Mr. GILLIS:

I say that if the democracy we are fighting for is to retain any reality, the organization of trades unions must remain

Munitions and Supply Act

and be recognized as a legitimate and legally protected activity of the workers. Those who would interfere with such legitimate trades union organization are the elements which are creating disharmony and resentment at a time when harmony is needed.

Subsequent to the incident of the application form a number of requests for union organization were received by union officials. Substantial progress had been made, when an employee of the company who had taken a prominent part in negotiations at the request of his fellow employees was dismissed by the management. When the employee inquired as to the cause of dismissal he was told that he was unsatisfactory.

Further inquiry as to whether his work was satisfactory or whether the dismissal was for other reasons was answered by the company official with the same statement, "You are not satisfactory to the company." Subsequent to the dismissal the matter was drawn to the attention of the Department of Labour, who made inquiries on behalf of the discharged employee, and they were informed that the man's work was satisfactory, that he had not been dismissed for union activities, but engaged, as the company were, in the production of munitions, it was necessary that they should have confidence in all their employees.

What was their reason for not having confidence in this man? It would seem that the mere fact that this man took a prominent part in the attempt to organize the employees of the company was sufficient for the management of the company to lose confidence in him.

I should like to make it clear that to-day this man is under a cloud. He has a wife and family. The company let him out because they "have not confidence" in him. The conception the average man would get is that this employee is one of the "subversive elements", that he is a fifth columnist. At the same time, according to my information, the company refuses to divulge to the Department of Labour why he was dismissed. He cannot obtain employment, and he is roaming around Ontario under a cloud. It seems to me that the least that this company should do is to divulge to the appropriate department of the government why he was dismissed. If he is a fifth columnist and dangerous to this country in the present situation he should not be at large. If, on the other hand, there is nothing against him except the exercise of his right as a citizen to bargain collectively in accordance with the laws of this country, he should be reemployed. And in this particular case I do not view Major Hahn or the John Inglis company as the employer,

because the government subsidizes this operation and paid for all the equipment, as I understand it, which makes the operation possible. For that reason I consider the government is in the position of employer, and Mr. Hahn or the John Inglis company is merely an agent of the government in this connection. I regard it as a prerogative of the government to do justice in this matter; particularly is it the affair of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, as he is charged with the responsibility of seeing that we are supplied with the equipment which this company is turning out.

Further representations to the Department of Labour were made. Department officials agreed that the answers given to their inquiries by Major Hahn were not satisfactory and that further inquiries would be made. Considerable correspondence took place on this matter and the case was dragged out for a period of more than two months. In the meantime the employee in question was unemployed and suffered greatly as a result of his discharge. The Minister of Labour in replying to a final inquiry stated that so far as the government was concerned they had no inquisitorial power and therefore could not inquire further. In view of the seriousness of the action of the John Inglis company in this matter, as it has been represented to me, I believe that either the Minister of Munitions and Supply or the Minister of Labour should give this house a full explanation of this case.

As I stated earlier in my remarks, I cited this case to illustrate the need for a provision in the act which will place the minister under an obligation to guarantee the workers the right to organize in plants producing war equipment for the government and which will also give him the power to enforce such a guarantee. It is my opinion that the case which I have just brought to the attention of this committee is a scandal. As we all know, public money was poured into the setting up of the plant of the John Inglis company as well as the production of the Bren gun. If the original terms of the contract are being carried out the company is receiving a very fair profit indeed on this contract. In such circumstances it seems to me clear that it was the duty of this government, of the Department of Munitions and Supply and of the Department of Labour to ensure that the workers employed by that company are given the full right to organize in trade unions of their choice if they so desire. Such a general obligation and power should be included in the act now under consideration.

Several times since the outbreak of war all the bodies of organized labour in Canada have publicly offered their full cooperation to

Munitions and Supply Act

the government in its war effort. I know they intend to implement that promise in practice. But organized labour has the right to expect in return that its rights will be safeguarded and that the employers of labour will cooperate, at least to the same extent.

I understand the Minister of Munitions and Supply, through this resolution, is asking for a clarification and extension of his powers, and I think the case cited here to-day is an absolute and specific instance. I am satisfied that his powers should be extended and clarified and that he should have the right, when contracts are placed, to see that the workers in the industry concerned are able to exercise their rights as far as trade unionism is concerned, and he should be given the power to see that this provision is enforced.

Mr. GILLIS:

I should like to make this clear. I am attempting to place before the committee a matter of considerable importance to the Minister of Munitions and Supply which has been drawn to my attention within the last few days. I do not want to overstate the case. I want to be absolutely sure of the details I am giving to the committee and, particularly, to the minister. For that purpose I have taken notes on the matter; I wish to be sure that I am stating the facts clearly and not taking chances on my memory.

This specific case proves conclusively that the company is practising discrimination against organized labour. I stressed in the first attempt I made to address this house that one of the most essential considerations so far as the government and the country as a whole are concerned is the recognition of the rights of labour. You can mobilize industry as effectively as you like, but if the people employed in that industry for the purposes of production are not treated as citizens of this country should be and are unable to exercise the rights of that democracy we say we are fighting for, the result will be greatly to retard Canada's war effort. I repeat that my only object is to bring forward

this particular matter without misstating the facts. It was drawn to my attention by responsible trades union authorities in Ontario, and I want to be sure that the details are given to hon. members as they were given to me.

Mr. GILLIS:

An hon. member asked me whether I had ever met the sort of man who talked himself out of a job and who would not work. I can answer in two ways. You will generally find the men who will not work, at the head of corporations. The second classification, covers the man who talks himself out of a job. Yes, I have met such men too, the men who pioneered the way for trade unionism, many of them classified as agitators and driven from one end of the country to the other, the sort of men referred to this afternoon as those who talked themselves out of jobs. To men of that kind go the credit for every bit of progress in this and every other country in the world. I have talked myself out of several jobs, too, organizing the trade union movement, but torday I see it established one hundred per cenit in the province in which I lost those jobs. So I lost nothing in the end. I am proud of that activity, as every man who has taken that position is proud. These men understand the road they are travelling and are prepared for whatever repercussions there may be.

The man whose case I took up this afternoon-and I took it up on the authority of a person in whom I have all the confidence in the world-is not that kind of man at all. I understand he is a master mechanic, one of the best qualified men in Canada to carry on the work of the plant from which he was dismissed. All he did was ask that the laws of this country be recognized by those carrying on the operation of that plant. It has been stated in this house that men with these qualifications, specialists in industry and so on, are very badly needed, that there is a great shortage of them in Canada to-day. That has been admitted by the ministers of different departments. Here is a fully qualified man who is now on the road simply because he wants to exercise his rights as a citizen in this year of grace 1940.

I think the day is past when actions of this land should be permitted in this country. I have every hope that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) will do something about this matter now that it has been brought to his attention. In my opinion the Department of Labour has gone as far as it can go by way of legislation. I understand that it has had this matter under consideration for a couple of months, but apparently it is not able to do very much about it. So I wanted to bring the matter sharply to the attention of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, because he deals with these people

Munitions and Supply Act

directly in connection with their contracts, and, I believe, will be in a better position to force them to take some action.

Mr. GILLIS:

I was attempting to state the circumstances of this specific case of discrimination. It is one which I think should be closely checked. In the present situation, when a contract is awarded to a firm or an organization of any kind, we recognize the seriousness of the crisis and we admit that equipment is at this time the most necessary part of our war effort. These contracts are awarded in order to secure that necessary equipment, and when incidents arise such as the specific case which I have attempted to set out, it is evident that we are not receiving the cooperation of the people who are obtaining, on the basis of profits, the benefit of these contracts.

The term "subversive elements" can be seriously abused and, in my opinion, is being abused in Ontario at the present time. Members of the legitimate trades union movement are so classified because they attempt to set up organizations under the laws of the country. Employers of labour who are neither patriotic nor interested in this country, other than to exploit it, use the term "subversive elements" with the object of keeping labour beaten down to a point where they can exploit them and make two hundred per cent profit on the operation of a contract which the government gives them.

Mr. GILLIS:

That is my reward for past

activities.