The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

n its statements," he declared. The Opposition, he said, did not sit on the special committee "be-- cause we questioned the genuine purpose of that committee, and our decision has been more than jus-- tified by the result. This bill has some other origin not yet disclos-- ed,. Where did this idea of a one. judge Labor Court come from? The idea is thoroughly unsound. With a Labor Court, employers and em-- ployvees become combatants in a legal batittle." The act, Col. Drew said, was "a hodge--podge of half--digested ideas," with "section after section uncer-- tain in meaning. The uncertainty of the act would increase friction at every step." '"That is the position we took before. That is the position we take now," said Col. Drew. But he insisted that "the object of any act dealing with collective bargain-- ing should be to assure the rights of the workers without unfairness to those with whom they must be partners in production and without unfairness to the public at large." The act failed com-- pletely, he thought, because it kept the parties "at arms' length as though they were natural antagon-- ists from the outset." "It is vague, uncertain, negative in its statements," he declared. The Opposition, he said, did not Loi. Drew outlined the principles of collective bargaining which he thought should be incorporated in any legislation passed by the House. They were 11 and included freedom of association, abolition of discrim-- ination, establishment of a "compre-- hensive conciliation service for the prompt conciliation of disputes," a Labor Relations Board "with equal employer and employee representa-- tion and with a chairman appointed to represent the public interest," and adequate holidays with pay where applicable, "This act, by its rigid judicial machinery," Col, Drew said, "will do the very opposite to avoiding stop-- page of work by improving the spirit of co--operation. I have yet to hear of a single person or organization, outside of this Legislature, who ap-- proves of this act in its present form." Col. Drew Gives Views. Col. Drew coutlined the nrincinles safeguards for workers, and the consuming public. employers |__ _A conciliation board rather than 'a labor court was what the working 'man desired, for working people .fpared the procedure of a formal court, said W. J. Duckworth (Prog. Con., Toronto--Dovercourt). _ _"The bill is studded with legalis-- |tic gremlins," observed Major Croll. | "We ought to examine its provisions carefully. My chief objection is to the Labor Court. It does not pro-- vide an opportunity for the workers to have a forum where they can let off steam. I believe this opportunity should be given in the bill, and I am hopeful that amendments will | be made. Major Croll said the United Steel Corporation had been found guilty of sending imperfect steel to the Kaiser shipyards, and a subsidiary of this company in Ontario had strongly opposed the collective bar-- gaining bill. This should be suffi-- clent to make all thoughtful per-- sons ponder on this problem, he declared. from it are very blind and have no reéason to be concerned. The act might have shortcomings, but he advised the House to accept it and see how it works. Court judge would be chairman and on which there would be represen-- tatives of lJabor and management. Studded With Gremilins. Major David Croll, Liberal mem-- ber _ for _ Windsor --~ Walkervilie, praised the principle of the legisla-- tion but found fault with the Labor Court provision,. Major Croll favor-- ed a board on which a Supreme J,. J. Glass (Lib., Toronto--St. An« drew), supporting the bill, said those who had fears of reaction