February 19, 1935 (17th Parliament, 6th Session)

CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

I think not. This is a combination of two sections from two amendments to the British act, section 4 of act IRo. 2 of 1924-the act was amended twice that year-and the other act to which I have referred. It is provided that the act:
-shall not apply in any case in which the insured contributor proves that he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers members of which are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute. . . .
That was subsequently added to by the act of 1927 in section 6, which is not a long one but which merely clears up any possible difficulty there might be with respect to the original amendment of 1924. The section as amended in the English act of 1927 reads as follows:
Subsection (1) of section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924, shall have effect as if there were substituted for the words "members of which" the words "of which immediately before the commencement of the stoppage there -were members employed at the
Unemployment Insurance

premises at which the stoppage is taking place any of whom," and as if all the words after "in the dispute" were omitted.
The sense of it is merely to make it clear that because a man has been a member of an organization that is interested in this stoppage, he shall not thereby sacrifice or forfeit his rights, if he proves "that he is not participating in, or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which immediately before the commencement of the stoppage there were members employed at the premises at which the stoppage is taking place any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute." That was the provision in the English act of 1927. Subsection (i) stands as it was in 1924 and subsection (ii) comes from the act of 1927, being section 6. I think it is a fair provision and it will be found that in practice it has been.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Full View