Mr. MITCHELL:

And this is the fourth.

Mr. KNOWLES:

It would be if it were a commission. No man who has taken part in industrial conciliation stands higher in repute in this country than Mr. Justice Richards. I made my enthusiasm vocal by shouting "Hear, hear" when the minister announced in the house that he had asked Mr. Justice Richards to look into this dispute. But again, Mr. Chairman, a report has recently been made public by the Minister of Labour which cannot help but annoy the members of the international typographical union, particularly in view of their past feeling that the whole picture has been distorted. Why does that report annoy them? Because it has been discovered and announced that Mr. Woodruff Randolph, president of the international typographical union, was not able a week or so ago to attend a meeting of the Southam people and Mr. Justice Richards. The reason for that is clear but was not indicated. Mr. Randolph has been at Miami for the 88th convention of the international typographical union, and it was obvious therefore that he could not meet with the publishers at that time. But the statement that has been released by the minister that Mr. Justice Richards is not able to get the parties together because Mr. Randolph cannot come gives the impression that the fault is on the workers' side. That is my quarrel with the minister. I hope some day when he retires and has time to look over his past that he will read his speeches-

Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):

That is unfair.

Mr. KNOWLES:

-and see how many times he has made statements that have tried to put the workers in the wrong. He did it again last night when discussing the C.P.R. dispute. The only contribution the minister made was to say that the workers had broken a contract. I am not going to raise that question again this morning, but I will in due course. That is one of the points in dispute, for the men feel very strongly that the so-called contract was a one-sided arrangement made by the company.

Throughout this whole typographical dispute there has not been that impartiality which the minister claims he has shown, but there has been consistent support given to the position taken by the publishers. If the minister wants to be helpful in this dispute I suggest that he let it be known that he knows that the unions 63260-3601

are not being dictated to by head office in Indianapolis. He is a trade unionist and know, how these things work. Let him also let it be known that the union is not asking for something contrary to Canadian law. The wording worked out in the office of the Department of Labour on January 30, and acceptable to all concerned makes it very clear that the union is not asking for anything that would require an exception to be made to the laws of this country.

Mr. MacINNIS:

I am not going into this matter at any length because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has covered it fully. When I hear him speak I realize that he made a mistake in not studying for law instead of the ministry.

Mr. McCANN:

Saving money instead of souls.

Mr. MacINNIS:

There may be something in the remark made by the Minister of National Revenue. I would hate to be the lawyer opposing my hon. friend and I would dread to be the culprit he was prosecuting in the court.

Mr. GRAYDON:

How would he do for a judge?

Mr. MacINNIS:

He has made a very fair presentation of this case. I am interested in this dispute both as a trade unionist and because the Vancouver Province, a Southam newspaper, published in my own city, is involved in the dispute. I would urge the minister to do everything that can be done in the circumstances.

The point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to dictation from the international head office is a most peculiar one for the Southam company to raise. There are several international unions in every printing shop. There is the typographical union, the pressmen's union, the stereotypers' union, the mailers' union. All of these are separate craft unions. The publishers in Vancouver who are accusing international headquarters of dictating to the typographical union appealed to the head office of [DOT] the stereotypers and pressmen to order the men back to work. The Southams just cannot have it both ways. If it is wrong for the typographical union to dictate to its members, it is equally wrong for the pressmen's international officers to dictate to the pressmen and for the stereotypers' international office to dictate to the stereotypers. We must be reasonable in these matters. So I just add my voice to the excellent plea which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made, that the minister use

Supply-Labour-Fair Wages

all his influence, both as Minister of Labour and as trade unionist, to get a settlement of this dispute.

Mr. MITCHELL:

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a long speech, and it occurred to me that I might, in reply, read this document into the record. Let me say to the hon. member for Vancouver East that I cannot understand why any employer would find fault with any man belonging to an international trade union. I imagine nobody finds fault with bankers having international affiliations, or with members of service clubs which have their headquarters in some other country. It has been my experience that the greatest stability prevails where you have a strong international organization, whether it be in labour or in any other field of endeavour.

I think this can be truthfully said, that in contributions to good fellowship between Canada and the United States the labour organizations have done more than any other organization in existence. I cannot go along with those who would criticize any individual for belonging to an international trade union.

There is no question that this has been a difficult dispute, but I would remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the Minister of Labour does not call people out on strike. That is not his function. His function is to endeavour to settle strikes once they occur. There is only one federal minister of labour in Canada, and I have been in the labour movement long enough to know that he is invariably the target for abuse from both sides. It does not matter how careful he may be in any expression of opinion he may give. To abuse him is the easiest thing imaginable; the practice is as old, I was going to say, as Methuselah, certainly since the inception of the Department of Labour in this country. I think I have appointed more commissioners in this dispute than in any dispute since I have been Minister of Labour. I have a long and close relationship with the typographical union. I grew up with them in the city of Hamilton; I carry a card in an international organization and attended their international conventions before my hon. friend, I suppose, ever carried a card in the organization.

It has been my steady policy as minister to endeavour to be impartial.

Mr. KNOWLES:

That is all I ask.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Yes, I know; but I think that if in the Department of Labour the scales are ever tipped, they should incline towards the labour organization. We have done everything we humanly could to settle

this dispute. We have appointed these commissioners, and that is why at the moment I am not going to say too much. Mr. Justice Richards is acting on my behalf in an endeavour to bring the top parties together in conformity with the recommendations of the Lett commission, which' sat in Vancouver. I do not think I should go any further than that. I could read this record if my hon. friend wishes to hear it. It is a little different from his own, but it is factual. It was not drafted by myself, but by the officers of my department; but in view of the fact that parliament is proroguing to-day I do not think I shall read it.

It is not fair always to accuse the minister of being this or that. Let the case rest on its factual basis. It would be a change if once in a while they would blame somebody else. I should be happy to see the day when the Minister of Labour was right in even some people's point of view. But I believe when the record is read it will be found that this administration has settled more disputes than any previous administration in the history of the dominion. It is quite true that sometimes a dispute will go off the rails, but I am proud of our conciliation service, and I am proud, notwithstanding the opinions of some other persons, of the contributions which my department has made to industrial stability in the last five very difficult years.

Mr. KNOWLES:

I am not satisfied with the broad generalizations that the minister has made. He has not given any reply to the factual statements I have made about the basic issues in this dispute and the way in which the whole matter has been distorted. I make a strong appeal to him on behalf of his erstwhile friends in this union that he says he has had a long association with, to realize how deeply they feel about the matter. They believe that he should and I urge him to make a really serious attempt to bring the parties together and get this dispute settled.

Mr. LENNARD:

Yesterday I received a telegram from Hamilton which reads as follows:

On behalf of Hamilton striking war veterans of Stelco, Westinghouse and Firestone we are firmly convinced that section five, subsection (d) of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act affecting veterans involved in labour disputes is a gross discrimination under which veterans are

_________Supply-Labour-Unemployment Insurance

deprived of their out of work benefits. We strongly urge that this clause be rescinded as these benefits were granted to veterans for service in the armed forces of their country and in no way should be invalidated by civilian qualifications. Urging an early reply.

Harold Keeton, chairman, Hamilton Strikers Veterans Committee

It was my understanding as a member of the veterans affairs committee that this privilege was to give the veterans relief for a certain period until they got positions suitable to their requirements, and it ended there as far as any special privileges were concerned. I should like to know from the minister if that is a correct interpretation of the clause.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Of course there is the . basic law, in the Unemployment Insurance Act, that when persons are on strike they cannot receive unemployment insurance benefits. It is not a question of benefits or anything like that; it is a question of the law as it is.

Mr. MacINNIS:

I understand that the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission has resigned, and I should like to know if a chairman has been appointed in his place to complete the commission. Last year when we were discussing the minister's estimates we had a chairman but no commissioners. This year we have commissioners but no chairman.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Time to get together.

Air. MacINNIS:

So I suppose when we get a chairman we shall be again without commissioners. Someone must be administering the Unemployment Insurance Act for whom in the act no provision is made. I would like to have a word from the minister as to how it is done.