanding of method. Does it mean that the controller will negotiate with the employees as the directors would, or that on his own initiative he has to go to the board with a proposal for an increase in wages? That is what I am trying to get at.

Mr. MITCHELL:

The judge is commissioner. You must have two things.

Mr. COLDWELL:

I am talking about the controller.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I am talking about the duties of the judge. He conciliates. This may seem complicated, but it is simple. In the packing house dispute the controller ran the operations of the packing plant. But Mr. Justice Richards of Winnipeg was the commissioner who conciliated the dispute. After agreement they made the necessary recommendations to the regional board in that instance, and an agreement was consummated. The same thing happened in the lumber dispute in British Columbia, and in other disputes.

Mr. MacINNIS:

I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has it been drawn to the attention of the Minister of Labour that spots have been taken on the radio to announce penalties in connection with this

Labour Conditions-Strikes

order in council? Does not the minister consider this a form of intimidation of employees?

Mr. MITCHELL:

We are still living in a free country.

An hon. MEMBE.R: Are we?

Mr. MITCHELL:

I hope we are-sometimes I wonder whether we are. However, the order in council is a public document. What abjection can there be to its being printed m Hansard or in the newspapers, or to having it announced over the radio? It is just a matter of information.