1903-05-06

[Stage Direction]
COMPRISINO.THE PERIOD FROM THE SIXTH DAyV)F MAY TO THE NINETEENTH

[Stage Direction]
U	1903	[DOT]
House of Commons Debates

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 6, 1903.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 153) to incorporate the Montreal Savings Bank.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 154) to incorporate the Niagara, Queenston and St. Catharines Railway Company.-Mr. German-by Mr. Logan.

Mr.  L. P.@: DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville)-(translation)-moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 155), respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court as to Railway debts. He said : Mr. Speaker, the Act of 1899 already allows the Exchequer Court to order the sale of a railway, at the request of a mortgagor or of a holder of debentures. The Bill which I submit to the consideration of the House has for its object to allow the Court of Exchequer to order that a railway be sold, on a petition from the Minister of Railways or from a creditor not protected by mortgage, when the railway company has become insolvent or is no longer in a position to manage its own affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. WILSON asked :: 1.	How many immigrants have been refused admission into the Dominion of Canada, and for what causes or reason, for the years 1901 and 1902 ; and up to 1st of April, 1903 ?
2.	How many immigrants have been deported to the country from which they came, and at whose expense, and for whajt cause ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	In the year 1901-2, 193 immigrants were refused admission into Canada on the ground that they were paupers who might .become a public charge if allowed to remain in Canada, or because of their being afflicted with loathsome, dangerous or infectious diseases ; and for such reasons 193 were deported at the expense of the 'steamship company on whose ships they had been brought to Canada.
2.	For the period from 1st July, 1902, to 1st April, 1903, 147 immigrants were for like reasons refused admission to Canada, and were deported at the like expense of the steamship company, and for like reasons.


INDIAN MEDICAL ATTENDANT, KING'S, N.B
Mr. FOWLER asked :: Who is the medical attendant to the Indians in tihe county of King's N.B. ? When was he appointed, and on whose recommendation ? What salary does he receive, and upon what basis was the amount of salary computed ? How many Indians are there in said county ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	Duncan H. McAllister is the medical attendant for the Indians of King's county, N.B.
2.	He was appointed on the 31st May,
1900.	'
3.	He receives a salary of $200 per annum, which covers the cost of medicines prescribed, and was computed on the average cost of attendance for the three years previous to his appointment.
4.	The Indians of the county number 59.


SASKATCHEWAN LAND COMPANY.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Have any lands been sold by the government of Canada to the Saskatchewan Land Company ? If any, what is the extent of the acreage of lands sold and where situated ?
2.	If any sold, what was the price per acre ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: The information asked in this question will appear in the return which was ordered by the House on Monday last.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: When will that be down ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In a few days, I suppose.


John Graham Haggart: We want to have it before the Interior estimates come up.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There will be no delay.


RAILWAY STATION AT ALBERTON, P.E.I.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to construct a new railway station at Alberton, in Prince County, P.E.I., this year ?
2.	Will they construct it of brick, which are manufactured in plenty at that place and vicinity ?
3.	Is it the intention to deflect the track so as to avoid the ' Y ' nuisance that now exists ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The construction of a new station at Alberton is under consideration.
2.	If constructed, it will probably be of wood as well as all the other stations of the railway are.
3.	It is not the intention to deflect the track to avoid the ' Y.'


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY-SALE OF TICKETS.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Are through tickets to all parts of Canada and the United States sold by agents at the different booking stations on the Prince Edward Island Railway ?
2.	If not sold at all stations, at what particular stations may they be found on sale ?
3.	Are such tickets for sale at Wellington station ? If not, why not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1 and 2. Through tickets to all points in Canada and the United States are on sale at the. following stations on line of Prince Edward Island Railway, viz Alberton, Bradalbane, North Wiltshire, Souris, Sum-merside, Cape Traverse, Cliartottetown, Kensington, Hunter River and Mount Stewart. And a limited issue covering New England states and all points on the Intercolonial Railway are on sale at all other. booking stations, except at Wellington, Miscouche and Royalty Junction.
3.	No. No requests have been made to the superintendent of the Prince Edward Island Railway for such an issue of tickets at this station.


COAL IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Did members of the Geological Survey staff make an examination in the Province of Prince Edward Island, during the last year, with a view to the discovery of coal ?
2.	Who were employed in the work ; and have they reported to the government ?
3.	At what places were the examinations made ; and are the indications, as reported, favourable to finding coal in workable quantities ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Dr. R, W. Ells and one assistant-Yes.
3.	Examinations made over the island generally. Examinations proved the presence of several anticlinal folds traversing the island, notably, near the west coast near Miminegash or Campbelltown, near Sum-merside, at Gallas Point, pear Wood Islands, and other points.
There are flo indications of coal on the surface, since all the rocks exposed belong to the upper carboniferous, Which overlie tire true coal measures of Nova Scotia, but it is probable these may underlie the island, in which case they can only be reached by borings.
The most favourable locations for boring are regarded as near Miminegash, on the west coast, near Summerside, and at Gallas Point or Wood Islands, preferably the former.



LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE. IN MONTREAL.

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Before the Orders of the Day are called. I wish to ask : Has any action been taken by the government in regard to the strike prevailing among the longshoremen at Montreal, and which has been creating so much disturbance in commercial operations there ? Has anything been done by the government, and if so what has been done ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is quite aware that the government has no authority to interfere in this matter. The law provides for the existing conditions, and the law is being followed. The local authorities have thought it advisable to call upon the military authorities to give them assistance, and all the assistance that it was in the power of the military authorities to give has been rendered.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman, if there is any foundation for the statement that His Worship the Mayor of Montreal has appealed to the government, that the expenditure in connection with the calling out of the militia force shall be borne by the government and not by the municipality of Montreal ? If the Mayor of Montreal lias made that request, has the government given any reply ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The request has been made. The law is to be followed, and I do not interpret the law to mean that the government is to bear that expense.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Has an application been made to send the regular troops to Montreal ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Such an application has been made, and tlie telegram

of the Mayor of Montreal to that effect has been publisher in all the newspapers. But the whole thing has been done under a misapprehension. The law provides that when peace and order is threatened, the municipal authorities may call upon the military authorities to give assistance. The municipal authorities have made a request to the military authorities to supply them with troops. Colonel Gordon, commander of the district, has called upon certain volunteers to do patrol duty on the wharfs.
I understand that it is contemplated by Colonel Gordon to replace some of these volunteers by the permanent force


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Within his district.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, within his district. All this is a matter for the consideration of the military authorities, and it is a peculiarly military question.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEMIETJX (Gaspfi).: I may inform the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) that I have just received two telegrams from the agents of the Franco-Canadian line stating that as one of their ships cannot be discharged it will have to leave the port of Montreal with its cargo. It is also stated in these telegrams that the crew of the ship were threatened that if they tried to discharge thie steamer they would not be allowed to do so. That ship sails under the Russian flag, and the Russian Consul has telegraphed as follows :
Failing to get ship discharged will have to leave port with cargo.
Might I ask, if anything will be done by the Labour Department concerning this matter ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend is aware that the Labour Department has no power to interfere with the militia in maintaining order. The military authorities have provided men to protect that crew and it shall be protected.


Joseph Israël Tarte: With the permission of the House I would suggest that my hon. friend the Minister of Labour make an offer of intervention. In some cases such an offer has been made unofficially, and with very good results. The hon. minister has at his disposal, I am glad to say, very able officers, especially the deputy minister, and I am inclined to believe that if an offer of intervention were made, it might have some good results.


Mr. T. C. CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: Mr. Speaker, I am probably not in order, but I will conclude with a motion, if necessary. I think the present state of affairs in Montreal has lasted long enough, and some step should be taken by the government to put an end to it or to relieve the municipality of Montreal from a difficulty which is not local in its character, but the effects of which
are being felt all over the country. It is well known that the trade not only of Montreal, but of the whole country is being paralyzed by this strike-the cattle trade and every other trade concerned. Every day more ships are coming to that port, and there are no ship labourers to take the cargoes off the ships. I understand from a very competent authority that merchants all over Canada will suffer to a very great degree should this strike be prolonged. I understand that a great many merchants throughout Canada, retail merchants as well as wholesale merchants, will probably be ruined if this state of things continues. It seems to me this is an occasion on which the Labour Bureau should exert its influence to relieve the tension. It is high time the Labour Bureau did something. I do not know whether they have done anything at all; it is not reported that they have made any effort to intervene between the longshoremen and the ship owners to put an end to the strike. The House and the country should be informed on this point. If nothing has been done by the Labour Bureau, I trust that the hon. Minister of Labour will put as many of his employees as necessary, especially the head of the department, at the disposal of the people who are interested, so as to bring this strike to as prompt a conclusion as possible. As I said before, it is a matter which interests not only the city of Montreal, but the whole trade of this country. The city of Montreal is paying out large sums of money every day for the maintenance of troops to keep order. We have in different parts of the country, not only in the military district of Montreal, but at Quebec, Toronto and other points, soldiers who, though doing their duty to the best of their ability, have very little to do, and it seems to nTe that they might be brought to Montreal to perform the duty which the citizens of Montreal are now attending to. It is a great hardship to many of these people to be obliged to be under arms. Many of them are losing their positions. Members of the Sixty-fifth regiment, the Royal Scots and others have to obey the command of duty, but the employers of many of them are telling them that if their services ai-e required much longer, they will lose their positions. Under the law of this country the militia are liable to be called under arms at any time ; but at the same time, when we have troops stationed at Toronto, at St. John, at Quebec and other points, who are paid then-allowances every day, it seems to me that the authorities might bring them to Montreal and relieve the local militia. I hope in the first place that the Labour Bureau will do everything that lies in its power to bring this strike to an end as soon as possible, and in the next place that the military authorities will come "to the aid of the civic authorities in keeping the peace on the wharfs. I move, seconded by Mr. Kemp, that the House do now adjourn.


Mr. R. BICKERDIKE (Montreal, St. Lawrence).: Mr. Speaker, we all realize the truth of what the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said. Every one is anxious to have this strike settled, and everything possible has been done to settle it. We are all offering suggestions, but none of them can be put into effect. We have had meetings between representatives of the longshoremen and representatives of the ship owners in Montreal during the last two or three days, at which I have been chairman ; we have sat three nights trying to bring about a reconciliation. The ship owners have agreed to the demands of the men in every instance they are willing to give them the wages thev want, but they refuse absolutely to recognize the union. On that point there is a deadlock. The longshoremen refuse to go back to work unless union men and union men alone are employed. The ship owners on the other hand, say that they will engage the men who suit them best whether thev are union men or not. The hon. member tor Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) has spoken of the St. John troops. They are there now they came yesterday. There is no trouble on the wharfs ; order is being kept ; any man who wishes to go to work is protected, and everything that could be done has been done. I have just received a telephone message from the President of the Steamship Association, in which he says they have about 1,100 men at work now on the wharfs and that a great many of the teamsters who struck have gone back to work. Matters are in a little better shape than they were yesterday, though they are not by any means satisfactory. Nothing more that I know of can be done at the present time. I would be very much pleased if the Labour Bureau could bring about a settlement. The steamship men will not recognize the union, and the longshoremen will not go to work unless the union is recognized, and hence the deadlock.


Mr. C. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: May I ask if this union is a Canadian or an American union ?


Robert Bickerdike: The union is simply an association of longshoremen which is not incorporated. The head of the union is an American, who is over here now, and is agitating.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The organization is purelv voluntary, is it not ? .


Robert Bickerdike: Purely voluntary.


Mr. GALLERY.: I would like to ask the hon. member for St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) if the majority of these longshoremen are citizens of Montreal ?


Robert Bickerdike: No, they are not. A great many are, but most of them are from the country districts around Montreal. A great many are shantymen who, after working in the shanties in the winter work Mr. CASGRAIN.
on the wharfs at Montreal-in the spring. Ninety per cent of them are Canadians, but they are from different parts of the district of Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Nothing which the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has said goes to show that the citizens of Montreal who are mulcted in an expenditure of about $8,000 a day in connection with this strike, and who are contributing their share to the support of the Labour Bureau, receive from that bureau the help they are entitled to receive at the present moment The question I asked was intended to elicit from the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock) an answer showing that since this strike has been in existence, the Department of Labour has taken some steps to bring it to an end. It is incumbent on the hon. gentleman to show that his department has been of some use in this very serious affair. It is certainly the duty of this government to interfere, it is certainly the duty of the Minister of Labour to see what can be done, and the Department of Labour should have had a representative at these meetings which were held, and to which the hon. member for St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike) has just referred.. This strike has now been on over twelve days. It is the duty of the government, which is interested in the maintenance of the reputation and the good fame of the port of Montreal, to use all the means at its disposal to have that strike brought to a close.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: The question was aked whether the party who had been influencing the longshoremen to strike is a Canadian and a native of Montreal, and we are fold that he comes from the United States. 'Sir, the emissaries of the labour unions of the Uuited States are traversing this country from end to end. fomenting difficulties, instigating strikes, and acting in a manner detrimental to public interest. Their business is to create difficulties in order that they may give some showing for the salaries they receive, and unless they can foment strikes, their labours are apparently fruitless.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the hon. gentleman aware that this strike at Montreal has been fomented by Americans ?


John Charlton: I merely take the reply given to a question with reference to that matter by one of the hon. members from Montreal (Mi-. Bickerdike). I am also aware that American emissaries are engaged in the business of fomenting strikes-strikes based on the demand that the labour union shall alone be recognized, based on the monstrous assumption that no labourer can lie employed unless he becomes a member of the union. That was the crucial trouble in the great anthracite coal strike, which disorganized business in the United States. This strike was based on the demand that

the union should be recognized, and acts of violence were committed in order to prevent men from exercising their rights as citizens to make contracts with their employers, unless they belonged to the union. That strike was referred (o a board of arbitration. That board sat a long time, it examined into all the circumstances, it delivered its findings, and decided that labour must be recognized as such, that the individual must be recognized as well as the labour union, and that while the labour union might be and should be dealt with, it was not entitled to take the position of preventing the individual from selling his labour to an employer and giving that labour unmolested by the union. The whole country is pervaded by rumours of strikes, fomented by these agitators Who are not, as a rule, Canadians. They come here from the labour unions of the United States to create a state of things which must inevitably lead to great trouble, and even to violence on the paid of those who desire that no one should work except under the auspices of the labour union and at its dictation. It is high time that this matter was taken into serious consideration. I believe that the government would be justified iu excluding these agitators from the country, in considering them as disturbers of the public peace, and requiring them to go forthwith about their business.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: There has been nothing brought up this afternoon which entitles the hon. member for North Norfolk to draw the inference that the strike at Montreal has been caused by union emissaries from the United States. As a matter of fact I believe-and I think that hon. members from Montreal will bear me out-that the strike was on before these men were sent for, and that as a matter of fact the strikers sent for them to come and try to effect a settlement. If men who come here at the instance of the labour element to settle a strike, are to be called agitators, I do not think such language calculated to have any good effect. It was well known throughout Montreal that this striae was bound to take place this year. The shipping federation declared last year that they would not again be put in the same position in which they were last year, when labour was scarce, and said they were about to import men to do their unloading, irrespective of the trade organizations. There is a Bill before the House asking for the incorporation of the Shippers' Federation wth that very purpose in view. At present it is said that there are a thousand men on their wav from the port of Liverpool to come and unload vessels at Montreal. The shippers may be perfectly within rights, but they are making an attack on the longshoremen, residents of Montreal. I rise specially to protest against the unwarrantable inference being drawn that this strike has been brought about by foreign agitators or that
the condition of affairs has been aggravated by foreign emissaries. As regards what was said about the regular troops being more generally {employed to take the place of the militia or' the civil authorities, let me say that we should be very careful how we endorse the calling out and keeping out of regular troops. The civic authorities of Montreal have ample means at their disposal for the keeping of the peace, and I believe that that work should be done by special constables.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Hear, hear.


Arthur W. Puttee: It seems to me that it is wrong to resort to the military in these matters, and I do not think that such a proceeding will commend itself to the people of this country.


Mr. W. R. BROCK (Toronto Centre).: labour unions in this country, we find that the imainspring is on the other side of the line. I am strongly in favour of an organization of labour in this country, but I say that it should be under the control of our own people and our own government. We should not have before us continually the danger of being obliged to follow any particular organization to the other side of the line and beyond the control of our own people. The time may come when we shall be rushing to arms to protect this country from that kind of thing. This is the time for the government to take hold of the question. I do not say how that should be done, but they will be able to say. They should! take hold of this and deal' with it, apart from politics, framing measures solely with the view to meet the difficulty that faces us. At the present time it is a very difficult matter for us to say when the military power should step out and the civil power should step in. I certainly think in this case the civil authorities in Montreal should have had power to deal with the difficulty and deal with it firmly. I believe with the bon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) that the individual in this country has rights. I am willing (o concede to a labour organization also that it has rights. But when the organization undertakes to interfere with the individual and with his personal rights, the whole power of the country and the government should be brought forward to put a stop to that interference at once. The difficulty in the United States, as we know, is want of power in the central authority to deal with these matters. In these troubles the people who suffer most are not the workmen, not the manufacturers, not the capitalists-the whole accumulated evil falls upon the consumer, upon the masses of the people who have to pay the bill every time. If you preveut miners from getting out coal, they will get back at you, because they will merely charge a dollar or two more for every ton and, so far as the capitalist is concerned, he will be as, well off as ever. The men who are posing as representatives of labouring men forget that in every one of these contests the workingmen come out at the small end of the horn. They always do. Not a single case can be named where the workmen have not got the worst of it. So I say the proper course is for a good strong government to take hold of this matter and prevent these people from the United States coming in here and agitating in this country, for it can be seen that their only object is agitation. They do not care that these poor longshoremen are out of work they are idle and spending money sometimes very injudiciously. All they want is to pose before the people of this country and the United States as being anxious for the welfare of the people for whom they are agitating. although they are causing them to lose not only their time, but their money.


William Rees Brock: I do trust the government will see their way to do a little more


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: What would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) suggest
that a good government should do ?


William Rees Brock: If I were Minister of Labour I should be in a position not only to make suggestions, but, I hope, to do something. Why, this is almost childish. When an hon. gentleman on this side presents the view that the government are not doing all that they ought to do we are asked : What is your policy, what suggestions have you to make ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly, because you do not make out a case until you do.


William Rees Brock: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House any longer. But I can assure you that, to myself personally as well as the city I represent, this is a very serious matter. Before sitting down,
1 may mention one thing. At this season of the year the importers of this country are bringing in a very large quantity of what we call spring and summer goods. We know that shipments of these goods are in the vessels in the port of Montreal ; but tlie goods cannot be delivered, they cannot be distributed throughout the country, under the present circumstances. The result is that a serious loss is going to fall upon these importers. For, the goods now coming in are usually of light material-what I may call fashionable goods-and suitable for the season. If the goods are not sold now, there will be a serious loss in carrying them over, because, next year they will be unfashionable and worth almost nothing. Therefore-there may be some selfishness in it- I am associated with those who are anxious that this difficulty be put a stop to as quickly as possible.


Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver).: Mr. Speaker, I deplore the existence of industrial struggles, such as those going on in Montreal and in other parts of the country, just as much as any hon. gentleman in this House. But I want to say that, so long as hon. members of this House are not prepared to assume that some fault may be found on both sides in this struggle, so long will affairs remain in the present condition. Now, Sir, these people have reason for the position that they take. It is time, their reasons may not always be good reasons. But, when large bodies of men who depend not upon a bank account, but upon each dollar as it is earned as a daily wage, without any prospect of maintaining a living whilst on strike, take the course that these men have taken, we may depend upon it they have some reason for entering upon such a struggle. Now a great deal has been said including what has been said by the hon.

member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), with regard to outside agitation. I do not think the position taken on that matter by these hon. gentlemen is a fair position at all. How would the hon. member for North Norfolk like it if I were to demonstrate to him that alien capitalists in this country had provoked strikes by their tyranny and oppression ? So long as the hon. member objects to the doctrine that the individual labourer is not entitled to come to this country and have a voice in the sociological questions without being considered an agitator, what is he to say when the capitalist employer, who is an alien, seeks to oppress and tyrannize over our people by his method of carrying on business ? Now," there are two sides to this question.
I do not believe in strikes. I want to say that I have been associated for many years as a leader of a labour movement, and I have never yet been in a single strike, I have always used my influence against strikes. But I want to remind hon. gentlemen in this House that there are national strikes, that there is the strike of war, that there is the position taken by one nation against the other-and even the modern method of settling these questions ultimately is for the parties to take up arms against each other and demand their rights. That being so, it must be easy for hon. gentlemen to concede that labour and capital-and labour especially, which lives in dependence upon the exercise of its force for a daily wage, is entitled to adopt that method, so long as, in doing so, it does not interfere with the constitution and with the laws of this country.
X do not think I would under any circumstances be inclined to permit an alien agitator to come to this country and dictate to me as to what were the proper conditions under which I should work. Sir, there is not as much in the contention supported by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) as he asserts. This institution at Montreal, contrary to what has been said on the floor of the House to-day, is a voluntary institution, and does not receive dictation from over the line. I am speaking subject to correction, but if I understood the hon. gentleman aright, he said that it was not a voluntary institution but that it was subject to dictation from the other side. I wish to say that no alien agitator has anything to do with the conduct of the business of this institution. I agree with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that the most legitimate kind of influence is that which emanates from the authority of the government. But we must remember that the government have no power to insist that these people should settle their grievances : and I would like the hon. gentlemen who represent the interests of organized capital in this House to lie able to assure the government that if provision was made empowering the government to compel a settlement of these troubles, they would support a proposition of that kind. If I had time and opportunity,
1 could demonstrate to this House that in nine cases out of ten of labour struggles, labour has volunteered to stand by the results of compulsory arbitration enforced by government, and that in only one case out of ten do we find the capitalists prepared to do so. Now, it is right that these facts should be presented to this House. Both sides have a right to be represented in this matter. There are two sides to this question. What does the ordinary member of this House know about the actual grievances of these poor men in Montreal? What proof can any member of this House give to show that there may not be the greatest possible reason for this strike at Montreal? Where is the remedy ? The remedy I believe is in increased legislation along these lines.
I do not believe that the people of this country would support the principle of compulsory arbitration, but I believe they would agree to accept some further amendment of govermental dictation along the line of compulsory investigation and conciliation ; I believe in that principle. The Minister of Labour has a Bill before the House for that purpose.
Now, Sir, as to the request made upon this government to assist in paying the expenses of protection of the public in this strike at Montreal. I do not think that would be a proper thing to do, for the outside authority to have such power. I consider that the power to call out military protection by the municipality is a wise provision. But, I want to say this, that if any financial assistance is given by this government in consequence of a strike of that kind, I can easily conceive how much more ready the municipalities would be to call out the militia without necessary provocation when they know that the expense would have to be borne by another authority. There are two sides to this question also. I want to say, and it ought to be said to the credit of the strikers in Montreal, that the newspapers, who are as a rule anxious to record the .misdeeds of the strikers, have not been able to chronicle a single unlawful act on their part. What reason can he given by the authorities in Montreal for calling out the militia in this instance ? If the expenses of this protection are to be paid by *this government, how much more easily it will be for these municipalities to call out this protection because somebody else has to pay the hill. The greatest safeguard for prudence in such matters, is the fact that the people who are concerned must pay for the protection they require.
Now, Sir, I will support any proposition in this House that will bring to- an end these industrial struggles. I will subscribe with my vote to any measure that will increase the powers of the government to make compulsory investigation into these

matters with a view to avoiding trouble. But, so long as bon. members in this House are prepared to look only on one side of this question, so long as they are prepared to assume that there is only one party in the struggle, and only one that is absolutely right, while the other is absolutely wrong, then I want to say that those hon. members utterly fail to grasp the facts of the situation. I want to tell the hon. member for North Norfolk that any individual, or any member of this House, who does not recognize the rights of labouring men to enter into voluntary association, is as big a demagogue as the man who would adopt unconstitutional methods to accomplish his purpose. There are unreasonable men in the labour movement; yes, there are unreasonable men in the capitalist movement; and what is wauted is proper government authority to deal with these extreme people, and to provide that the business of the country shall be conducted for the benefit of the whole community.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: The question introduced has assumed a somewhat wide range. I do not propose to discuss the labour question in the abstract, the fringe of which has just been touched by some hon. members ; I would rather confine my few observations to the question that led to this discussion. The trouble in Montreal to-day is not new. It has been growing for some time. The two parties evidently have been organizing, and have entered upon a contest of strength Before the outbreak of hostilities the government endeavoured to prevent them. I am sure that lion, gentlemen are all most desirous that the interests of the country should be paramount in a matter of this importance. I am sure that no lion, gentleman would desire to make any political capital out of a question such as this. I say this with nil frankness and in all sincerity. Whatever views may exist, I will say this, tlioiig-h a party man, that I hope the day will never come in a Canadian parliament when the members will make a football of the labour problem. It has challenged the efforts of the best governments and the brightest minds the world has ever known, and it is not yet solved. We have a task before us, and we will be better able to solve it if we keep the one object In view of the common interest of Hie country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before this trouble began the government sent for representatives of the two parties. You will understand tile delicacy of the negotiations, in view of the strained relations that exist and have existed for some time. You cannot with success plunge into the midst of a stiuggle between two parties who are excited and determined. But so far as our private interviews, influence, advice, and pressure could go, they were exercised to induce, if possible, a settlement and to re-Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).
move all causes of difference. Our advice was refused. It was deliberately given, it was deliberately taken into consideration, and it was deliberately refused.
Mr. MONI-C. May I ask the hon. gentleman who the representatives sent were ?


Tire POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I assume in advance that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is most anxious for a satisfactory solution of this difficulty, and he will quite understand that, to go into particulars and to give names, would jeopardize the negotiations that have continued up to this moment. At no time since the trouble began lias there not been present in Montreal endeavouring to make overtures to and to establish relations with both sides a gentleman of high standing and in close touch with the government. We have not only had him in daily and constant communication with us, but we are in telegraphic communication with him, and even since this debate began the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has received telegraphic despatches reporting the state of affairs. The hon. member for .Taeques Cartier (Mr. Monk) asks a natural question, but I am sure it would only strike him as equally natural for me to say that I doubt if anything would be gained by giving away, if we have the right to do it, the confidences of which we are the recipients on both sides.


Mr. INGRAM.: Would the hon. Postmaster General say whether the advice was deliberately refused by one or both sides ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) will, perhaps not press me too far upon that point. He has tlie same object that we have in view and it is extremely important that the government should be at all times able to enjoy the unqualified confidence of disputants in labour troubles, not only on this occasion but on all occasions, and if the government's influence is to be for good we must preserve the unqualified confidence of disputants no matter how wrong either of them may be. I say that not desiring to withhold anything, but for the reason which I am assigning here. The hon. member for Centre Toronto urges us to do something. There are only two things that can be done in regard to labour strikes. If you had a law by which you could by force compel men to go to work you could invoke such a law. This is a free country and there is no such law upon the statute-book. I do not think that any hon. gentleman would propose to put such a law upon the statute-book. There is one other method and that is by friendly conciliation and by bringing the pressure of public opinion to bear. In regard to either of these steps there is a right time and there is a wrong time. There is a time when intervention would be effective ; there is a time when it would be a failure. It is difficult to strike the right time. It does

not appear yet to have arrived, for we cannot induce either of these parties at the present moment to receive any friendly overtures from the government. What more can be done at this stage is a question that I am unable to answer. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) mentioned that it was my duty to make a statement. I hope lie did not think I was refusing to do my duty or shrinking from trying to do my duty. I rose several times, but in deference to the wishes of others that I saw rising I gave them the right of way, but, and it was not through any disinclination, as soon as I had the opportunity, to make these few observations. As to the suggestion that the government might bear the expense, the law is to-day what it has been since confederation. It is no new law. It was not passed by this government and not hy the immediately preceding government, but it has been ratified by parliament and by public opinion for a generation and more, and that law is that the municipality must bear the expense of calling out the militia to maintain order within the municipality. I would say that at this very moment we have a gentleman of high position in this country in Montreal endeavouring to induce the parties to receive in a friendly way the overtures from this government with the view of arriving at a settlement. It took the President of the United States a good while to solve the problem in the anthracite coal regions. For some time the strikers refused to listen to his suggestions. They continued that strike for five months and national disaster was the outcome, the injury spreading beyond the confines of the United States. We suffered ourselves. He could not at first succeed but in time he did succeed. As the struggle continues these two disputants may become more receptive of friendly advice, and all I can say on behalf of the government is that we are in an attitude ready and waiting and anxious to be allowed to be the medium of peace whenever the two parties will permit us to act in that capacity.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lauri-er).: Mr. Speaker, before this debate is concluded, I want to call the attention of the House to a statement of fact which was made a moment ago by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain), and one which calls for some consideration on the part of every member of this House. The hon. member for Montmorency stated a moment ago that some of the volunteers who are now doing duty on the harbour at Montreal are threatened with dismissal by their employers if they continue to be removed from their daily occupations. I think that when the hon. member for Montmorency made that statement lie was misinformed. I cannot believe that there is in the city of Montreal any man so mean, any man so unpatriotic as to threaten one of his employees who happens to be a volunteer
and is performing his duty as sucli with dismissal. I cannot believe that there is any employer of labour, knowing that his employee is engaged in protecting property, who would threaten him with dismissal because he has to be absent from his occupation. There was some feeling upon this question in the state of New York last winter when it was reported in the press that a labour organization in Sclmectady, New York, had expelled one of its members because he was a member of a military organization in the state. I hope we are not going to have anything of that kind in this country. I have seen the statement that during last winter some labour organizations in this country had discouraged their members from joining the militia force. .1 do not believe that statement, and in reference to the statement of -the hon. member for Montmorency, I still refuse to believe that there is any man in Canada who would discourage any of his employees from becoming members of the volunteer force. It would be a sad day indeed for Canada if any citizen were to discourage any one at all from discharging his duty to the country, and if the hon. member for Montmorency is correctly informed, I think that the voice of parliament ought to be unanimous in declaring that if such a threat were to be carried into execution, if the volunteers now doing duty for their country were to be dismissed, the man who did that would be branded with infamy and he would be consigned to the indignation of every patriotic citizen of Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike), in speaking upon this question a few moments ago, said that the difference, so far as remuneration is concerned, between the longshoremen and the employers had been practically settled, and that the only matter in dispute, the only question that kept the parties separate, was the question of the recognition of the union of the employees. If that is a fact, I am sure that we can appeal to the hon. Postmaster General to use his good offices to get this union recognized ; because, I believe, it is one of the conditions imposed upon those who tender for work in his department that the work shall he done in a union office, and that the union scale of wages shall be paid. The demands of the men certainly could not have been so unreasonable as some hon. gentlemen have pointed out. because the hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence, has told us that the parties have agreed as to -the remuneration and that the only question is as to whether the men have the right to unite together for the purpose of protecting themselves, and whether it is a reasonable position for the -employers to take to say that the men shall not have that right, and to say that those who organize themselves into a union of employees shall not be given

employment. This is a very serious position and one that ought to engage the attention of the Department of Labour, and engage it forthwith. We on this side of the House have no desire to make political capital out of these labour disputes. If any such capital has been made out of them, I am not going beyond the line of my duty when I say that the Postmaster General, in addressing the electors from one end of Canada to the other has pointed out that if the government is entitled to confidence for one thing more than another it is because it has established a Labour Bureau, which from time to time adjusts the labour difficulties which may arise.
I want to enter my protest against the statement made here : that foreign agitators are at the bottom of all this trouble. It is an insult to the Canadian workman to say that foreign agitators whom he never saw before can come to Montreal, Toronto or anywhere else, and can induce Canadian workmen to leave their employment and demand unreasonable terms. Such a statement is absurd. It needs only to be mentioned to be scouted at once. Canadian workmen have had organizations from one end of Canada to the other for the past half century, and the record of these unions is the best possible answer to the charge made against Canadian workmen as to their unreasonable demands. I myself have had the honour of belonging to one of these organizations for about thirty-five years. That organization has had an existence in Canada for nearly three-quarters of a century ; and during that long period, on only two, or at most three occasions, were the most amicable relations which exist between the employers and the men, in any degree strained. The great bulk of the men who compose the labour unions in Canada are men whose interests are identified most closely with the interests of their employers and the interests of the country. They are most reasonable men ; they ai;e conservative in their methods. They do not desire to create a condition of things that will compel them to strike. Striking is the last resort in the case of the great majority of them, because as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) has pointed out, no matter what may be the result of the strike, ultimately they are the sufferers. Those against whom they strike do not in the end suffer, because, as my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) has pointed out, the other parties to the difficulty eventually compel the public to hear the losses to which they have been subjected. Even if the workingmen be successful, it takes them a very long time out of the additional wages they receive, to recoup themselves for the losses they incurred during the time they were demanding their rights. I do not desire to prolong this discussion, but there is one phase of it. in relation to the efforts which the government is making Mr. CLARKE.
to settle the matter, on which I desire to say a word or two. We are bound and we are ready to accept most fully the statement made by the Minister of Labour in respect to the action of the government during the past month or two to bring this difficulty to a satisfactory settlement. But is there not too much mystery about the methods which the government are employing ? The Postmaster General made the statement that when the President of the United States interfered-and interfered wisely and patriotically-to bring that tremendous conflict between labour and capital to a satisfactory settlement, he appointed commissioners to represent him. But let me point out that the people of the United States were apprised at once as to the action of the President, as to who represented him, and as to what lines the attempts made to bring about the settlement, were based upon.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It was many months after the strike.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am speaking now of the time when the President intervened, and he at once apprised the people of what was being done hour by hour and day by day.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My recollection is that the strike began in March, and that the President did not intervene until September.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But the moment the President did intervene the public were apprised of all that was going on, and the hands of the President were strengthened, because the public were at his back. I am satisfied that if the Minister of Labour would take the House and the country into his confidence, and tell us who are representing him in Montreal and what their instructions are, then if the instructions commend themselves, as I have no doubt they will, to the majority of the people of Canada, the hands of the minister would be upheld, public opinion would be focussed upon this trouble, and a settlement would probably be reached sooner than it otherwise would.
One word as to the affiliation of Canadian labour unions with the American unions. No Canadian union is obliged to affiliate with a union on the other side. The advantages of affiliation are mutual. Unfortunately, up to the present time, aye and at the present time, a greater number of men belonging to Canadian unions go to the United States to seek employment, than do American labour unionists come from the United States over here. The international card is a substantial advantage to the members of the Canadian unions, and that card has never been dishonoured by the unions on the other side. That card forms a bond of union between the workingmen on both sides of the line, and the reason the Canadian unionists identify themselves with

American unionists, is because they believe it to be to their advantage and because they do not believe it is derogatory to their position, or to the interests of Canada that they should so identify themselves. These are the facts, and if, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) has stated the employers of labour in the port of Montreal have been arranging for the past six or nine months to have men in Montreal when navigation opened to take the place of the longshoremen ; may I not without prejudicing the case say, that these employers placed themselves in a position to accentuate the hostility of the longshoremen ; that they were doing what was likely to antagonize the longshoremen of Montreal, and to make a reasonable settlement more difficult ? As the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) pointed out, there must be a recognition cf the rights of both parties before a satisfactory settlement can be reached ; there must be an observance of the golden rule. Except in a very extreme case, I have never known an instance where fair propositions for settlement were made by one or other of the parties, that these propositions did not eventuate in a satisfactory settlement.
1 hope that the efforts of the Minister of Labour wifi be crowned with success, but 1 repeat that a great deal of good would be done if he would take the House into his confidence and state who represents the government in Montreal, what has been done, how far he has succeeded in bringing the parties together, and what is the real reason why he has not been completely successful in his efforts. Before' I take my seat, I again repudiate the statement that foreign agitators are the cause of this trouble in Montreal. I am sure the bon. gentleman made the statement in good faith, but I do not believe that statement is susceptible of being substantiated. It is an insult to the Canadian workmen to say [DOT]that they cannot recognize their own interests, and that they nave been led away by men whom they do not know, to commit acts which may bring disaster on themselves and their families.


Robert Bickerdike: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) refers to me, I wish to sav that I did not make that statement. What I said was that the head of that organization was an American.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I understood him to say that the present strike in Montreal was caused by the presence of foreign agitators in the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: It was the member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) who said that.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I rise, as a newspaper man, to enter my protest against the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith). He said that the newspapers
are always anxious to record the misdeeds of the workmen. Let me tell him at once that the newspapers have worked more harmoniously with the labour unions than with any other class of the community. In the printing office with which my name is connected there are as a rule about 250 men employed, and all or nearly all of them belong to labour unions, and we never have any trouble with them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Nearly all the newspapers in Canada are employing union men. They are skilled tradesmen and 1 am proud to say that there is no class of men who give less trouble than the members of the Typographical Union. Suppose, for instance, that one of them gets on a spree and he is dismissed, there is no trouble over it and no objection made. I make this statement to correct the wrong impression which possibly may have been created in the minds of some hon. gentlemen here, that when union men are employed in an office or a shop, they are masters. That is not the case. One of my hon. friends near me, before I rose, asked me to state what I understood by the recognition of the union. It means undoubtedly that when you have admitted a labour union in your establishment, you must work with them; they work with you, and you must work with them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The obligation is mutual.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The question has been asked whether we are not in a free country; in other words, whether free labour, labour which is not connected with labour organizations, could not be employed along with union labour. I read a day or two ago a report of a meeting that took place in the month of December last in New York under the auspices of the National Civic Federation, of which Senator Hanna was the president. At that gathering the whole question was discussed very thoroughly. The contention of the labour unions to-day is that the individual workingman has no right to sell his labour outside of the union. I read that argument in very able speeches delivered by Mr. Gompers and by Mr. Keefe, who is president of the Longshoremen's Union. Their contention is that in these days of progress and of vast organizations of capital, the right of the labourmen to organize is as large and as broad as the right of capital, and that the individual workingman, selling his labour outside of the labour organizations, causes damage and injury to organizations that should be recognized as being for the best advantage of the country in which they exist. As my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Smth) says, there are two sides to this important question, and the sooner we recognize that fact the better, both from the labour standpoint and the capital standpoint. There is no use of denying to the workingmen the
2523.

right of forming themselves into organiza-'tions. Capital is forming organizations, and we do not on that account denounce capital. Labour has the same right, and I verily believe, after having tested the labour organizations on a pretty large scale, that if the owners and managers of large establishments would grapple with the question without any prejudice; if they would realize that in a country like this where industries are growing bigger every day the masses employed must grow bigger every day ; if they would make up their minds to the fact that labour men have families, and that they have duties to perform to those families, that they have rights to protect; if they would recognize that there are two sides to this important question ; the labour problem would be solved without much difficulty. I have not been made acquainted with the cause of the difficulty in Montreal,
I fully realize the delicacy of the situation in which the government are placed ; but all the same I am not sure but my hon. friend from Toronto is to a large extent right in asking the hon. Minister of Labour, if not to-day, as soon as possible, to take the House into his full confidence. This is a question in which the whole country is interested ; parliament is sitting, and we have some right to advise, for after all the government is only a committee of the House ; I invite the hon. minister-perhaps it is not necessary for me to do so- to proceed as speedily as he can in the settlement of the difficulty, which is of national importance.


Mr. W. P. McCREARY (Selkirk).: Mr. Speaker it would seem to me, from the statement made by the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division, Montreal (Mr. Bicker-dike), that it is a very small matter of contention between the parties. We have in the west many labour unions of various kinds on a firm footing. The city of Winnipeg is a city of unions, and my experience has been that where unions have been formed, they have been beneficial both to the employers and the workingmen. I have never known unions to work an injury, and I think the longshoremen of Montreal are quite justified in forming a union to better their condition. The hon. member for St. Lawrence said that the only point of contention was that the ship owners refused to recognize the union.


Mr HEYD.: What do you understand by the phrase, * recognition of the union ' ?
Mr.McCREARY. That they will deal with the officers of the union in regard to wages and other matters.
Hon. Mr. HAG6ART. Does it not imply that they will employ none but those belonging to the union ?
Mr. McCREARY'. It does not necessarily imply that, unless the by-laws of the union so provide. The association which the hon. member for St. Lawrence belongs to is a Hon. Mr. TARTE.
union of the shippers of Montreal, which they have entered for their own benefit, for the purpose of charging proper rates of freight, getting proper rates of insurance, and so forth. Then the Manufacturers' Association-what is that but one of the greatest unions in Canada, and, so far as we are concerned in the west, one of the most tyrannical ? And yet we are told these longshoremen are not to form a union to protect themselves. There is another phase of this question which has been presented by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), that is, that these unions have no right to import from the United States men who have had experience in the same line. If the hon. member for North Norfolk werq so particular about not making usel of Americans, we would not hear such long speeches from him, for he goes over to the states to get a good deal of his inspiration for these speeches. The Americans are coming to our country in large numbers, to work our mines and develop our prairies, and I do not think there will be much harm done if one or two come across to help the suffering longshoremen of Montreal to protect their own interests.
With regard to employing the military to suppress the unions, I am against that all the time. The moment you do that you are going to do an injury not only to the cause of labour, but to the militia system of Canada. I was speaking the other day to a man in Winnipeg, a member of a union, who had been at one time chairman of the Trades and Labour Council. He intimated to me that there were likely to be strikes. I remonstrated, saying I thought they were going a little too far. He said they were not. as prices of everything were so high that they needed higher wages. Then we proceeded to discuss the militia and its relation to the unions. He said the time was coming when men would have to choose between belonging to a union and belonging to the militia.
I asked him, ' What would you do in that case ? ' He said :	'I am an old soldier.
I was in the expedition to Manitoba under Lord Woiseley, I also served at the time of the rebellion in 1885, and I am still in the militia, but if I have to resign one or the other, I will resign the militia and not the union.' If that spirit gets into the militia of Canada, if a man becomes convinced that he cannot be a consistent union man and belong to the militia as will be the case if you persist upon calling on the militia to suppress^ strikes, that will disrupt this whole Dominion. I do not think it comes with good grace from men who belong to unions themselves to object to those poor longshoremen belonging to a union. We have union in every calling from the clergy down. We have unions among manufacturers, lawyers, doctors, and I am glad to know that the farmers in eastern Canada are forming an association. We have the

Grain Growers' Association in the west, and I hope that the farmers in this country will form a union and assert their rights. With regard to the influence of these unions, let me say that the manager of a large industrial concern in the United States told me it was much more satisfactory dealing with unions than with disorganized labour,-and some of the greatest corporations in that country want all their men to belong to a union. They find that there is less trouble dealing with the president of the union than with a mob of men. In my opinion it is the duty of the Minister of Labour to send his men down to deal with those shippers and endeavour to convince them that they should recognize the union or else this government will not protect them.


Mr.  O. B.@: HEYI) (South Brant). I do not desire to enter into a discussion on this question, but I would like to have a better definition of that phrase, ' The recognition of the union.' What does it mean ? Bach speaker gives it his own interpretation, and I would like the hon. minister to give us an authoritative definition of what the employees mean by it and what the employers understand by this term.


Mr. A. S. KENDALL (Cape Breton).: I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to say very much on this question, because I am not conversant with the details of the strike in Montreal, but shall content myself with a few general remarks. During a later period I shall probably bring before this House some measures dealing with that great question of the relations between capital and labour. I have the honour to represent a strong, labour, industrial county in this Dominion-a county that produces millions of tons of coal every year. Down there we have a labour union which we consider the very strongest in Canada. It is about 7,500 strong. And let me say that in the county of Cape Breton we have not had, for some eighteen or nineteen years, any serious disturbance between capital and labour. Why? Because the representatives of capital recognized that their best policy is to deal with organized men and not with a mob. I wish to point out-and I think that in saying this I have history on my side-that the capitalists of this country and all those who look ahead would do well to glance over the history of similar movements in Europe and Great Britain. We may make up our minds that we have to arrive at the point reached in Great Britain and Europe, and we had better take the easiest and not the hardest road to it. I.et me raise my humble voice to ask the employers of labour to consider this matter, because a storm is rising in this country. No man who has an eye in his head can fail to perceive that great difficulties are about to confront us, and it will be a serious matter for ns if we have to wade through the difficulties which agitated England and Scotland from 1840 to 1880. I
sincerely hope that the recognition of the union of workingmen will be facilitated by capital in this country, instead of thwarted, and in this way, more than any other, will be avoided difficulties such as we are now considering.


Mr. H.: ,T. LOGAN (Cumberland). I think that the question of discussion this afternoon is one of great importance. My hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Kendall) has told us that a storm is no doubt brewing in this country. Every day we bear capitalists say that the labour question is the most dangerous one ahead of us in this country at present, and that it is rendering unsafe the investment of capital. At the same time we must recognize that the labouring man has the same right to unite with his brother labourers as the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) has to unite with his brother manufacturers in the Manufacturers' Association. The attempt to shut out labour unions in Canada would lead to civil war and could never succeed. Calling out the militia is, of course, the last resort, and should only be done to secure the peace of pie community and not to suppress a strike. The question before the House was brought up by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier asking the government if they proposed to pay the city of Montreal a portion of the cost of calling out the militia.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: X did not bring that question up at all. I asked the government what they were doing or intended doing in Montreal.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: I am responsible for that question.


Mr. LOGAN.: Then it was my hon. friend from Montmorency who put that question. I think that to do what my hon. friend asked! would be to set a dangerous precedent. I would ask the government if. there is a precedent of that kind ? We had a great labour struggle in the city of London only a few years ago, and the militia were called out to preserve the peace, but I do not think that the government of Canada were asked by that ambitious city to pay for the militia.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There was the case of the town of Valleyfield. The government were asked to pay for the militia there, but I do not know what was done.


Hance James Logan: I think that the government refused to accede to its demand.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It was against the law,


Hance James Logan: And. as my right hon. friend the Premier has said, it was against the law. We had a very serious strike in Toronto last year, and although that city is not slow in asking favours from this government, we never heard of it asking that this government should pay the militia.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The militia were doing their annual drill, but even then the city of Toronto had to pay them.


Hance James Logan: The city of Montreal is ambitious. It proclaims itself as the national port of Canada. Surely, it should not come begging this parliament to preserve the peace in that port. If we should do so, we would be establishing a most dangerous precedent. With reference to the storm) brewing, serious thinking people realize that there is one certainly threatening over the labour question. I would humbly suggest that thel government should be forewarned, and that it might be in the public interest- this may not be a very well considered suggestion, but I make it in all sincerity-for this government to appoint a commission of able men to meet the leading labouring men of Canada and the capitalists and consider whether some means could not be devised for preventing the outbreak of the threatened storm. We have labour organizations, we cannot prevent their existence, we have also organizations of capitalists, and it seems to me that commission might possibly be the means of some agrement being arrived at between capital and labour in this Dominion.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: I rise to make a personal explanation. I do not wish to be understood as saying that the city of Montreal is coming to parliament to beg the govern-men to payj part of the expenses that are incurred by keeping the militia on the docks to maintain peace and order in the city. What I said is that, if the militia are to be used to maintain peace and order, it seems to me that the regular troops who are at St. Johns, Toronto, and Quebec, and who are being paid their salaries now by the government, might properly be brought to Montreal to relieve those members of the volunteer force who are now engaged in the work of maintaining order. These regular troops get their pay from the government now, and they would get the same in Montreal as they do where they now are. That is all.


The PRIME MINISTER.: In answer to the question of my hon. friend (Mr. Cas-grain), let me say that the troops at St. Johns have been brought to the city of Montreal and all the troops available in the district of Montreal are at the command of the municipal authorities. But, to bring troops from other cities, from Toronto and other places, it is a question that involves very serious considerations.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: I do not propose toj go into the merits of this question, nor to discuss the general principle involved. I wish to refer to one point in connection with the bringing out of the militia. B feel very strongly that when an occasion arises that makes it necessary for the government to employ troops to keep Mr. LOGAN.
order, the volunteers of the locality if called out might be forced to war against their fellow-citizens and countrymen and that this would be wrong. On an occasion of a strike in a city, such as we have in Montreal, no local militia should be called out. The men serving in the local regiments are, in many cases, the brothers and friends of the men on strike, and both sides believe that they are doing what is right. When occasions of this kind arise-and, unfortunately, I suppose we must beileve that they will arise, that we cannot help it-we should have permanent troops sent to each place of disturbance to maintain the peace. If it is accepted and understood that in the case of a street railway strike in Toronto or a longshoremen's in Montreal, the local volunteers will be called out,i perhaps to fire on some of their brothers or friends, I think we are going to destroy absolutely in this country the spirit out of which our militia grows. No matter at what cost, in the case of a strike of this sort, the government should send the paid force of the country to keep order and not call upon the local militia. Though not an I employer of labour, I have opinions as one who has perhaps, thought a good deal about this subject, although without saying very much. I believe that unionism is of great advantage to the men ; I believe that it has come to stay and that it is going to accomplish in the end very great things for the labourer. At the same time, I have just as strong an opinion that unionism is absolutely wrong when it adopts the boycott. I believe I am right when I say that not more than one-third of the! labourers in the cities-leaving out farm labourers, that is to say, not more than one-third of the mechanical labourers -belong to the unions. If I am right in that, I do not think that it is right that one-third of the labourers who are in the union should be able to say that the other two-thirds shall not work. I am not able to suggest a remedy for the difficulty, but I believe a remedy will be found ; and I think that as time goes on there will be a better feeling between capital and labour- and that good feeling is growing, and must grow-these difficulties will be avoided. I believe that in the principle of a minimum wages and a share in the profits of all industries will eventually be found the solution which will make labour and capital work together in union. 'It is a slow process, jjerhaps, but we are tending to that end, and I know of industries in which that scheme has been attempted and has worked, and is working, to the satisfaction of both labour and capital. I believe it only requires patience, the avoidance of temper, and the recognition of the rights of both labour and capital. I must confess that I do not believe that a compulsory board of arbitration will do good. The results of compulsory arbitration will only be

accepted in good faith practically by the party in whose favour the award is made.
I believe, that, eventually, arbitration will rule very much more than it does now. And I believe that with the keen interest taken by the Minister of Labour, who is now the man whom we look to as the head man in dealing with matters of this kind, if he puts politics aside and perhaps, nominate some outside man, as the President of the United States did-some strong man who would go upon the ground and see what could be done, some man who is not in politics, not a railway man and not an employer of labour


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Where would you find him ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Cannot a fair man be found in the whole country ? If the hon. minister (Hon. Sir William Mulock) has that idea of the country, I say God help the future-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) must not put words in my mouth that I did not use. He suggested that a man should be found, a strong man, one who is not in politics and not in railways and not an employer of labour. I only asked where I was to look, for such a man. Of course, there may be such men.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I can only say that I believe, there are men not in politics, and not in railways, strong men and honest men who could be found.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Will the hon. gentleman send me a list of them.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I wish I could quote correctly. I remember coming upon a sentence -very appropriate in describing the present government. It was to the effect-describing such a government as this-that where men who have taken power and assumed the duties that go with it and are not able to solve the questions that come before them, they are either incapable or otherwise wholly unworthy of the position they have assumed. It is not for the government benches to throw taunts at this side on every occasion, to cry :	Give us a solution
of the difficulty. We are not here to solve the questions that face the country. We are here to approve or disapprove of what the government do.


William Forsythe McCreary: What did you do in the labour question during the eighteen years when you were in power ? You did not put in a line upon the statute-book.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not hear the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary). Is he referring to eighteen years back ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Yes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am not here as a member of this House to approve of everything done eighteen years ago. I will agree with the hon. gentleman very often that those things were bad. This government have now a SO
strong majority, they are backed by a majority of the constituencies of the Dc minion of Canada, and it is their duty to face manfully every proposition that comes before them. If they are not able to face that, then they are not fit to be in their positions. They have no right to taunt the opposition by asking them on every occasion what they would do under certain circumstances. Whenever occasion arises in which the public interest is concerned, the government are bound to propound a scheme ; it is the duty of the opposition to object or to approve of that scheme, and of the government to carry it with their great majority.
But I rose principally to express my views on this point, on which I feel strongly, that I think it is very wrong and very injudicious to call out the militia of this country to suppress disturbances between our own people, in strikes and troubles of that kind.
I believe that the government, no matter at what expense-charge it to the cities, if you like, I don't object to that-but I believe that the government should make the permanent force do duty on all occasions where military force is required, as in the present instance in this strike in Montreal.


Robert Bickerdike: I would like to explain to the House that there has been some misapprehension in this discussion. We have been for nearly two hours discussing a question which can be boiled right down to one word. I have here the offer drawn up and submitted to the steamship people, and also the one submitted by the longshoremen. It is clause 8, which reads :
The stevedores and the parties of the first part, will not discriminate against union men, and willingly agree to employ them.
That clause was put in because the steamship men had made a contract with some 350 men. Now, having made that contract, they are bound to carry it out.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman, having already spoken, is out of order.


Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria).: T was much interested in listening to the remarks made by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary). I should suppose, judging from the tenor of his speech, that he is going to desert his old friends, the Doukhobors, and intends to secure, if he can, the representation of the city of Winnipeg in the next election. Therefore the present labour leader of that city (Mr. Puttee) must hand in his resignation, for he will no longer represent the magnificent city of Winnipeg in these halls. The member for Toronto was asked a little while ago what the Liberal Conservative party had done for the people during the eighteen years they were in power. If my memory serves me right, they gave bread and butter to the workingmen of Canada. If my memory serves me right, they closed up the soup kitchens that had been opened during the regime of I hon. gentlemen opposite, and the soup kit-



cliens have never been reopened since the national policy came into force. 1 cannot agree with one remark made by my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier), who says that only the permanent corps should be employed to put down riots. I maintain that it is the duty of every citizen of Canada, whenever disorder or disturbance exists in his municipality, to turn out and do his duty in assisting to preserve law and order within the bounds of his own municipality. As a representative of a riding that is not troubled with strikes, 1 object on behalf of that community to paying any share of the cost of suppressing any disagreement that may happen to arise in the city of Montreal, and I should strenuously object to one dollar of the public money of Canada being paid towards a settlement of any strike in Montreal. Let Montreal settle her own troubles.
So far as unions are concerned, I have always upheld them when they tend to the betterment of the condition of the workingmen, or of any other men ; when their association tends to make them more temperate, more law abiding, more intelligent, to shorten the hours of labour and develop their home life. But when it comes to a union saying to a man who has to earn his bread and butter : You shall not take employment under these men, then I maintain that it is the duty of the state to step in and tell the gentlemen of the union who are on strike that they may go a certain distance, but no further. We have seen suffering on the part of families of labouring men who are endeavouring honestly to earn their bread and butter, and who do not wish to join these labour unions under the dictation of a foreign leader or to be controlled by such. When these men and their families are hooted at on the streets and otherwise abused, I maintain the time has arrived in this country when the gentlemen of the unions must be taught that while they are at perfect liberty to work or to strike, they must not directly or indirectly interfere with any other man who does not belong to the union, and who wishes to earn his daily bread at whatever wage he can obtain. More than that; if the capitalists become tyrannical they must lie controlled likewise by the government of the country. In England, when that great engineers' strike took place a few years ago, the nation lost millions of dollars! Already the Dominion of Canada, by reason of this strike in Montreal, lias lost an enormous amount which it will take years for the parties who are engaged in that strike to make up by their operations.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: The hon. gentleman says that the engineers' strike in England entailed a loss of millions of dollars on British industry. If that is so, would the hon. gentleman tell us liow he would measure the loss to the country that was caused by Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
the control of the cotton industry by the factory men of Lancashire for a century V


Samuel Hughes: I shall answer that question at a later period. But I want to point out that I object not only to the tyranny of the labour unions, but to the tyranny of the capitalists. The labour unions in the old land are very tyrannical, and I will give you one instance : A wholesale dealer in the city of Toronto visited Staffordshire a few years ago to purchase a certain brand of crockery, of which there was none in the market. It was a little out of the ordinary line of manufacture. The manufacturer said he could make the crockery for him, but said he must consult the head of the union before he could give him a final answer whether they would manufacture that line or not. Business was not any too good at that time in the old land. The gentleman was notified next morning that the labour union objected to manufacture this class of ware, and the gentleman took his order to Germany, and Britain lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on that transaction alone. So, we find, Sir, that these unions may be carried to an extreme just the same as the tyranny of capital may be carried to an extreme. The only point I rose to make is that while I recognize the right of any labouring man in any part of the Dominion of Canada to strike, I want the gentleman distinctly to understand also that he has to allow any other free man to go and take his place without being molested, and without being hounded from one end of the country to the other, as is being done to-day. The time is not far distant when this sort of thing must be put a stop to. If men seeking to go to their work on the docks are to be hounded to death and trampled in the dirt on the streets of Montreal, it is time the law interfered, and whether it be done by the regular troops or by the militia, it is time the strong hand of the law made it plain to these men that this country must be a law abiding country, and that we must have the law obeyed whether these men be in favour of it or not.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have not received my union instructions with the brief which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) speaks of. I am not in a position to use the same kind of language as the hon. gentleman who seems to think that the longshoremen are alone to blame in this matter. The hon. gentleman, for the first time in this House, has alluded to violations of the law on the part of the longshoremen in Montreal. I have heard no charge made of that character this afternoon. So far as I am personally aware I do not know all the details of this difficulty between the longshoremen and the employers, but there is one thing I want to call attention to and it is

that one of the most important contentions of the workingmen is that a fair day's pay shall be given for a fair day's work, that we find that there is no difference between the two parties in regard to this question and that the longshoremen have been satisfied in that respect. But, I have learned also that the chief grievance that now exists between the two parties who are contending is in reference to the fact that 350 men were brought to Montreal and to the threat that something like 1,000 more men would be brought to Montreal in order to perform the work that the longshoremen usually perform which will only have the effect of depressing their wages. I recognize the rights of workingmen the same as I recognize the rights of any other class of the community. Surely, when a man has nothing else but his labour to sell he has a right to associate with other men for their mutual advantage and mutual protection and so long as they comply with the law and so long as they guard against violating the law I do not see that there is any particular harm done to the country by an association of that character. I may say that those men who claim the right for their own particular class and calling to be associated together and to be organized are not justified in finding fault with workingmen simply because they claim the same right. The bon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) spoke strongly to-day as a manufacturer- I think entirely too strongly. He has assumed that Mr. Gompers came from the other side for the purpose of fomenting trouble and difficulty in this country. If Mr. Gompers is doing so surely he will not lay the blame on the longshoremen of Montreal for bringing that gentleman here. They are not associated with Mr. Gompers in any way. He conies to this country as a citizen of the United States and he enjoys the privilege which the law of this country gives him, of speaking to the people of this country. He has now that privilege in the city of Monreal. I do not wish to approve of his remarks or to disapprove of them because I know nothing about them, but he has that right and I would say that the longshoremen are not to blame in any sense whatever, concerning him. I would say to the hon. member for North Norfolk that if a number of workingmen refused to work for a manufacturer simply because he belonged to the Manufacturers' Association, if the manufacturers brought that before this House as a reason for the condemnation of the workingmen, I would rise up in my place and offer a few remarks on an occasion of that kind in support of the Manufacturers' Association in condemning conduct of that character. So, I say what is good for one is certainly good for the other. Fair play to both is a proper thing. I will take some of the other close organizations in this country. Take the legal profession and the medical profession and no S0J
one will contend that they are not close corporations. I* remember that a few years ago an effort was put forth to have it declared, for instance, that a medical gentleman moving from the city of Ottawa to the city of Hull, which is situated in another province, would not be allowed to practice his profession without being guilty of violating the provincial laws which would not give him that right. So the House will see that even the medical profession are protected and that they are a close organization. I quite approve of that, because, in their particular profession, it is necessary that they should be protected. It is a matter of life and death frequently and I am not in favour of quacks practising medicine. Then, take the legal profession. A member of that profession cannot pass from Ontario or Manitoba or British Columbia and practice his profession without violating the laws of Manitoba or British Columbia. Probably there may be some quacks among the lawyers who might attempt to practice in these provinces and in order to practice themselves and guard their interests the legal gentlemen have a close organization in the different provinces. So, I say it would not be becoming on the part of the legal profession, the medical profession, or of the Manufacturers' Association, or of the capitalists, to undertake to prevent the workingmen from becoming organized. I was very glad to hear from the director of one of the greatest enterprises in the Dominion of Canada speak as he has done. I refer to one of the hon. gentlemen from Toronto. Now, I know as a matter of fact that the railway companies in this country do recognize the trades unions. I know as a matter of fact that they have their grievance committees and that from time to time, year in and year out, the officials of the railway companies confer with the representatives of the unions and whatever grievances they have are adjusted and adjusted, I believe, to the satisfaction of both parties concerned. So I say that if the manufacturer is desirous of doing what is right, and if the employee is desirous of doing what is right no difficulty can occur between them. I was glad also to hear the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) say that this question should not be discussed in a party spirit. I quite approve of that but I am somewhat of a doubting Thomas at the time of a by, or general election, when I hear the hon. gentleman taking credit to himself and his department for the work he is doing on behalf of labour and appealing to the workingmen to support his candidate or party by reason of this claim. If the hon. gentleman will be good enough to refrain from resorting to that kind of party warfare I have no objection I am sure to his statement and I would rather approve of not making this a party question at all. The idea has been suggested that if the hon. member for North Norfolk thinks that the presence of Mr. COMMONS
Gompers and liis course in discussing matters in the way he has been doing is a detriment to the country what is the matter of calling the attention of the hon. Minister of Labour to the fact and have him place one of his officers in communication with Mr. Gompers with the view of notifying him that the course he is taking is not in the interests of labour in this country. I do not care to take up any more of the time of the House but I understand there is to be some legislation proposed, probably to-day, and if there is to be I trust that all those hon. gentlemen who are so sincere in their efforts in behalf of the workingmen of this country will lend their best efforts towards making this legislation as perfect as possible.
Motion to adjourn the House negatived.



SETTLEMENT OF RAILWAY LABOUR DISPUTES.

[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) moved second reading of Bill (No. 17) to aid in the settlement of railway labour disputes. He said : Mr. Speaker, this Bill has had the advantage of a discussion that has I trust prepared the mind of the House to give it a receptive consideration to the principles involved in the measure. Last session I had the honour of introducing a Bill of a similar nature, and on that occasion I stated that it was not the intention of the government then to press the Bill to a conclusion, but rather to leave it over to the present session in order that it might in the meantime receive the consideration not only of the employees and the employers, but also of the general public. Accordingly, I again bring the matter before the attention of the House, and I shall point out now wherein this Bill differs from the measure that was introduced last session. This Bill may be said to differ from the other in three respects. The Bill of last session provided for arbitration only-this Bill provides for an intermediate procedure, namely, an attempt at conciliation, and failing conciliation then arbitration. Under the Bill of last session the award of the arbitrators was enforcible by legal process to a certain extent as it provided penalties for those who disregarded the awards-the present measure departs from that, and instead of providing compulsion through the courts, it leaves the enforcement to such influences as may be brought about, in order to have it respected by public opinion and the good judgment of the parties concerned.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: In other words, do I understand that the arbitration is compulsory but without any legal sanction to enforce it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes. The award is given to the public and to the parties and there it rests. In the Bill of last session a permanent board of arbitra-Mr. INGRAM.
tors was appointed by the parties and it was to remain in office for a certain term of years-under the present measure instead of there being a standing board, the scheme contemplates a special board to be chosen to deal with each case. These are, I think, the leading differences between the Bill of last session and the present Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: As to the composition of the board ; are the parties to have any voice in it under this Bill ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes. Later on I will explain the reason for the changes. The Bill recites that strikes and lockouts, or whatever may lead to strikes or lockouts, are against the public interest. I presume it is understood that the measure does not. deal with labour disputes except in respect to railways, and it applies to all railways in Canada whether under the legislative control of the Dominion or the provinces, whether operated by government (the Intercolonial for example) or operated by corporations. The Bill also applies to street railways and to all other institutions that may be known as railways. The Bill recites the reasons why parliament should proceed in this way, namely: that the public is interested in the proper transportation of passengers, mails and freight, and that whatever is likely to interfere with such transportation is against the public interest, and that therefore the public have a right to intervene to prevent such injury to their interests. In the event of it appearing that there is likely to be any interruption of The transportation of passengers, mails, or freight, or in the event of a strike or a lockout actually having occurred upon a railway, the Minister of Labour may invoke the machinery of this Bill. He ffmy, on the application of either party, or on the application of the municipal council directly concerned, or he may of his own motion take steps to establish in the first place, a board of conciliation. He proceeds to do so by inviting the two parties to choose their conciliators, and if they comply with that request then it will be the duty of the two conciliators to choose a third. These three conciliators are the board of conciliation and mediation. In the event of either party making default, then the minister may appoint a conciliator for the parties so making default. There is also a provision for filling vacancies on the board ; the party having the right to appoint also having the right to fill up a vacancy.
Assuming that the board of conciliation and mediation has failed to bring about harmony, then the Minister of Labour may refer the matter to arbitration and a board of arbitration is then appointed, which may be the board of conciliation if agreed to by the parties, and if not, then the board of arbitration is appointed in like manner as the board of conciliation. The board is clothed with the power to examine witnesses, to call

for the production of papers and to make the award. It will be the duty of that board to ascertain the causes of the dispute, to make suggestions for its termination and such other recommendations as it in its wisdom may deem proper. That award and the report will then be presented to the Department of Labour and become documents of record. Copies will be given to the parties directly concerned, and to the press and the public, and it will be laid upon the Table for the information of parliament. There the jurisdiction of the machinery proposed by the Bill ends. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition will therefore see that the enforcement of the award is left to such influences as may be brought to bear, backed up of course by the standing of the arbitrators, the manner in which they have conducted the arbitration, and the force of public opinion. As I stated on a former occasion, I know of no other machinery for compelling submission to such awards, except it be the compulsory machinery of the law. There is a wide distinction between the two methods. My own inclination is altogether in favour of the principle involved in this Bill.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When did the hon. gentleman change his mind ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 will tell my hon. friend when 1 changed my mind. It is true that last session I presented a measure providing different machinery. I was not on that occasion very sanguine in favour of that procedure, but I submitted it to the House and the country in order to get the benefit of the advice of the parties interested and of the public. There are arguments in favour of the enforcement of awards by compulsion, and there are arguments against it. The only law of that kind which has been on trial for any considerable time is the New Zealand Act. That was passed in 1S94, and went into operation on the first of January, 1895. It has given more or less of satisfaction, perhaps dissatisfaction. Opinion is as yet divided upon it. A year or two ago the state of New South Wales desired to study the labour law of the state of New Zealand, and sent a very distinguished jurist to New Zealand to inquire and report whether or not in his opinion the compulsory law of New Zealand was a desirable measure. That commissioner studied the question pretty thoroughly, and made a report which on its face might be considered an endorsement of that method for the settlement of labour disputes, that is, a method under which the award has the force of a judgment of a court, enforcible just as any legal judgment would be. But he observed that the Act had only been in force in New Zealand during the period of a rising market. During that time, as a rule, the workingmen had gained by the awards. The question arises, would they acquiesce in the
awards of the arbitrators in a period of a falling market ? It cannot be said, I think, that that law has undergone a complete trial, until the parties have had an opportunity of coming to a conclusion as to its efficiency when there is a falling market. If, after there has been a falling market in New Zealand for a term of years, public opinion should stand by that view, we would be warranted in adopting that method; but up to the present time, I submit, it has not undergone that complete trial that would warrant us in adopting it. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) asks me when my views underwent a change. That is putting it rather strongly, because though I did frame the measure of last session,; contain ing some very trifling penalties, they fell very far short of making it one that might be treated as a compulsory mode of settling disputes. The penalties were not very onerous and the methods of enforcement were rather mild. But I will tell my hon. friend with all frankness how this present measure came to be framed. When speaking on the subject last session, I gave what I considered to be a public invitation to all parties interested to assist the government in framing a measure. The invitation was responded to, to a certain extent. I am not at liberty to give the names of the re-presentaives of the railway employees who consulted with me with regard to the framing of this measure, and I am sure no hon. gentleman will ask me to do so.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did they approve of it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They did. But I will go so far as to say that 1 had the advantage of meeting on several occasions a large number of men representing different branches of railway employees, and amongst them their legislative representative, Mr. J. H. Hall. That gentleman,
I understand, occupies a very prominent position in the labour world. He is, I understand, the legislative representative or the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, the Order of Railway Conductors, the Order of Railway Trainmen, and the Order of Railway Telegraphers. He took part in.all the negotiations with me, at which the railway employees were present.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Where is his residence, may I ask ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: His residence Is in the city of Toronto. He was good enough to convene a meeting of railway employees and introduced to me the deputation, a very numerous one, of men deeply interested in this question. In speaking of the men, I would say that I was prepared to receive advice from both sides- not only prepared, but most solicitous to receive it; and I have had the opinions of some leading railway men in Canada in regard to this measure. Perhaps I would be

giving an incorrect impression if I were to leave the House under the impression that it was a one-sided measure. At the same time, I would perhaps be conveying an equally erroneous impression if I were to say that it had the hearty approval of the railway companies. Yet I think I am correct in saying that some of the largest railways in Canada view it with hope. I think there may be in some quarters a prejudice against it. I am able to say, in regard to the Intercolonial Railway that the measure has the approval of the Minister of Railways. Well, I met a delegation of railway men with Mr. Hall, and we discussed this subject at very great length on many occasions, and it has not been my good fortune on any occasion to have met a set of men more zealously anxious to arrive at a proper solution of the labour question, than the men who assisted me with their advice in the preparation of this Bill. By common consent, we did not think it advisable to invite the reporters to be present during the preparation of the measure. There are delicate questions to be discussed between employer and employee, and there is always more or less an attitude of standing on guard assumed by the one towards the other. At the same time, I must testify to the unqualified loyalty of the representatives I met towards the companies under whom they served; and, having reached the conclusion that we could provide a law for the settlement of railway disputes by appealing to public opinion and the consciences of the men concerned, it was to me most gratifying to be assured by the men that, so far as they were concerned, the House and the country might depend on it that the railway operatives of Canada would loyally stand by the decisions of the board of conciliation and award.


Mr. CLANCY.: I understand the hon. member for Vancouver to state that the trade unions of Canada approved of compulsory arbitration.


Ralph Smith: What I did say was that in the majority of cases the labouring men had showed a disposition to agree in any decision arrived at by the government authorities.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The House and the country may rest assured that if this measure becomes law, the railway men will be found loyally supporting the government boards of conciliation and award. I am not in a position to speak of the other classes, but I may say that the committee which assisted me gave that as their opinion, and I have no reason to doubt that the railway companies will equally loyally abide by the decisions of the boards of conciliation and award. They are as amenable to public opinion as are the employees, and if we can get the employers and employees in Canada to respond to public opinion in their dealings with each other, we will have Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
made some progress towards solving the labour problem. I am not one of those who hope to ever see an end to labour troubles. These troubles are incident to industrial life, and arise from natural self-interest. It is most natural that the employee should seek to better his position and that the employer should endeavour to make his enterprise as profitable as possible. The workingman wants a higher wage and the employer is anxious to make more money out of his investment. That is a condition of affairs which we will always have, and the more industrial progress Canada makes, the greater our industrial activity, the more frequent will be these frictions. It is idle to suppose that there ever will be an ideal state of affairs when every body will do everything desired by the other, and no man will have to stand up and battle for himself. But in connection with this question, it may be observed that the Bill does not travel beyond railway disputes, and while I might be asked the reason, I think that perhaps the bare statement of the question answers itself. The railway companies are creatures of parliament for the benefit of the public. They are not created for the benefit of any corporation or labour. They are created to serve the general community ; and whilst both employer and employees have a deep interest in the working of the road, there is a still greater interest concerned, and that is the public interest. Therefore, on an occasion like this, I submit that the public have a locus standi, liave-a right to intervene and see that if the employer and employees fail to operate the road satisfactorily, then the public will do its best to see that the road is properly run and at the same time provide means for justice being done to employer and employee.


James Clancy: Through what channel ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Through the channel suggested in this measure. While, as my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) has suggested, it might be desirable to extend this principle beyond railway companies, yet this Bill does not g>
beyond them. My hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) suggested last year that this Bill should be made to extend to telegraph companies. There are also coal companies and many other companies, monopolistic in their character, and which perhaps might properly be brought within the provisions of this Bill. I hope that this measure, if it becomes law, will prove so satisfactory in its operations as to lead to the extension of the principle into various other industrial channels. My hon. friend from Cumberland made a valuable suggestion, which lam glad to endorse. It does seem to me that the employers and employees of Canada would do well to recognize that the labour question is here to stay, that strikes and lockouts will always be resorted to

until we supply some other tribunal for the settlement of these differences. We have lockouts to deal with differences of another character, but there is no tribunal to day apparently within the reach of employers and employees except the tribunal of force, such as strikes and lockouts, to solve these disputes. Perhaps, therefore, parliament is not altogether free from blame in not having long since endeavoured to devise some better means than these violent measures of strikes and lockouts for the settlement of labour troubles. But coming back for a moment to the Bill, I will take the liberty of reading to the House a letter which I received from Air. Hall, as follows :

the state of Massachusetts in 1877. The writer describes with great satisfaction how the state board, intervening at the right moment held a public inquiry, summoning the parties before them, and reached an award and gave it to the public. Both parties immediately accepted the award, and peace was restored. The article proceeds to argue in favour of a setlement of disputes by the aid of public opinion, the principle upon which this Bill proceeds. After the general scheme of the Bill that is now before the House became known to the public, I received communications from persons outside of the railway world inquiring why we did not extend the provisions of the Bill to the industrial world generally. One of these communications was on behalf of a very large and influential section of the labour world. I think that, from the tenor of that letter, we have a right to assume that the very considerable section of workingmen represented by that order would rejoice if some peaceful measure such as this were within their reach, so that, in the event of their having trouble, they also might get the benefit of this measure. But I replied saying that the Bill was, at present, limited to-the. railway world ; but that, if it proved satisfactory and public opinion, represented by employers and employees, demanded its extension to other classes, I was sure that parliament would accede to that demand. I think the time has come when both classes-indeed the whole community-might well address themselves to the question of endeavouring to devise means for the settlement of the labour question. I do not regard this country ns on the brink of some great upheaval, as some lion, gentlemen seem to suggest. There is enough common sense among the people to demand what they conceive to be their rights, but yet not to go too far. They may go much farther at times than is wise, but they will not go to too great extremes. But seeing that, in my opinion, the time has arrived, I desire to give some practical form to that opinion ; and I would suggest whether it would not be in the interest of all classes, employers and employees, if both sides should'seek to bring together a representative committee of men of both classes, to thresh out this question and see if they could not find a solution, perhaps somewhat in the lines indi- j cated. Such a discussion and the conclusions arrived at would, perhaps, bring to boar upon the question such a force of good will and impartial opinion as to make it effective practically in all cases of industrial war. At all events, I do not think we are warranted in assuming that parliament cannot make effective legislation in inis direction. Therefore, I go so far as to express the hope that the public will seriously consider this proposition and assist in trying to solve the question. To-day, I received a letter from a large employer of labour in the city of Montreal. There is a Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
passage in the letter, which, perhaps the House will allow me to read. The suggestion comes from him that there should be legislation. Speaking of labour organizations, he says:
That these organizations have the power to negotiate and arrange any matters of interest affecting the particular trade or calling with which they are connected. Failing to accomplish this by amicable negotiation, the matter to be brought into court and regularly tried, in the same way as any other civil matter, and in the event of a failure to comply with the decision of the court, pains and penalties to follow, the same as in any other case in dispute. I know this is a large order, but we have to face the problem now in a most unsatisfactory manner.
This is from an employer of labour. My hon. friend from Vancouver this afternoon, alluding to some remarks made by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), asked whether the employers would be willing to be bound by rules. Well, this is a letter from an employer who suggests the extreme procedure of having a board established by law, and the award of that board to be binding as in a civil court, and en-forcible by all the fines, penalties, sheriffs, and powers that the law can supply. I only cite it to show- that there is a feeling abroad in favour of some such solution of this question. Therefore, I suggest to those who take an interest in the matter that they should try and organize themselves into a free deliberative body in which both sides may meet and debate the question, and see if some good cannot come out of it. At least no harm can come. I submit it is our duty as good citizens to make every effort to bring about some agreement. You cannot suppress the question. It will be present on every occasion. Therefore, instead of deploring and wringing our hands when we are confronted witli labour troubles let us rather ns nose men set ourselves to work and try to solve the difficulty. However, I am travelling outside the record of the particular Bill before the House. My Bill is not limited to railways. I should say no more at present than to submit it for the consideration of parliament, feeling sure that if it becomes law it will meet all reasonable expectations.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 139) respecting the St. Mary's River Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 140) to incorporate the Cardiff Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 141) respecting the Medicine Hat and Northern Alberta Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.

Bill (No. 142) respecting tlie Elgin and Havelock Railway Company.-Mr. Fowler.
Bill (No. 143) respecting tlie Canadian Nortli-west Irrigation Company-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed debate on proposed motion of the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) for the second reading of Bill (No. 17) to aid in tlie settlement of railway labour disputes.
Robert Laird Borden: With respect to the Bill which has been introduced by the hon. the Minister of Labour, I may say in the first place that, even if the Bill is only an experiment, still I believe we ought to be willing to accept any experiment that offers any promise of useful results. I am bound to say, after hearing the explanation of tlie Minister of Labour, and after an examination of this Bill, that I cannot see that it does promise to produce any results that are likely to be of any advantage in allaying disputes between capital and labour in this country. It is a somewhat curious coincidence that since the establishment of the Department of Labour by this government a few years ago, we have really had a greater number of strikes, some of them very important ones, than I think we ever had before in the same period of time in the history of Canada. I concede at once that this condition of affairs in the country is such as to justify some action on the part of the government. It is suggested sometimes on the other side of the ftouse that this is a growing time. I may say to the Minister of Labour that since this department lias been instituted, it has been a growing time for strikes as well as for everything else. Now the first criticism which I would like to make on this Bill is that, if it is to be of any advantage at all,
I see no reason for restricting it to steam railways and street railways. My hon. friend" the Minister of Labour suggested that on account of the monopolistic character of the railways and street railways they should alone be included in this Bill.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, not . on that account.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, my hon. friend made the remark in that connection. I could understand the argument if there was any remedy to be given by the Bill by which the government, could, as he said, in one part of his speech, take over these railways and operate them, and relieve the country from a serious situation induced bv a strike. If there was anything of that kind in the Bill, I could understand there would be some reason for restricting it. But. surely the Minister of Labour will agree with me that if there is to be any advantage derived from this Bill, it is an advantage which ought to be extended to any
other trade or business when affected by a strike. For example, if the provisions of this Bill are to be of any use, why should they not be extended to the condition of affairs that now unhappily prevails in the city of Montreal, where a strike is going on which is paralyzing a very important branch of business in that port. There is nothing in the provisions of the Bill which would not make it as much applicable to that condition of affairs as to any strike upon a railway or street railway.	,
Then there is another suggestion which I would like to make. Does this Bill accomplish anything that cannot be accomplished under existing legislation ? If it does, I would like to know what it is. I would like my hon. friend to consider that: What is there that you can do under this Rill that you cannot do as well at present ? My hon. friend may say that you cannot appoint a board of arbitration. What is the use of appointing a board of arbitration unless the parties in the first instance will agree to accept its award, or are bound bv law to accept the award after it is made Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting at the present time that we should pass a law providing for compulsory arbitration, but I am merely pointing out that a law of this character 'seems to me to be absolutely useless and may possibly be detrimental because it will result in nothing. The hon. Minister of Labour says that we may thereby have an inquiry. Is he not at the present time making an inquiry in British Columbia by means of a royal commission in regard to the labour situation there ? Cannot he get every opportunity for making an inquiry from the legislation in existence that he could possibly get from this Bill ? He may say that he cannot get a board of conciliation. He can get a board of conciliation under the Act passed two years ago, and I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Labour whether or not any action has ever been taken in the establishment of boards of conciliation under that Act, or whether any advantage in so far as establishing these boards of conciliation is concerned has ever resulted from the passing of that Act. Then, if he is not able to answer in the affirmative, it must be doubtful whether he can expect any advantage to result from the provisions which he is now proposing to this House ? If he wants a board of conciliation, if he wants intervention between capital and labour, can he not have it under the Act passed two years ago, or can he not have it by the intervention of the Deputy Minister of Labour, who. I believe, from everything I have seen of his work, is a very capable and efficient officer? If he cannot accomplish that by the board of conciliation which he established two years ago what is he going to accomplish by this Bill ? In the first place, under this Act, if a strike is threatened, or is in progres, he establishes a board of con-

254S
ciliation and the board of concilia tion proceeds to negotiate. This negotiation can be carried out under the boards of conciliation that we have already under the Act of two years ago or it can be carried on by the very capable officer who is acting as the Deputy Minister of Labour. Well, the hon. Minister of Labour might say in addition that after you have gone through all that red tape- because there is a great deal more machinery about this Bill than anything else-after you have gone through all that red tape of establishing, first, your board of conciliation it is, if I understand the provisions of the Bill, open to you to establish a board of arbitration which would take upon itself the duty of making an inquiry and making some award in respect to the difference. What would be the advantage of that ? The hon. Minister of Labour admits, as the fact is, under the provisions of this Bill, that when the award is made it may be absolutely disregarded by either one or both of the parties. What would you have accomplished ? The hon. minister will say that you would have accomplished something by your inquiry. You can make your inquiry now as he is doing in British Columbia, you can have your board of conciliation under his Act of two years ago and you can accomplish under this Bill nothing that you cannot accomplish as conditions stand at the present time. It would seem to me that it would be very much better for the hon. Minister of Labour to devote his energies to some practical purpose, not to the establishment of a tribunal whose award might be disregarded by both parties, a tribunal which may not be attended by either of the parties because there is nothing in his Bill to compel either of the parties to attend, there is no penalty placed on either of the parties for not attending this board of arbitration-a tribunal which if once appointed may be left alone in its glory to make an inquiry without either of the parties paying the slightest attention to it. Under these circumstances no possible good can result. If the hon. minister would devote his attention to some practical scheme by which both parties might be brought into agreement for the purpose of arranging to be bound by the award of some tribunal I think in that way he would accomplish some result in the end by reason of the fact that both parties had agreed to be bound by the award of the tribunal. In establishing this tribunal under the forms of law, but whose award is not sanctioned by law and which cannot have the sanction of law to enforce it, are you not really putting an obstacle in the way of an agreement between the parties to be bound by the tribunal ? If you can get capital and labour to come together and agree that they will be bound by the award of a certain tribunal you have accomplished something, because I believe that Mr. BORDEN I Halifax}.
when capital and labour have entered into an agreement of that kind they will abide by the result. If instead of doing that you simply ask these people to attend before a tribunal that they may absolutely ignore and if you permit that tribunal in the absence of one or both of the parties possibly, to make an award, you are going through a mere form in the end, and how are you going to accomplish anything in that way for the settlement of disputes between capital and labour ? I do not regard this measure of the hon. Minister of Labour as one that is likely to produce satisfactory results, or, in fact, any results at all. I think it is a measure that will have about the same end, so far as practical results are concerned, as the measure which he introduced two years ago in regard to establishing boards of conciliation. In these questions at issue between capital and labour you must very largely have regard to public opinion, and I suppose the hon. minister is looking to the force of public opinion to enforce the award. But, I think in this he is starting at the wrong point. I think the time to invoke public opinion is when you are seeking to bring the parties into an agreement for the purpose of having an award made which both will submit to when it is once made; but I think if you invoke the force of public opinion to enforce an award after it is once made, after the inquiry has been made (it may be ex parte), you are expecting too much if you anticipate therefrom any very great results. These, Mr. Speaker, are the very brief criticisms' which I would make of the Bill in its present form and at the present time. We may be justified in making an experiment of this kind which has been proposed by the hon. minister who has evidently devoted some thought and considerable attention to the subject, but I say from my own brief consideration of this Bill, and looking at what lias been accomplished by the somewhat similar provisions of the Bill introduced two years ago, that I for one would not anticipate any very great results from it, and I would think that possibly it might si a nd in the way of obtaining agreements between capital and labour to be bound by arbitration. I do not think that legislation can possibly do a great deal in matters of this kind, at all events, in the diiection in which the hon. minister is moving. You cannot by force of legislation, compel any man to wTork for a wage which he is not willing to accept, and you cannot by force of legislation compel any man to give a higher wage than that which he is willing to pay. You have to deal with matters of this kind, I admit, very delicately, but you have to deal with them wisely with tlie view of arriving at an agreement as early as possible in the history of the problem which presents itself to the government for solution, and I would think that the

object of legislation would be to bring about as early as possible some agreement between capital and labour-perhaps you cannot go farther than that at present-some agreement between capital and labour whereby the differences which lead to strikes and riots and difficulties of that kind can be submitted to some tribunal the award of which both parties would agree to observe. If you accomplish that by legislation, or if you take a step towards the accomplishment of that, then you have accomplished a very great thing, but it does not seem to me, with all deference to the views of the hon. minister, that the legislation which he has now introduced into this House is legislation which is calculated to bring about any such useful results as those which he anticipates.


Arthur W. Puttee: I look upon the Bill which is before the House as being practically an extension of the Conciliation Act, and looking at it in that light,
I think we can make up our minds that it will not do any harm whatever. At all events, the Conciliation Act cannot be charged with having caused one strike in the country since it was put on the statute-book.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman think it much of a compliment to the Conciliation Act which was designed to prevent strikes, to say, that it had not caused any strikes.


Arthur W. Puttee: I do not. When the Conciliation Act was being passed in 1900 I expressed the opinion that it would not be very effective and that it would be far better for us to attempt something more radical. However, since the leader of the opposition has pointed out that during the last few years, in connection with the growing times strikes have also grown, it is perfectly fair for me to add that so far as the Conciliation Act is concerned it is not responsible for causing a solitary strike.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not suggest it did.


Arthur W. Puttee: The Conciliation Act has been useful in closing up a good many disputes ; not more than I expected it would and in comparison with the number of strikes in the country very few indeed. I believe that such a voluntary Conciliation Act is necessarily limited to disputes that have grown! old, disputes which both sides are tired of, and disputes of trivial importance.
The BUI introduced last year was practically a compulsory arbitration Act. That Bill has been withdrawn and we may assume that the reasons given by the minister were sufficient cause for him withdrawing it. I agreed last year that the Bill instead of being passed into law should be submitted to the criticism of all parties in the country, and there is no doubt that it
was condemned, and condemned almost unanimously. I regret that, because most of the people in condeming it also condemned the principle of compulsory arbitration. I be-live that had that Bill of last year been more thoughtfully and carefully drawn, it would not have been so generally condemned. A number of organizations, however, made this distinction : they condemned the Bill but they did not condemn the principle of compulsory arbitration. For my part I am in favour of compulsory arbitration and I admit that in that respect I am not in entire touch with the majority of the labour men in this country. Since New Zealand put the Compulsory Arbitration Act into effect in 1890. I have carefully watched all the findings that have been made and all the operations of their various conciliation and arbitration boards, and up to the present time there has been no distinct set-back met with. It does look as if now they were coming to the first test. It is pointed out that these years have all been practically on a rising market, and the test of the Act has not yet come. But, Sir,
I notice that the Australian commissioner who went to New Zealand, after thoroughly investigating, reported to his government in such a way, that they have not only adopted the principle of compulsory arbitration, but that they have stricken out the conciliation part of the Act and adopted only the arbitration boards. These are in operation now in Australia. I believe that compulsory arbitration is far better than any process that has yet been Wed to do away with strikes. At the same time X must say that I do not think that public opinion in Canada is prepared for a compulsory arbitration measure.
I am thoroughly convinced myself that it is the proper method and why I stay with it now is because my experience is that strikes are a loss to the labouring men themselves ; that the defeats are too disastrous and that the victories are too dearly bought. I am aware. Mr. Speaker, that we have more strikes to-day than ever we had before. In the last few years the number of sWkes has been increased and in the years to come the number will increase. We are not on the threshold of a period of peace in the matter of industrial disputes. Probably this is the outcome, first, of the combinations of capital that preceded the combinations of labour, but at all events we can rest assured that there will be more strikes in the future than there have been in the past. That is why I believe we should go to the full extent that public opinion will let us go. to try and provide for the proper arbitration or conciliation of those disputes that are bound to occur.
I am quite in sympathy with the leader ot the opposition when he asked why this principle of compulsory investigation should only apply to the railways. Last year I introduced a Bill to amend the Conciliation Act. and for that matter I have introduced

it again in this session,-although I fear it will suffer the same fate of not being called when the Minister of Labour is in his seat. My Bill to amend the Conciliation Act includes the principle of this Bill we are now discussing as regards railway labour disputes, but I believe that the principle should be made general. Probably it would not affect a number of the smaller disputes, but we have had as many mining strikes almost as railway strikes and they were just as disastrous I believe. It seems to me that this principle should be applied to strikes in large factories, because public opinion in these matters is just as effective as in connection with railway matters. Most of our mining strikes and most of our big factory strikes hinge between those representing the unions and the manager ; one manager. I believe that if there was compulsory investigation and the whole facts were ascertained and the findings made and published, that probably in most cases the directors and the shareholders of the companies would get a better grasp of the matters in dispute between their own manager and the employees. I quite think that it would be just as effective in settling disputes of this kind as in settling railway disputes. Now, in my Bill there was one section which does not appear in this Bill, and I submit that it contains a very material provision. The absence of the idea of it from the Bill of last year, brought forward very general condemnation of that Bill. I may state, Mr. Speaker, that the compulsory arbitration principle as operated in New Zealand and Australia does not attempt to arbitrate between the individual and the employer. It arbitrates between two organizations, the organization of the workers and the organization of the employers. The weakness of the compulsory arbitration Bill of last year was that it only recognized the individuals. As this would lead to the disintegration of the labour organizations, very naturally and wisely they repudiated it. I urged that the Conciliation Act should recognize the principle of the labour organizations by having added to it another section, which would read as follows
In no case shall a conciliator or arbitrator stipulate, nor shall it be stipulated in any agreement promoted or recommended by a conciliator or arbitrator, that any employee shall relinquish his membership in any local, national or international trades union or labour association ; nor shall an agreement subject any employee to a penalty on account of such membership.
I believe the inclusion of such a section \\ ould in no way weaken the Act, but would to a tremendous extent create confidence in it. and in the good intention of this parliament in passing that Act. It is no use of this House or any employer any longer attempting to ignore the existence of trades unions. They are a fact and a factor in labour disputes, which must be recognized. The disputes that arise without them us-Mr. PUTTEE.
pally have very little merit in them. Men in this country as well as in other countries have been compelled by the very force of circumstances to organize, and rightly so; and to ignore the fact in any conciliation Act or arbitration proposal seems to me only to weaken the confidence of the people who are going to be affected by it. The Minister of Labour has explained to us that this Bill is acceptable to what are known as the big brotherhoods, the railway organizations-the engineers, the trainmen, the firemen, the conductors and the telegraphers. These organizations accept this Bill, because they believe it will not affect them at all; and in that belief they are right.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the good of the Bill, then, if it applies only to them and will not affect them ?


Arthur W. Puttee: They state in their letter that they have not had a strike in the Dominion of Canada for ten years. That is very nearly correct. As a matter of fact, I believe the last strike was that of the railway telegraphers in 1895, eight years ago. The reason that these organizations have not had a strike for eight or ten years is that they are strong now. In the early days they were the very people who had the greatest number of strikes. They were then always in trouble. Every one of these organizations is an international organization. The reason that they have not had a strike for ten years is that they are strong, and the question of their recognition has been settled. They are recognized by the railway companies as a matter of course, and that means peace and harmony. The hon. member for West Toronto wants to know what will be the use of this Bill if it docs not affect these organizations. Well,
I believe, making a very generous estimate, that the five big brotherhoods comprise less than 20 per cent of the employees of the railways of this country. There are several other organizations with far greater membership than they have, which will be affected by this Act, which will have to put it to tlie test. For instance, there are the switchmen, the boiler-makers, the machinists. the firemen, the trackmen, the bridge-builders, the freight handlers, and a number of others. At least four-fifths of the employees of the railways will be affected by the Act, and most of their organizations are not yet recognized by the railway companies. If I might digress for a moment, I would like to explain what recognition means. Recognition in connection with trades organizations simply means the giving to the second party to a settlement or agreement the right to see that that settlement or agreement Is carried out; that is all it means. After a strike there is a settlement, or agreement. If the union is not recognized, there is no one to see on behalf of the employee that the conditions of the agreement in his favour are carried out. There-

fore to settle a strike without recognition of the union is simply to lose the strike, so far as the employees are concerned; but to settle the strike, with recognition of the union, means that the officers of the union or its committee represent the other side to the bargain. That is all there is in recognition. The large majority of the men who are going to be affected by this Bill are not the brotherhoods who have endorsed it, but the other organizations, the majority of which have not yet been recognized by the companies; and I submit that that fact makes the inclusion of the clause which I have read all the more necessary. Without that clause, I believe the Bill will be weak, but with it, it will be strong. Now, instead of our having a new Bill, I believe the Conciliation Act should be amended. But because things are not done in just the way we wish, w'e must assume that there is some reason why they are done in another way. I regret that we have not been taken into the confidence of the hon. Minister of Labour and been told what the reason is. I think this principle should be included in the Conciliation Act, so that we may find out whether there is any value in it, or whether we should substitute anything else for it.


Mr.  W. A.@: GALLIHER ' (Yale and Cariboo). Mr. Speaker, as a representative of a district where there are a number of organizations of railway employees, I feel that I should say a few words on this Bill, mere especially as I have been approached personally by members of those organizations, and have had forwarded to me resolutions relating to the Bill. Speaking personally,
I believe a compulsory arbitration law would be in the interest of both employers and employees. However, I found an objection to such a measure on the part of the unions of railway employees. The chief difficulty seemed to be in the formation of the tribunal of arbitrators. They seemed also to think that the measure struck at the union to a certain extent. In this respect I am merely expressing what they said to me, not offering my own opinion. As this Bill was originally introduced by the hon. Minister of Labour last session, it provided for compulsory arbitration and copies were widely distributed for the consideration of those more particularly affected. In my district, the unions were opposed to the measure for the reasons I have stated. Then there was a second drafting of that Bill which was also objectionable, but in the present Bill these objections are removed by certain sections. I may say that I received resolutions asking me to oppose the Bill as introduced last session and as drafted the second time, but the gentlemen who represents in Ottawa the interest of the railway employees of Canada-at least he so assured me and I put faith in liis assurance-went over the Bill with me very carefully, and he instructed me that the Bill as now drafted is satisfactory to railway employees. He also showed me letters which he had written to the unions, which had forwarded their protest against the measure, not as now submitted, but as drafted in the second place. At all events, lie showed me the letters he had written, pointing out how the objections had been removed by certain clauses in the Bill uow before the House, and assured me that it was satisfactory,-and I have received no further instructions to oppose it. I do not agree in the opinion of the hon. leader of the opposition that this Bill is practically useless. Although there is no provision to enforce any award, there is a provision for compulsory investigation. In the case of a dispute, the employees should have no objection to the facts being made public and thoroughly investigated, so that the public may understand the points in dispute, nor should the employers have any objection to an investigation being had and being made public. Such being the case, this Bill, if it does nothing else, -will have the effect of placing the matters in dispute before the public so that the public may judge who is in the right, and either party to the dispute will no doubt be very anxious to have the public opinion in their favour. There will at all events be the moral suasion of public opinion, and the ultimate success of either party will no doubt depend considerably on the verdict of the public. For those reasons I propose to vote in favour of this Bill.


Mr.  W. R. BROOK@Toronto Centre: I did expect, Mr. Speaker, that we were going to have a Bill presented to us on this important question which would have some backbone in it. But instead we have a Bill which really amounts to nothing. In a question of this kind, we should not forget that there are two parties to the dispute. There is organized capital on the one side 'and organized labour on the other. In this Bill, we have provisions dealing with a corporate capacity, which can be attacked in the law courts, and from which damages may be exacted. I refer to the railway companies. But the other party affected by this measure and which is described in the Bill as 'labour,' is a body which occupies an entirely different position. No doubt, what is meant by the word ' labour ' is organized labour, organized up to a certain point, and the most cowardly kind of organization-one that can attack capital but cannot be attacked in return. It seems to me that the first thing organized labour should do, if they want to be respected, is to organize under the laws of the country and place themselves in the same position as other organizations which we have incorporated. But they refuse to come under the law and are in the cowardly position of having neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be damned. We are placing capital in a most unfair position. I do not

255(5
stand here as the representative, in any shape, of organized capital, hut as a Canadian anxious to see fair piny and fair dealings, and I think that my hon. friends, like my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee), are also anxious that there should he some fairness in the legislatiou we pass. This Bill is most unfair. The very fact of its being so flimsy, the very fact of their being so little in it, makes it all the more objec-. tionable because when a Bill of this kind becomes law, that is the end of it. We are told this evening that international organized labour is an advantage to this country. The advantage to this country, under our existing laws, is that labouring men can go to tlie other side and get protection. We are very anxious on this side of the House that that matter should take a different turn and that we should be able to hold out inducements to these organized labour gentlemen to come to this country aud be protected. We are anxious to give them the same protection here as they get on the other side, but I do not notice that the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) are supporting the policy of tlie opposition in this House-a policy which would place us in a better position to deal with labour and industries as they are dealt with on the other side of the line. Tlie government should legislate for protection, not only for labour but for capital and industry in this country, and not bring down a Bill of this kind^ that has nothing in it. The only inducement to pass a measure of this kind is to be found in clause four :
It shall be the duty of the conciliation committee to endeavour by conciliation and mediation to assist in bringing about an amicable settlement of the difference to the satisfaction of both parties, and to report its proceedings to the minister.
That is the whole thing in connection with this Bill. Well, we have that already. I do not see that yon are going to put any more strength Into it, or that you are going to place this Dominion of Canada in any better position to deal with conditions on the other side of tlie line by passing this Bill. Indeed, I think we shall be in a worse position, for we shall have made a pretense or an appearance of doing something while really doing nothing. Now, Sir, these labour strikes do not take place in this country of their own accord. There must be some motive power, some spirit in them ; and that motive power and that spirit I assert again, notwithstanding what has been said on both sides of the House, comes from forces antagonistic to Canada on tlie other side of the line. Why should the port of Montreal be crippled at the present time ? Simply because an endeavour is being made on this side of the line to provide a system of transportation by which the produce of this country will reach Europe through Canadian channels. I can understand New York Mr. BROCK.
and Boston using all the means that are in their power to block the city of Montreal and the city of Quebec as much as they possibly can. How can they block them ? Simply by promoting a system of strikes such as that taking place at the present time in Montreal.


Mr. MORIN.: Or by destroying the Welland canal.


William Rees Brock: Exactly. We know, Mr. Speaker, that, a few years ago, thinking that one of our vulnerable points was tlie Welland canal, men came over here in tlie interest, not altogether of the United States, but in the interests of disorganized labour in the United States, to blow up the locks of tlie Welland canal and so interrupt the transportation system of this country. Those who are standing for the improvement of our transportation system are being recognized in the United States as a force. So, organized labour is joined with organized hatred of Canada and Great Britain. For, make no mistake about it, that is the ease. We know what is going oil in the United States ; we know that there is a party there antagonistic to Canada ; we know from watching the debates in Washington that one of the strongest arguments there against anything that looks like reciprocity is to tell them that this will result in benefiting Canada, and it is voted down by an overwhelming majority. We cannot shut our eyes to these facts, we must recognize them. Therefore, what we should have on this side is something strong, something well defined- not such an effeminate Bill as this now before us. We want something that will assert ourselves as a nation. We are told by one of the hon. gentlemen on the other side that he lias made this country a nation. Sir, we shall never make a nation with Bills of this kind. No one will respect them. We have heard the representatives of labour in this House, and even they are not satisfied with this Bill. And I am sure the country will not be satisfied with it. That is why I ask the government to withdraw this Bill and endeavour, at another session, to give us something stronger, something more manly, something more national. In this Bill we are dealing with disputes between railway companies and railway employees. The railway companies have capital to be attacked. You can bring them into court, get judgments against them and collect damages from them. But, on the other side, you have an organization which is no organization when you come to attack them. They simply scatter into fragments. You cannot sue them, you cannot collect damages from them, you cannot bring pressure upon them to make them amenable to the laws of the country. In the city of Montreal to-day damages to the extent of hundreds of thousands of dollars have been done by organized labour. What relief can we get ? If organized labour is in the wrong,

can we attack them ? If we sue them and get verdicts, from whom are we to collect damages ? This is a matter which should be taken hold of in a statesmanlike way.
I stand here regardless of what effect all this may have upon the voting power of this country. We should do what is right, regardless of that power. The very votes that we pander to are the votes that will turn against us if we show weakness. That has been so in the past, and will be found to be true in the future. I ask the government to bring down something stronger, something more manly, something more national than we have in this Bill.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: It seems to me that there is very little difference between this Bill and chapter 24 of the Statutes of 1900, the last Conciliation Act. The only difference that I can see is in reference to the parties to whom it may apply. The Bill passed in 1900 applies where difficulty exists or is apprehended between an employer or any class of employer and the workmen, while the other Bill applies to disputes between railway employers and their employees. I do not know what interpretation a member of the legal profession would put upon it, but it seems to me that the first Bill might apply to railways as well as to any other department of industry. Is it not a fact that, under the provisions of the Bill of 1900, the minister has himself already appointed the commissioners that are now inquiring into some labour troubles in British Columbia ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is referring to the commission now sitting in British Columbia. That commission is appointed under chapter 114 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that it could equally well have been appointed under this Act of 1900, which has reference to the appointment of conciliation boards. The Act provides that the minister may :
(c)	On the application of employers or workmen interested, and after taking into consideration the existence and adequacy of means available for conciliation in the district or trade and the circumstances of the case, appoint a person or persons to act as conciliator or as a hoard of conciliation ;
(d)	On the application of both parties to the difference, appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators.
The report is made to the minister, and a memorandum of it kept. It provides also :
It shall be the duty of the conciliator to promote conditions favourable to a settlement by endeavouring to allay distrust, to remove causes of friction, to promote good feeling, to restore confidence, and to encourage the parties to come together and themselves affect a settlement and also to promote agreements between employers and employees with a view to the submission of differnces to conciliation or arbitration before resorting to strikes or lockouts.
The conciliator or conciliation board may, when deemed advisable invite others to assist them in the work of conciliation.
If, before a settlement is effected, and while the difference is under the consideration of a conciliator or conciliation board, such conciliator or conciliation board is of opinion that some misunderstanding or disagreement appears to exist between the parties as to the causes or circumstances of the difference, and with a view to the removal of such minunderstanding or disagreement, desires an inquiry under oath into such causes and circumstances, and, in writing signed by such conciliator or the members of a conciliation board, as the case may be, communicates to the minister such desire for inquiry, and if the parties to the difference or their representatives in writing consent thereto

*-The government may appoint commissioners to make the inquiry.
I take it that all this would apply equally well to railway employees as it would to employees in any other line. So it seems to me, all the' power that the minister would have under this proposed measure, he already has under the existing law. Perhaps my interpretation may not be exactly correct, but I notice that in his explanation of it, he himself tells us that the object is to aid the boards of conciliation in promoting the settlement of trade disputes and difficulties that arise from time to time between employers and employees, and that it is hoped that the affirmation of this principle may prevent strikes and lockouts. He goes on and explains it in that way. Then he refers to the English Bill of 1890. Long before 1896 the system was in force. Since then I think statistics show that six-sevenths of the disputes have been amicably settled by consent of the parties, either through a board of conciliation or by the parties themselves while the boards were in deliberation. The first Bill provides for conciliation boards and arbitration boards, the second Bill provides for the same thing. I see no difference except that the first Bill does not apply to railways, but it lays down provisions where the Act might be invoked, and which I think would enable the minister to take up railway disputes as well as any others. If that be so, then this Bill is unnecessary. Now the duty of the committee is set forth here. There is to be a conciliation board, mediation and investigation. That is conciliation and inquiry. Now what is the difference between investigation and inquiry ? Both have to report back to the minister ; neither have any authority to enforce their findings, and the dispute is left an open question.
It should be the duty of the conciliation committee to endeavour, by conciliation and mediation

The very same words as are employed in the other one.
-to assist in bringing about an amicable settlement of the difference to the satisfaction of both parties, and to report the proceedings to the minister.

Almost exactly the same words are used. So it seems to me this Bill is entirely unnecessary. Then it provides for a board of arbitration. But the only difference I can see between the board in the Act of 1900 and the board as proposed by this Act, is simply this, that in the old Act the minister may pay the members of the board what he thinks fit; in this case the members of the board get $10 each a day, and expenses. It is left to the minister how much he shall pay the chairman. It seems to me the only result of this Bill will be to give the minister an opportunity of employing a few more of his friends to act at $10 a day and expenses, to make an inquiry, or become a mediation commission. In this Act there is no provision for an arbitration, if I understand arbitration correctly. I have always understood that arbitration was an attempt to ascertain the differences between disputants, to adjust those differences and reach some conclusion. In this case no conclusion is reached, they only make an inquiry and report. Therefore in my judgment this might more appropriately be called a provision to appoint a commission of inquiry, than to appoint an arbitration commission. They have power to inquire into differences, only to inquire and report back to the minister. Now I do not know whether the first Act would give powers to the commission of inquiry to deal in the same way with railway companies and their employees as it does with other companies and "their employees, but I think it does. If it does, there is no need for this Act because it is practically the same as the other.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It seems to me a very unwise thing to put on the statute-book an Act that is of no use, and can be of no use. Now when the minister introduced his Labour Bill last year he used these words :
Although this is hardly the occasion for any. lengthened observations, still, as the measure is somewhat novel, perhaps a few words now would not he out of place. I would say that the proposition is in effect one of compulsory arbitration between railway companies and their employees in regard to the various subjects of controversy that from time to time arise between these parties. The measure is confined entirely to the railway world, it does not deal with any other than railway industries.
Now since last year the minister has found that there is a strong objection to compulsory arbitration. I will not say now whether I agree with compulsory arbitration or not. A year ago when the minister brought in this Bill, there may have been a general feeling that compulsory arbitration had been successful in Australia, and especially in New Zealand. There can be no possible object in a Bill of this kind unless it has power to do something. This Bill has no power to do anything. It has power to get certain information In connection with certain railway strikes, but the only final power it has Mr. SPROULE.
is to make a report, and that report shall be published at the country's expense in the ' Labour Gazette.' There is no power to compel either sides to agree to an arbitration. There is no reason, under such a Bill, why either party to a dispute should refer their case to such a tribunal. We have an instance of this in what was called the arbitration board of the board of trade, in Toronto, which was copied, I think, from a scheme of the board of trade in England. After a great deal of trouble had been experienced on the part of members of the board of trade in various cities, a board of arbitration was appointed which it was thought would result in doing away with the heavy legal expenses which arose when disputes occurred between members of the board of trade, principally in connection with grain operations. It was thought the disputes might be referred to this tribunal, and so save large legal expenses. I think I am right in saying that this board of conciliation, or this board of arbitration, has been an absolute failure. When a man wants to get a dispute settled, Instead of going to his friends in the board of trade, he goes straight to law, where he can get a decision and pay the costs of it, which sometimes amount to more than the award he gets.
Another weakness in this Bill is that it is confined to railway disputes. Now how can we define railway disputes ? We have to-day, perhaps, the most serious strike that has existed in Canada, in the case of the dock labourers in Montreal. I would ask the Minister of Labour whether, under this Bill, he can call upon these dock labourers to arbitrate their disputes, and publish the result of that arbitration in the 'Labour Gazette.' I do not think he can, if I read the Bill aright. This Bill takes power to arbitrate strikes of the most trivial character between street railway companies and its employees, in a town of five or six thousand inhabitants ; but it ignores entirely the larger interests connected with railways. This Bill is brought in with the idea of adjusting railway disputes, but it does not provide for arbitrating disputes between teamsters and their employers in any of the large cities of Canada. It is narrowed to a small section of labour, it absolutely has no power and I contend that it can do nothing but bring about soreness and friction between the parties who are supposed to be parties to the arbitration which may be held under the Bill.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock) stated that the railway organizations are perfectly satisfied with this Bill. If so, I feel that that entirely relieves me from making any suggestions to him towards perfecting the Bill. What I arose specially to say was this : Some very hard things have been said about the or-

ganizations that this legislation is supposed to specially affect, and I feel that I would not be doing my duty if I did not come to their defence, especially as I believe such remarks as have been made were not called for and should not have been applied to the organizations that this Bill affects. First, I will say, that the Order of Railway Conductors of this country, known as the O.R.C., have for a great many years had a special clause in their constitution that strictly forbids strikes to take place under the auspices of this organization. That proves conclusively that this organization are not in favour of strikes and that they would not allow any of their members to engage in -strikes. The organization is composed of men of good common sense, who endeavour to reason out with the railway companies any question at issue and to obtain in that way the rights which they think they should have as servants of the railway companies. These men perform a very useful work in this country. They have an insurance fund in connection with their organization and they are doing their utmost to supply the railways with good, capable, efficient men, men who are not inclined to strike or to create difficulties with the railway companies. In other words, they have a very conservative organization, and they do not care to take part in any strike whatever. So far as the organization of locomotive engineers is concerned, it is conducted largely on the same lines. I cannot undertake to say that the locomotive engineers have nothing in their constitution preventing their members from engaging in strikes, but knowing the conservative head of their organization, Mr. Arthur, by reputation, who is not a Canadian, but who resides on the other side of the line, and who has been at the head of the locomotive engineers for a great many years. I know that he has always taken the stand that the locomotive engineers should not engage in strikes of any kind whatever if at all possible to prevent it. They are entirely opposed to them, though, I presume, at times they are compelled to join in them. The other organizations to which this Bill applies, I know, look upon the question of strikes in the same light. None of these men are connected with cowardly organizations as has been said. They are connected with what I believe to be good organizations and organizations that will not be a detriment to the people of the country in any way whatever. In so far as this legislation is concerned and the legislation introduced into this House last year, I will undertake to say-I may be mistaken-that the very organizations that this Bill specially affects and the Bill of last year specially affected were not the parties who asked for legislation of this kind in the sense in which it has been given to them. They did not ask to be specially legislated for ; if there SI
was legislation brought down to this House, they did not ask that any exclusive privilege should be accorded them over any other class of workingmen. They did not ask to be specially selected as the only workingmen to whom legislation of this kind should apply. I am not aware of the railway men ever making such a demand exclusively, but finding that legislation was introduced into this House last year that they as an organization took very strong objection to, the hon. minister will bear me out when I say that during the recess between last session and this session, a deputation of railway employees met the hon. minister with the view of presenting their objections to the legislation he introduced last year. As a result of that conference between the railway employees and the hon. minister the Bill of last year was entirely abandoned and this Bill is introduced now. I. take it that the railway employees believe that the government were bound to bring down legislation of this kind, and that being the case, they made efforts to have a Bill introduced that would be less objectionable than the Bill of last year. Is there anything unreasonable, wrong or cowardly about that on the part of these men ? I think not. We are here' to legislate for all classes of the community in this country. We are not here to specially legislate for any particular class or to grant any'particular class of legislation. We are here to endeavour to legislate in the interests of the whole people without doing any injury to any class of people. From my connection with railway men in this country, I may say that a large portion of them are as conservative as the remarks I have just made at this moment They do not want anything of a special character, they do not want anything that will injure any other class of the community; all they want is reasonable and fair legislation granted to them as it is granted to other classes of the community. So far as this Bill is concerned it may be that there are some very objectionable features in it, but, at all events, let them be as objectionable as they may, they are extremely mild, as the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has said, and being extremely mild, I cannot see how they are going to injure any other class of the community. Now, it is held in some parts of Australia in particular that where organizations ask for legislation and where they step in to have an arbitration with their employers, they should be incorporated the same as railway companies and the same as manufacturing industries, and that being incorporated, if they fail to carry out any agreement which they have made they will be just as responsible as the employers of labour


Arthur W. Puttee: They are only incorporated for the purposes of the Compulsory Arbitration Act.	.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not discussing that point, but what I am saying is that many people hold that they should be held quite as responsible as the employers of labour.
I may also say that in Australia, as far as the matter of conciliation is concerned, there is a difficulty. Sums of money have been paid to persons who have acted on the boards of conciliation. It was discovered that these men derived by reason of their being selected as members of the boards of conciliation, a larger amount of pay than they could otherwise make, and that by reason of that they adopted means of creating and fomenting strikes and difficulties between capital and labour. For that reason the people objected to those boards of conciliation almost altogether. This is the objection they found to boards of conciliation in Australia, and I would be very sorry indeed if the conditions are the same in Canada as they are in Australia, because, if the conditions are similar the same difficulty would occur in this country. The hon. minister stated to-day that this Bill is based largely on the lines of a Bill introduced in the United States. If that be true, then the conditions will arise here perhaps that have arisen in the United States. For instance, when a difficulty occurs between the railway companies and their employees and both object to take part in a conciliation to settle the difference, I presume that under such circumstances the Bill would allow the Department of Labour to have a compulsory investigation irrespective of either or both of the parties. If the result of the deliberations of the department is published in the ' Labour Gazette ' in order to create a public opinion against the party who dissents from the award, I cannot see anything particularly wrong about that. If a railway company does what is right to its employees they can have nothing to fear from fair and reasonable investigation. On the other hand if the employees are not willing to enter into conciliation, and if on investigation the government finds that the employees are to blame, then it would be in the interest of the country that such a public opinion would be created as would compel the employees to resume their occupation. Let me give an instance of what has occurred right here in the city of Ottawa. There is a difficulty between the trackmen and the Canada Atlantic Railway Company. I understand that two responsible gentlemen offered their services to the Canada Atlantic Railway officials to try and bring about a fair settlement and that the offer was refused. Now, wliat followed ? I do not know of this personally, but I am told it, and if I am wrong I shall be willing to withdraw it; I am told that all the heavier engines of the Canada Atlantic Railway are in the shops to day, that the company is afraid to trust them on the line because the track is not in the condition it would be if the trackmen
were continuously at work. If that be true, then some interference should take place on the part of the Department of Labour, because it has gone beyond the question as between the Canada Atlantic Railway and the trackmen, and loss of life and accidents may occur at any time. If the company is not reasonable and will not have their affairs investigated, then they should be shown up in their proper light before the people of this country. I do not think that the Bill goes far enough to enable the board to get sufficient information to arrive at a proper conclusion.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Turn to section twelve.


Andrew B. Ingram: Section twelve reads
12. For the purpose of such inquiry the board shall have all the power of summoning before it any witnesses, and of requiring them to give evidence on oath, or on solemn affirmation, if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters, and produce such documents and things as the board deems requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which it is inquiring, and shall have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses, and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in any court of record in civil cases ; but no such witness shall be compelled to answer any question, by his answer to which he might render himself liable to a criminal prosecution.
It would appear from this that they might obtain the necessary information to arrive at a fair conclusion. I am not a lawyer, but from my reading of the Bill it would appear that there is no provision to enforce the findings of the board because there are no penalties provided. However, when the Bill comes up in Committee we will have greater scope to discuss its different provisions. I want to assure hon. gentlemen in this House that so far as the railway employees of this country are concerned, this is the first instance of any legislation being conceded to them without their specially asking for it and in which they are considered exclusively the only workmen that should be legislated for. I do not know whether or not this parliament has the right to legislate as regards matters affecting the manufacturing industries, or whether that is within the purview of the provinces. I know that in the province of Ontario we have what they call a Mutual Arbitration Act, but I am bound to say that so far as I know that Act is practically a dead letter. It can only be acted upon by mutual consent, and to my knowledge there never has been a case where, by mutual consent, it was put in operation. However, that may be, if the provinces have power over these matters, then if the legislatures are not doing their duty they must be held responsible to the people.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We are bound to give to any legislation tending to improve the relations between employers and employees all the help we possibly can.


Arthur W. Puttee: In that light, there are. some features of this Bill to which I would call the attention of the Minister of Labour. In section 2 we have the provision that this law will apply to all railway companies, whether under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada or of the legislature of any province. I question very much whether we have the right in this parliament to legislate in case a difficulty should arise between the employees of a railway under provincial jurisdiction and the company operating that railway. At first sight, I do not think we have that right, and it seems to me to be a matter upon which we should have the opinion of the Department of Justice. In case any difficulties arose between railway companies under the control of the local legislature and their employees, upon what ground could we intervene or bring the machinery provided in this Bill to bear V This leads me to submit this further consideration to the hon. minister. We have had no legislation of this kind, so far as I am aware, previous to 1900, and it seems to me doubtful whether we have any jurisdiction at all to provide legislation for the settlement of railway disputes between employers and employees. These difficulties arise in connection with the contract for the lease and hire of work, and that contract falls under the subsection of section 92 of the Confederation Act, which leaves to the local legislatures everything which has reference to property and civil rights. The difficulty which exists to-day in the city of Montreal, is one arising out of the conditions connected with the lease and hire of work, and I question very much whether this parliament has any jurisdiction in regard to matters of that kind. I suppose it might be claimed that under the general terms of the Confederation Act, which says that the parliament of Canada has the right to legislate for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, we might possibly intervene ; but outside of these words, I think all difficulties connected with labour disputes are under the jurisdiction of the local legislature, and that has evidently been thought to be the case, since the hon. member who has just taken his seat has referred to the measure on the statute-book of the province of Ontario relating to this very subject. I do not by any means claim to decide the point, but I think it is one wed worthy of the consideration of the Department of Justice before we go any further in the consideration of this Bill. I wonder whether the hon. Minister of Labour lias considered the wording of chapter 24 of 6364 Victoria, the Conciliation Act of 1900. It seems to me that everything which is provided for in this Bill is equally provided for in that statute. The machinery may be a little different, the wording is different, but the same object is attained. Section 4 -of that statute says :

Where a difference exists or is apprehended between an employer or any class of employers and workmen, or between different classes of workmen, the minister may, if he thinks fit, exercise all or any of the following powers.
This Bill makes the same provision, except that its machinery is restricted to railway companies. There is some difference in the organization of the conciliation commission and afterwards the arbitration board ; but if experience has taught the Department of Labour that the particular machinery provided for in this Bill is better machinery, why not modify the statute of 1900, and make it serviceable for everybody? -because strikes and labour difficulties are likely to occur between all classes of employers and employees ; and I do not see why one kind of machinery should be provided for in the statute of 1900, applicable to difficulties that may occur, for instance, between shippers and longshoremen, and another and better system of machinery, applicable only to railway companies and their employees. There is another feature of this Bill which I think we ought to consider very carefully before we pass it. 'lhe machinery it provides for will be expensive, there is no doubt about that. In the first place, the conciliation commission may be entirely organized by the minister himself.
1 do not know whether that is the interpretation of the hon. minister ; but, as I read the Bill, if both parties to the dispute refuse to take part in the nomination of a member of the conciliation commission, the minister then has the jurisdiction to name them himself, as well as to name the third member of the commission ; so that there will be a conciliation commission named entirely by the minister. I presume that of course he would endeavour to choose members who would represent all the interests affected ; still the facts remain that the minister or the department of the government alone would name the commission, a commission that would act at the expense of the Dominion government. But what would that commission do ? Its functions are merely of an investigating and conciliatory nature. It makes an investigation; it ascertains the facts. Have we not a department, costly enough, which at the present moment has power to ascertain the facts ? Without naming three men or incurring extra expense, the Minister of Labour has the entire machinery of his department under his control, and can ascertain the facts just as well as they could be ascertained by this special process. And that work is done at the present moment, as my hon. friend from Toronto says, by the deputy minister. In fact, as soon as that official sees one of these difficulties dawning, it is his duty to investigate the facts. But apart from that, I think he has the power to ascertain the facts under oath, in such manner as he sees fit. Then, in case the recommendations of this commission

256S
are not accepted by the parties, we have the action of the arbitration board. That board of arbitration would unquestionably be still more expensive. As I read this Bill, the functions of the arbitration board are very much' the same as those of the conciliation committee, but their form of procedure is a little different. Instead of saying to the parties we have ascertained the facts and think you should agree on such terms, the arbitration board proceeds with a little more solemnity to ascertain the facts and then makes a report. It does not deliver a sentence of arbitration binding on the parties but reports to the ministers, and that report is published and communicated to the parties. These proceedings might have more weight than the proceedings of the conciliation committee but not much more, because the members of the conciliation committee are qualified and will probably be chosen to form the board of arbitration. We would therefore have two proceedings, held before two bodies, having different names but with very similar attributions, and I venture to say that these proceedings would lead to no binding result. There is the crucial point. The sentence of the arbitrator binds nobody at all, and we are simply making additional unnecessary expense, whereas at present the department has all the powers necessary to ascertain the facts, and the minister himself or those he employs have all the necessary authority and weight required to advise and suggest a remedy. It seems to me therefore that by this Bill we are simply introducing expensive machinery without much result. I listened attentively to what the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) said as to the necessity of these arbitration committees or boards rendering sentences which would be binding on the parties. I understand the hesitation of the hon. Minister of Labour to introduce such legislation. It is something very new and about which a great deal may be said on both sides. I believe with the hon. member for Winnipeg that, harsh as it may appear and as it might sometimes act in certain cases, it will be necessary for us, in view of the great labour troubles upon which we have just merely entered, to adopt some such principle in our legislation, in order to compel a settlement of these labour disputes. I say all this, subject to the doubts I have expressed regarding our jurisdiction, on which we should have the opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice. As regards provincial railways l am afraid that we would come into conflict at once with the local jurisdiction. But on general principles, at the stage where conciliation and arbitration would be suggested as a remedy wo have no jurisdiction over labour disputes. It is only where the peace, order and good government of Canada are concerned, as for instance in the existing conditions at Montreal, we might intervene.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: Except with the consent of the House, I have no right to make any further remarks, but as some hon. gentlemen have evidently, by their observations, invited me to reply, I shall try and dispose of their criticisms. In the first place, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and mv hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) seem to think that, under the Conciliation Act of to-day we could proceed as this Bill proposes we should. I endeavoured to make it clear in my opening remarks that the American legislation and incidentally our Conciliation Act have the inherent weakness that they can not be put into force execept with the consent of the parties. Under the Conciliation Act, no committee, no board of arbitration could be appointed except with the consent of the parties. Therefore these hon. gentlemen will see that we have no statute enabling the government to refer a matter of this kind to arbitration.


Robert Laird Borden: I was fully aware of that, and pointed it out in the course of my remarks. But the point I made is this, that in the present Bill, as in the Conciliation Act, you are appointing a tribunal which will not have the power of enforcing the awards it may make.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: At all events, if my hon. friend did not refer to the Conciliation Act, his friends beside him did. As regards the contention of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, that because the two parties are unwilling to come together, therefore it is improbable that any good will come from his measure, I would refer him for his answer to the anthracite coal strike arbitration. You could scarcely find two parties more opposed to conciliation or arbitration, when President Roosevelt undertook to bring them together. If there had been statutory power, it is doubtful if these two could have been brought together, but by virtue of his high office, the President was able to bring pressure upon them and, practically against their consent, bring about arbitration.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it not a fact that the operatives were always willing to submit their case to arbitration ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That may be, but I understand that long before the proceedings were given to the public, Carroll Wright, the editor of the ' Labour Gazette ' and the 1 Bulletin ' of Washington, was acting as an emissary on behalf of the United States government, endeavouring by solicitation and argument to induce the parties to come together. What was given to the public was not the commencement of the difficulties by any means. But in the end an arbitration was brought about. There was no power to compel either party to submit to the award except the pressure of


Frederick Debartzch Monk: public opinion, and under tbe influence of that pressure, the award has been practically acquiesced in. While on that point, just to encourage my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, to belive that there is something good in that measure, I will read what Mr. Francis Adams has said with reference to the Massachusetts railway strike :


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I endeavoured to say as distinctly as I could that I think the object to be aimed at in efforts of this kind is to get the parties to agree to a tribunal whose award they will respect.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Quite so. I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that it would be most desirable if we could get them to agree in the first instance. But that is not possible. *When they are at war and holding each other at arms' length, an agreement is difficult to obtain. If, at that stage, some third party intervenes and brings them together, by degrees the pressure of public opinion and of the situation brings about peace. In the case in question, with which I am going to trouble the House, the strike on the Boston and Maine Railway, neither party consented. But the board of arbitrators for the state of Massachusetts had power to hold an arbitration. This is the history of the proceedings :
At four o'clock in the afternoon of the 12th of February, 1877, all the locomotive engineers and firemen in the employ of the Boston anil Maine Railroad Company stopped work in a body, abandoning their trains. The move was not altogether unexpected, but the operation or the road was seriously interfered with. The commissioners did not at first intervene, neither party calling upon them. Indeed, both parties were unwilling so to do

I commend this to my hou. friend the leader of the opposition :
-for each was apprehensive, apparently, of adverse action. During several days, accordingly, the commissioners preserved an attitude of silent observation. After the lapse of a reasonable period, however, the board concluded that it was plainly time to recognize the fact that the public was suffering serious inconvenience ; for then the Boston and Maine Railroad was, as it still is, one of the principal arteries of eastern New England. The president and directors of the company and the employees of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers were accordingly notified' that the board proposed to take a hand in the business. This it proceeded to do, and immediate investigation was notified. Both parties appeared, for, without confessing itself in the wrong, neither party could help doing so, and professed a perfect willingness to submit their cases. No suggestion of a readiness to abide by any decision that might be given thereon was either asked for or given ; but the board proceeded to hear witnesses and to elicit the facts. The inquiry was continued through three days ; and, on the 21st of February, the report of the board was made public, appearing in full in all the newspapers of that date. In it the commissioners, after carefully and judicially sifting
out the essential facts from the evidence submitted, placed the responsibility for the trouble where the weight of evidence showed it belonged ; and thereupon proceeded to make such recommendations as in its judgment the exe-genpies called for. The effect was immediate. An authentic record was before the community, and public opinion, crystallizing, made itself decisively felt. It is not necessary to enter further into the history and merits-the rights and the wrongs-of that particular struggle. My object is merely to call attention to what was then done, and done successfully, as constituting the nearest practical approach consistent with our American political and social system to what is known as ' compulsory arbitration.' It was compulsory inquiry only, and an appeal thereon to the reason and sense of right of all concerned. Reliance was placed in an enlightened sense of right of all concerned, and an informed public opinion.


Hon.   S@: There was no power, I suppose to enforce the decision ?


The TOSTMASTER GENERAL.: None whatever.


Andrew B. Ingram: Only public opinion.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Nothing but public opinion. Neither party was willing and neither party consented. But the board at the right time, at the psychological moment, intervened, brought about an inquiry, made recommendations, gave them to the public and threw the responsibiliy for further trouble upon the party who refused to act upon them.


William Rees Brock: After both parties were financially exhausted.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) may have information on that point, but I have none except what appears here.


Robert Laird Borden: How long had the strike continued ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The strike began at four o'clock on the 12th of February. Action was taken after ' several days ' according to the report. A strike lasting several days would hardly have ruined the Boston and Maine Railway, one of the main railways of New England.


William Rees Brock: I thought the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir William Mulock) was speaking of the great coal strike in which the President of the United States intervened.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No; I was not referring to that.


William Rees Brock: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. He had been speaking of President Roosevelt and I thought he was still referring to that case.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I quite understand the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Brock's) mistake.


Andrew B. Ingram: The strike commenced on the 12th February and the board reported on the 21st.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That would be nine days.


Robert Laird Borden: When did the strike end ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Instantaneously. The account does not say that the effect of the report was magical but it was almost the same. Yes, here are the words- ' the effect was immediate.' So, the strike ended at once. Neither party was willing to assume the responsibility of refusing to act upon the advice of disinterested parties, doubtless men of standing in the community, men whose judgment satisfied the public as to where the responsibility rested. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) used some strong language, I think stronger than he really meant. I do not think he would really wish to be remembered as having spoken in that strong way about the labour unions. I am going to be more considerate than my hon. friend. I think he spoke in the heat of the moment. I do not think that the men who comprise these unions are fairly chargeable with being unmanly or cowardly.


William Rees Brock: I wish to state my position. We were speaking of the two organized parties, organized labour on one side, and railway companies organized under the law on the other. From the railway companies side damages can be collected, but not from the other. Therefore, as an organized body this is a cowardly body. I did not speak of them individually.
The POSTM-ASTER GENERAL. 1 understand wlfct the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) said. Tire hon. gentleman is not satisfied with this measure, because he says it is not strong enough. I do not know how far he would be wdlling to go as an employer of labour. He may be willing to go a long distance. But probably there are employers close to him who would not be willing to go so far. Up to the present moment, I think I am right in saying, the employers generally would not be favourable to any law that would go further than what might be called a moral law, one that would bring to bear the pressure of public opinion. I doubt that the manufacturers, who are the great industrial employers, would assent to a stronger measure than this. If there is any stronger measure that they would assent to, I should be very glad to hear what that measure is. The hon. senior member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has left the Chamber, and I cannot so advantageously refer to his remarks. He took exception to this Bill, putting it in somewhat different language from the other members, but with the same idea. He complained of the measure because it did not contain power to compel Sir. WILLIAM MULOCK.
obedience to the award. Again I would ask him, as I ask my hon. friend from Centre Toronto, have they no regard for the power of public opinion ? For that is the power to which we appeal, and, in the long run, I think it the most efficient of all powers that govern the action of persons who serve the public. At all events, in this age I think it is altogether fitter to appeal to the power of public opinion than to the power of the policeman or the sheriff. There are only two powers, the local power and the power of public opinion. For the present, at all events, this measure proposes to appeal to the latter only. Now, exception is taken to this measure as being confined to railways. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier said that the Conciliation Act gave all the powers in question. I have already pointed out that the Conciliation Act does not meet the ease, simply because it could not be put in motion except by the consent of both parties. But supposing that consent were waived, it would still be Inapplicable. A Conciliation Act applies to what are commonly known as industrial disputes, this measure is limited solely to disputes on railways, that may lead to certain consequences. Section 3 reads :
Whenever a difference exists between any railway employers and railway employees, and it appears to the minister that the parties thereto are unable satisfactorily to adjust the same, and that by reason of such difference remaining unadjusted a railway lock out or strike has been or is likely to be caused, or the regular and safe transportation of mails, passengers or freight has been or may be interrupted, or the safety of any person employed on a railway train or car has been or is likely to be endangered.
Then the minister may proceed. This is dealing with a special class of cases in which the general public have a special interest. Whilst the general public may be interested in a degree in an industrial strike between a private employer and his men, it is a different kind of interest altogether from the interest of the general public in the safe and satisfactory operation of public railways. In these the public have another interest besides the general welfare of the country, they are concerned directly in the safety of the passengers and the satisfactory transportation of freight and mails, all of which are essential to carrying on the trade and commerce of the country. It is a special case of special importance, in which the public are chiefly the interested parties. A railway company is given special rights and powers superior to those of the individual. It is given powers of expropriation, power to operate its railways even though such operation may endanger life and property under certain circumstances. It has extraordinary powers, powers to which the private interest of the individual must be subservient. The railways are undertakings to promote the

public welfare. Those concerned in the operation of railways, either as proprietors or workers, are a portion of the general public. Therefore the justification for legislation of this kind in regard to railways rests entirely upon a different principle from legislation applicable to troubles between private employers and their workmen. For that reason it was deemed wise to bring forward a special Bill dealing with a special case.	.
My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier suggested that perhaps there was no power under the British North America Act to pass this Bill. Well. I do not think my hon. friend was serious in that observation. This Bill does not propose to affect property and civil rights in any way ; it proposes to hold an investigation. Is there anything in the British North America Act to restrict us in making an inquiry into any matter or any conditions in Canada ? I know of nothing.


Hon.   M@: Ill other words, it is constitutional because it does not do anything ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is constitutional because it is not unconstitutional. It does not affect property and civil rights.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is only intended to af feet public opinion.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am not aware that public opinion is limited to a provincial legislature for its expression. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier contended in the early part of the day that we had ample power to settle strikes, and that we should go down to Montreal this afternoon and settle the strike there. Has the British North America Act undergone any change since this afternoon ? It has just the same force now as it had when the hon. gentleman was addressing the House with such force this afternoon. I think no one would argue that we have not power to issue this commission of inquiry. My hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) suggested that the fact of the arbitrators being paid might have a tendency to promote strikes.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman misunderstands me. What I said was that in Australia they find that paid niembers of the board foment strikes and difficulties of that character for the purpose of obtaining their daily pay. I did not express my owu opinion at all.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then 1 misunderstood my hon. friend. But I will point out that the objection cited by the hon. member for East Elgin could have no force here because in the New Zealand Act-the Australian Act is taken from the New Zealand Act,-there is a standing board, and therefore the arbitrators know before hand that they will be called upon
to act. In this case there is no standing board, but only an arbitration board to be chosen pro hac vice. Therefore, until a "strike is threatened or commenced, there can be no person chosen and no one knows who the arbitrators will be.


Andrew B. Ingram: I said if the same conditions existed in both countries the same results might follow.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 am pointing out to my hon. friend that the law there is different, no arbitrators are appointed until the difficulty arises, and the commission is only constituted when the parties to compose the board are notified of their appointment. Mr. Speaker, I think I have reviewed the technical objections that have been taken to the measure, and I have no hesitation in inviting the House to read this Bill the second time.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has mentioned the fact that the railways have extraordinary powers. I do not exactly see any connection between that fact and anything in this Bill. I would like to understand this :	It is expected by the
Minister of Labour, if we may judge from the illustrations he has produced to the House, that this measure will produce important results, such results ns was produced in Massachusetts in settling an important strike in a period of nine days. Now, if there is any such virtue in this Bill, why should it not be applied to strikes such as that now going on in Montreal ? Is there any reason to suppose that this measure will be less successful with a strike of that kind than with strikes upon railways ? Is there any reason that can be suggested why the measure should not be as useful in one case as in the other ? If it will produce such results, why we might have had this Montreal strike settled already, we might have had the Canada Atlantic strike settled long ago. I have not yet understood from the Minister of Labour any valid reason given why this legislation, from which he expects so much, should be restricted to railway strikes. I am not asking this for the purpose of embarrassing the minister, but only to understand what is in his mind on the subject.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend will see that however sanguine one is in regard to the efficacy of this measure, it niust be remembered that it is only a tenative one. It was begun last year with reference to railways alone, and has been continued with respect to railways alone, because of their special character. They stand on a different footing. I stated before and I repeat it now. that we hope public opinion will favour the extension of this principle beyond the present limited scone of railways, but I doubt if public opinion in Canada to-day is sufficiently prepared to say that we should pass even

what some lion, gentlemen call this weak measure and make it applicable generally throughout Canada to all sorts of industrial establishments.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why should you have any objection to this measure being applied to other industrial establishments if It depends on public opinion ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are a great many measures that might be passed but it is usual for legislatures to wait until public opinion is reasonably ripe before thrusting them upon an unwilling public. If public opinion were against this mode of treatment, then, to proceed with undue haste might set back the movement rather than accelerate it. There is such a thing as making haste too fast and if, later on, public opinion, from the working of this measure in regard to railways, comes to the conclusion that it will be beneficially extended and made more general that extension will take place and good will come from it, but if we had a large part of the public perhaps resisting it we would be forcing it upon an unwilling public. There is nobody in this House who can speak for the employers of labour and say that they would consent to this measure. There is no member of this House who will say that even the employees would consent to this principle being made general. I, however, believe that a considerable number of them throughout the- country would welcome it, but it is impossible for any one to get up in this House and say that the general public want this measure to be extended and to to have general application.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the hon. minister on what authority does he say that no person in this House can speak as to the opinion entertained by the employers of labour ns to whether the extension of this principle to their different crafts would be acceptable or not ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think there is no member of this House who has any authority to speak on behalf of the employers of labour in Canada. I am not aware that the employers of labour have met and expressed an opinion upon this subject. If they have and if there is any one who could speak on their behalf, no one would rejoice more than myself at such an announcement, and I am sure the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) would agree with me.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It will be a pleasure to me to agree with the hon. gentleman, though it will be a hard matter sometimes.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me at the present moment that even he, however well informed lie is as to the state of public opinion, either in the ranks of the employers or in those of the employees, and however


William Mulock: courageous he may be, will not at this moment undertake to speak on behalf of either one and to say that either one would give his consent to the extension of this principle.
5Ir. CLARKE. The hon. minister is certainly right in saying that I would not undertake to speak for either party, for the employers or the employees. I am sure that every person on this side of the House earnestly desires that all the good the hon. minister expects from this Bill may be accomplished and more than accomplished. I understand from what the hon. gentleman said during the explanation which he made upon the second reading of the Bill, that lie had consulted all the employers and employees who will be affected by the operation of this Bill when it becomes enacted. That being the case, and anticipating, as the hon. gentleman does, and I hope rightly anticipating, great benefit from the passage of this Bill, surely if it is to be of any practical benefit to both employers and employees it was the duty of the hon. gentleman to instruct some officer, or officers, of the Department of Labour, to ascertain from employers of labour other than those engaged in conducting railways, and from employees other than those engaged on railways, what their opinion would be if general legislation of this kind were passed instead of leigslation applying solely to the operation of railways. If there is to be any benefit derived from the operation of this Bill in its application to railways, why not extend the benefit to others ? Why not to steamers, why not to those large industrial establishments scattered all through the country, why not have all these great industries brought under the operation of this Bill ? Surely there has been a dereliction of duty on the part of the officers of the Department of Labour, if not on the part of the hon. minister-I say it, of course, with a great deal of respect-in not taking steps to ascertain what the opinion of the employers of labour and of the employees in Canada is as to the general application to other industrial establishments of the principles of this Bill.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. k on tl Gin a. 11 has bGGn in public life many years. He is well aware that public opinion is not obtained in regard to great legislative measures by any such procedure as that. You could not send out a bulletin to five or six million people and ask them what their opinion is on a proposed measure. There is a well recognized way of ascertaining public opinion. Subjects are discussed in the House, in the country, on the platform and in the press and gradually public men come to form an opinion as to what is the will of the people, and from their places in parliament they make their opinions known. If the hon.' gentleman who is in touch with public opinion

in a great industrial centre is able to speak for kis people we may make some progress, but there is no such practicable method as he suggests for ascertaining public opinion. This discussion will perhaps lead to the general public taking an interest in this idea. From time to time discussions on this line are developed. This afternoon I threw out a hint which I hope will bear fruit, that the employers and employees should endeavour to consider this question, and perhaps they might organize with the object of getting representatives together to debate it. But it cannot be done without the fullest discussion, and that is a process involving a considerable length of time. Employers or employees would not be able to give a valued opinion upon the question without full discussion. Discussions such as these prepare public men to consider public questions and to give valued opinions upon them. I have to thank the House for allowing me the privilege of a second time of addressing it on the subject, although I had no intention of suspending action for the purpose of considering any of the points that were raised by the hon. gentleman.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, I intend to say a few words in reference to this, what I call, peculiar legislation, introduced by the hon, Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock), legislation introduced for the purpose of informing the community and which is to be acted upon by public opinion. The hon. gentleman mentioned some legislation of this kind in the state of Massachusetts, and we had legislation of a similar character introduced in 1900, legislation, as the hon. minister says, which is intended to carry out some views, or some ideas of some people in this country with means of enforcement and penalties attached when its provisions are not carried out. This legislation has no effect at all. This Bill is evidently prepared on the lines of the New Zealand legislation, introduced in 1894 or 1895, providing for the creation of conciliation boards and boards of arbitrations. I listened to the hon. minister and he particularly stated that as long as times were prosperous and as long ns wages were advancing in the country the awards of the board of arbitrament would be accepted both by the employees and by the employers of labour in the community. But the moment depression comes, it is likely one or the other will object to the award. I have read an American author who speaks highly of the New Zealand system, and who says it is in advance of any legislation in any part of the world. I have also read the report of the Australian commissioners who inquired into the New Zealand system with a view to its adoption in Australia. On the other hand, I have read a New Zealand author who condemns the system altogether, and indeed the opinion now seems to be. that the result of the arbitration law in New Zealand law is not as satisfactory as its friends hoped for. I believe there is a necessity for legislation in some direction for the settlement of these labour disputes, but whether it is within the authority of this federal parliament or of the provincial legislatures is a question for serious consideration. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) pointed out that this Bill took jurisdiction over provincial railways and electric railways, as well as Dominion railways, and the minister replied to him that this Bill was only for the purpose of finding out the facts and influencing public opinion. It is notorious that the control over provincial and electric railways is in the provincial legislatures, and thus it is that we are legislating here to influence public opinion to influence the local legislatures to pass laws to remedy grievances. The minister told us that the simple fact of the finding of an arbitration board in Massachusetts so influenced public opinion that the disputants were compelled to settle a strike. If the hon. gentleman inquires, he will find that the Massachusetts Railway Commission has the power to remedy such grievances, but legislation of this kind, although it may be passed by the legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not the sort of legislation that is usually adopted by a British parliament. What is the need of this Bill at all, if it is only for the purpose of reporting the facts. The government have power now to appoint a Royal Commission at any time, and the report of that Royal Commission may affect public opinion and what is better still, it brings the matter before this House. There should be an alternative in this Bill, so that if public opinion is not sufficient to enforce the award of the board of arbitration, then the law should step in to enforce it. That is what I would call proper legislation. This Bill is simply parade legislation. It can be of little or no utility when there is no penalty provided to enforce its provisions.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I congratulate the Minister of Labour upon the decided change he has made in this Bill as compared with the Bill which he introduced last session. Last year's Bill was on the lines of compulsory arbitration, but the minister had an opportunity of meeting those who would be affected by such legislation, and he ascertained public opinion so quickly that the result was that he introduced the measure which we are now discussing. I shall not offer any opposition to this Bill. It certainly cannot do any harm, but I do not expect that much good will come from it. However, the minister hopes a great deal from the Bill, and I trust that his expectations will be more than realized. Last year, with a great flourish of trumpets he proposed compulsory arbitration ; but he recedes from that position now, having ascertained what public opinion was in the meantime.


An hon. MEMBER.: What was it ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The result was the emasculation of last year's Bill and the presentation of the present Bill, and I thinli the minister acted very wisely in accepting the suggestions that were made to him. My hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) who takes a great deal of interest in matters affecting the working classes, tells us that this Bill is acceptable to the railway employees whom the minister had the pleasure of meeting, and he says that the reason it is acceptable to them is because it does not affect them in any way. They are perfectly satisfied with the provisions of the Bill, because it does not affect them in any way. That I believe is the fact, except in so far as the findings of the arbitration commission may affect them through its effect on public opinion. I hope the Bill may have some good effect, and I am not going to offer any opposition to it; but I have not heard any sufficient answer to the question propounded again and again on this side of the House, why, if this measure is going to work satisfactorily-and X sincerely hope it will-its provisions are only made applicable to railway disputes instead of being made applicable generally to all industrial disputes in the Dominion of Canada. The minister has nothing to fear from making the application of this Act general. I am satisfied that the measure is so harmless, if I may be permitted to use that expression, that its application to all the industries of the country would not be opposed by the working classes. They are always willing to place their side of a case before arbitrators or before the public, and I am perfectly satisfied that if they were all brought under the provisions of this Bill, they would willingly accept it and it might do some good.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Bill of my hon. friend is based on the ArbitrationActs passed in the United States. The first two states to establish boards of arbitration were the state of New York and the state of Massachusetts, in 1886. Fourteen other states have since passed similar laws. These states are : California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa. Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut and Indiana. The state boards in the United States are composed, just as the Bill of my hon. friend provides that this board shall be composed, namely, of three members-one an employer, one an employee, who is generally appointed at the recommendation of the labour organizations, and the third of another class. The state board of arbitration may be invoked by the desire of both parties to a dispute, or the board may interfere itself.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are the Acts compulsory, then ?


John Graham Haggart: What are the powers of enforcement 7


John Graham Haggart: 


Joseph Israël Tarte: When both parties agree to submit a labour dispute, the result is binding. Only in Massachusetts, New Y'ork, Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin have state boards been appointed; in all the other states the law has been a dead letter. The report of the Industrial Commission, which I hold in my hand, and which is a very interesting document says :
It is very difficult to estimate correctly the amount, nature and value of the work of the state boards of arbitration.
The resume of this report is that these state boards have not done much. There are only three or four states in which they have done some active work. Outside of these states they have not accomplished anything. As some hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this Bill have said, it cannot do any harm. I hope that it will do good; but if we are to judge of the results of this legislation by the results which have been achieved in the United States, I am very much afraid it will not do as much as some of our friends expect it will. However there is no harm in trying, and, so far as I am concerned, I am glad the hon. Minister of Labour has introduced this Bill. We have not so far tried any device for settling our labour disputes, which are becoming dangerous, and it is time we tried something. On that account I think both sides of the House will be pleased that the Minister of Labour is doing something, and if he does not succeed, he will try to do something better in another year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1,
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I move to insert in the fourth line the word ' may ' between the words ' strike ' and ' interfere.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the object of inserting the word ' may ' ? According to the argument of the hon. gentleman, the reason this Bill is enacted is because these strikes do interfere with the carriage of mails, etc. Is there any doubt about it ? What is the sense of putting in the word ' may ' ? It destroys all the arguments made this afternoon for this legislation.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think the hon. gentleman's objection is well taken, and I will not press the amendment. I was asked to make it, but I had not read it very carefully.
On section 3,


Edward Frederick Clarke: I suppose by this the government take power to appoint two members of the committee, and three if necessary. The minister may appoint the two first and name a third in case none of the parties make a selection.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Each party will be called on to appoint one, and these two may appoint a third, and it is only when either or both the parties make default that the minister acts.


Hance James Logan: This section provides that each party to the dispute may choose an arbitrator, and if the two arbitrators cannot agree on the third, the choice of the third will be left to the minister. But in cases of dispute on the Intercolonial Railway that would give an unfair advantage to the government. The men would choose one of the arbitrators, the Minister of Railways would choose another, and in case these two could not agree, the Minister of Labour would choose the third. So that the government would have the choice of two of the arbitrators and the men would only have the choice of one.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not intend to press the Bill to a final reading to-night. My hon. friend has already brought this point to my attention, and I think there is something in it. It would be quite right, in the case of the Intercolonial, to give the appointing of the third arbitrator to an outside tribunal, in case the two others could not agree, but as I do not intend to press the Bill to its third reading, my hon. friend will have an opportunity to make any suggestion at the final stage of the Bill, and have it amended to meet the difficulty he mentions.


Hance James Logan: This objection has been raised by the men on the Intercolonial Railway, and I have written to the principle officers of the union, making certain suggestions. I have suggested that the third arbitrator should be chosen by the Chief Justice of the province or the Governor in Council of the province, but I have not yet received any intimation from the union as to which they would prefer, or any suggestion as to what else they desire shall be done.


Andrew B. Ingram: As this Bill has been read the second time this afternoon, I do not think that it is proper that we should proceed with it in committee.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If any hon. gentleman wishes, I shall not press it. I thought that .the House was anxious to put it through committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: In view of the discussion on the Bill, hon. members on both sides may receive certain suggestions that might improve it, and as it is a government measure, a delay of a couple of days would not interfere with its passing.
Progress reported.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 109) to correct a clerical error in the Act to incorporate the Edmonton and
Slave Lake Railway Company-Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. C. Fitzpatrick) moved that Order No. 17, namely :	House in Committee on resolution regarding the retiring allowance of judges be discharged.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 7, 1903.