1914-02-06

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 51, respecting The Bronson Company-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 52, respecting The Central Railway Company of Canada-Mr. W. H. Bennett.
Bill No. 53, respecting The Empire Life Insurance Company of Canada-Mr. Mac-donell.
Bill No. 54, respecting The Niagara-Welland Power Company-Mr. Blain.
Bill No. 55, respecting The Quinze and Blanche River Railway Company-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. EMMERSON:: The Minister of Customs-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do	not think
it is permissible for one member of the House to get up over and over again, when the Orders of the Day are called, and introduce subjects and ask questions. While it is permissible to ask questions regarding something which is of urgent importance, most of these are questions which could be more intelligently and correctly answered if the questions were placed on the Order Paper and allowed to be answered in that way. To keep a minister rising over and over again to answer these questions is, to my mind, out of order.


Henry Robert Emmerson: respondence, petitions or memorials, if there are any.


Mr. REID:: I intend, immediately after the Orders of the Day have been passed, to telephone Mr. McDougald to come over here, and I will ask the hon. member for Westmorland to tell the commissioner just what he wants, and to have Mr. McDougald get him all the information and papers he requires.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is very satis^
factory.



CANADIANS AT BISLEY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: I desire to ask leave to move the adjournment of this House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the War Office and National Rifle Association in limiting certain competitions at Bisley to rifles which are not equipped with the aperture sight, which may have the effect of excluding Canadian riflemen from competing at Bisley.


Mr. FOSTER:: I do not wish to intervene so that my hon. friend shall not have his discussion, but the next motion will be one to go into Supply, and could he not take it then equally well?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I might say that to-day the House goes into Supply without a motion; the Speaker leaves the Chair without motion.


George Eulas Foster: I am a little at a disadvantage since the revised rules have been instituted.
Sir WILFRID LAuRIER:	I do not
think my hon. friend is in error, although he was not here last year. I put a question to the Prime Minister just a week ago as to whether or not the rule would apply, and I understood from what the Prime Minister said that on that day the matter was by consent, and therefore the rule would not apply.


George Eulas Foster: My right hon. friend is
correct; I remember the conversation. The Prime Minister said that he did not intend that the rule should apply. We are going into the discussion now of the Estimates of the Minister of Labour. It is a new department and it requires a motion. My hon. friend will be able to come in then.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is what the
Speaker says.


George Eulas Foster: It is for the Speaker to decide.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In regard to Rule 17, if I correctly heard the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, as well as the right hon. the Prime Minister, they are not quite correct in the interpretation which they place upon it. The rule says:
On Thursdays and Fridays, when the Order of the Day is called for the House to go into Committee of Supply, or of Ways and Means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question, provided that, except by the consent of the House, the Estimates of each department shall be first taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.
That is the exception, but that does not apply to the question of the Speaker leaving the Chair.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The Speaker
automatically leaves the Chair if the subject which is coming up for discussion has already been before the House, but in order to confer on the House the power to discuss that matter, a motion must be made whether it is Thursday or Friday or any other day. The other day I wanted to have the matter discussed and settled and the Prime Minister said: You are too generous to the Government; to-day we will proceed by consent because the rule would not apply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would not be my interpretation of it at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: I need not
remind you, Mr. Speaker, that by consent of the House we can do almost anything.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quite convinced of the correctness of that. The House can suspend any of its rules by unanimous consent, but I am only endeavouring to give the House what I regard to be the proper interpretation of the rule so that the House may understand it and govern itself accordingly. If it be the express wish of the House that this interpretation of the rule be not followed, of course, I cannot object to it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I assume that under your ruling, Mr. Speaker, we shall discuss the question now, or is it understood that we shall have the consent of the House on the motion to go into Supply?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. member -would be more in order to discuss it now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I might premise by saying that the rules, of which we heard so much last year, apparently need to be conned over by the men who made them, and somewhat carefully, because it is rather difficult for ordinary members to know how they can bring matters before the House which they have a right to do.-
I have brought this particular subject to the attention of the House by reason of the fact that there has appeared in the press of the country, at various times during the last three weeks, statements to the effect that, owing to certain new regulations that have been imposed by the National Rifle Association, the men who won their places last year at the Dominion rifle competition in Ottawa which entitled them to go to Bisley to represent Canada in this competition were not likely to be able to go this year. I regard that as a matter of very great importance. The interest which has been evoked in Canada generaly during the past eight or nine years in rifle shooting has been very great, and I am sure that every one who is interested in the development of that particular line of work or sport, whichever view may be taken of it, would like to see the successes which have been achieved by Canadian riflemen at Bisley during the past few years repeated. Anything which would interfere with our riflemen being represented at this national British meeting would be a matter of very great importance.
In looking into this question I find that the constitution of the National Rifle Association of Great Britain involves the recognition of the fact that it is not an association purely for Great Britain and Ireland, but that it is a national one in the true sense, that it is an association where the Dominions over the seas which form a part of this empire to-day have as much right in all respects in reference to the membership of that association and in all the competitions that take place under it as the men who happen to reside within the narrow bounds of the island of Great Britain.
That being so, we recall that on various occasions during the past five or six years there have been objections of a technical character emanating from different sources which might be said to be pin pricks and intended to harass the men from this country who happened to use a rifle which you may say both Governments in Canada have adopted and ratified as being the national arm of Canada. I refer to the Ross rifle. Some years ago, when our men went over 33*
there and with the use of that arm won the greatest prizes that are offered in competition, there followed immediately afterwards technical objections of the narrowest kind, and an attempt was made to introduce into the regulations conditions which were annoying and peculiar and evidently emanated from some source which was deliberate in its character, intended to interfere with the use of that arm by the Canadian riflemen. The action which was taken by the Government of that day, and the action which was taken afterwards by the present Government, when another question arose a little later, was of a vigorous character, and resulted in the recognition by the rifle authorities of the mother country of the Ross rifle as being the arm, which, in the hands of our riflemen, had a perfect right to be' used in the competitions there.
A few years ago a great question arose in this country, and in England as well, in all military circles, as to the adoption of the aperture sight in connection with the rifle that was used in rifle shooting. The Small Arms Commission, which sat here in the Dominion of Canada as the result of their appointment by the Militia Department, went into that question with the greatest possible care and decided upon a certain sight which was adopted by the department. This sight was attached to the rifle which is now the national arm. In England the same question was taken up, and the War Office came to the conclusion that on another new rifle, which has not yet been issued but the technique of which has been decided upon, this aperture sight should also be used. In the United States, where rifle development has gone a long way for a great number of years, this aperture sight has been ratified by the military authorities and has become of permanent adoption in their military system.
As I am advised in regard to this matter, a sudden development takes place in England. The new rifle has not yet been issued, but the War Office has intimated that in certain competitions, the best competitions that take place at Bisley, such as the competition for the King's prize, which is the premier prize of all that riflemen from all parts of the empire are anxious to win as a matter of special distinction, no rifle shall be used that is provided with this aperture sight. The question is: What is to be the attitude of the Department of Militia and Defence in regard to this subject at this time? All our



men in Canada have been trained in rifle shooting during the last two years with the aperture sight. All the competitions at the various ranges have been with the use of that sight. Is all that training to be of no avail? Are our riflemen who have been trained in that way to go home to England and not be permitted to compete with their own rifle and with that sight attached to it, and must they be compelled to compete under entirely adverse conditions with a rifle and a sight in the use of which they have not been trained? I notice it is stated in the press that the minister has declared that the result of this action would be that no Canadian team could go to Bisley this year. The selection of the Bisley team, and its superintendence, I understand, as a matter of form, if not in reality, have always been under the control of the Dominion Rifle Association. But the department occupies a controlling position towards it, because we have to find the funds which enable these prizes to be offered and these expeditions to the competitions to be taken. I brought this matter up with a view of ascertaining what is the opinion of the minister, and what action he intends to take with reference to this pin-prick, to use words which were used some years ago in a somewhat similar matter under different circumstances. Is this arm, which has been recognized by both political parties as the national arm of Canada, to be discredited by these continual attacks from some interested source in the mother country, or, is the minister to stand by the weapon which Canadian riflemen use, and which every one recognizes to-day to be complete and satisfactory in every particular ? I trust we shall hear from the minister on the subject.
Hon. SAM. HUGHES (Minister of Militia): The subject which the hon. member has brought to the attention of the House, has been receiving careful consideration by my officers and myself for some time past. It will be well to place before the House the condition of matters as they stand. The National Rifle Association of Great Britain was formed in 1860 at the direct request of Her late Majesty, Queen Victoria, and its charter states that it was formed for the purpose of giving permanence to volunteer corps, naval and military, and to encourage rifle shooting throughout our dominions. Canada being one of these dominions, our militia are absolutely eligible to compete at these matches. The
[Mr. Macdonald. 1
management of the National Rifle Association in Great Britain is handed over to a general council, which in turn elects an executive council to manage the matches. For a number of years there was very little progress made, and it was only when Canadian militiamen came to use the weapon which is now universally adopted in our country that any objection was made on the part of those across the water, on the ground that Canadians were not armed with the same rifle as were the British.
Let me state emphatically that we are supplied with what is recognized by volunteers and soldiers throughout the world as the obsolete ammunition of Great Britain. Great Britain uses a cartridge, which in many respects is regarded as not being up to date. Nevertheless, in order that there might be no confusion of ammunition, if Canadian troops ever have to again fight side by side with the British, we use the same ammunition as they do. In other words, their cartridge fits our rifle and our cartridge fits their rifle, so that there may be no trouble in presence of the enemy. But we will not use their obsolete rifle.
It is held by the best rifle experts in the world that the Lee-Enfield is no longer a first-class weapon to place in the hands of soldiers in the field. We have insisted on the Ross rifle, a rifle which is universally regarded by every fighting force in the world as the best weapon for the soldier to be armed with in time of war. The Ross rifle, of course, has passed the experimental stage.
Canada has made progress in rifle sighting. Formerly we had a forward sight, and then we had a back sight in the middle of the rifle, and there was a long space between the eye of the soldier and the back sight, so that in order to line on the target he had to line through the back sight and the fore sight on the bull's eye. A letter has been published recently by Major McHarg, of Vancouver, one of the most distinguished Canadian riflemen-an officer who has been on the Bisley team several times, and who had the honour last year of maxing the highest score ever known in the history of rifle shooting-in which he points out the impossibility of a man's eye seeing three objects in alignment at the same time. Consequently, on account of its superiority, the United States and other nations, as well as Canada, have adopted the aperture sight. By placing the aperture sight as near to the eye as possible, and leaving as great a distance between the rear sight and the forward

sight as possible, a better alignment is obtained, and consequently more excellent results follow. At the time of the Palma matches here, when the American team used the aperture sight and the British and other teams used the open sight and they were badly beaten, it was subsequently urged by some British riflemen that the sighting of the aperture sight was very slow. Those of us who had used it felt that this was untrue, and experience and observation since have proven that the aperture sight is the more rapid.
On that occasion the American fired much more rapidly, practically two shots for other teams one. This caused them to be finished earlier and thus avoid a very tricky wind which threw the other teams off the bulls-eye.
I shall quote to the House the view of Major Richardson, one of the best known shots in England, who has for many years taken an active interest in the iBisley matches, and who is an earnest advocate of the Canadian rifle being used at Bisley. Major Richardson, speaking of the Olympic contest in Sweden last year, in which soldiers from the United States, Great Britain, and other countries competed, points out why the American team won, in these words:
The day was hot and the light very glaring, which placed us at the greatest possible disadvantage when compared with the United States of America, who used aperture sights. They shot twice as fast as we did, and the shot for shot record showed that all our men's eyes became tired with defining their sights Every one lost ' angle ' during each series.
The total number of rounds fired by each man in the Olympic match was 50. The British team made a good start, especially Ommund-sen, who scored 149 points out of a possible 150 at the two first distances, but their was a marked falling off in the subsequent stages of the contest.
This shows that the aperture sight is the natural sight, and that by using it a soldier can fire twice as many shots and make a far greater percentage of hits than by using the open sight.
The National Rifle Association is not part and parcel of the War Office, except to the extent that it receives support from the Government. It is more or less at the mercy of the War Office, which has for a number of years been adopting fads in rifle shooting. They have now adopted a fad, the object of which I never could discover, that is, what they call a field service target; firing at a blank target. This, however, is a fad that is fast dying out, and it never gave any direct benefit in 33J
the way of teaching men how to shoot. The War Office wish, for some unknown reason, to coerce the National Rifle Association into using this target. In the field service target they are doing away as far as possible with the system of accurate scoring that is possible with the bull's-eye target, and they are making the regulations such that in certain matches, especially the King's prize match, which is the match that the Canadian volunteer aspires to take part in above all others, no" rifle can be used unless it has the open sight.
The National Rifle Association, with the full consent of the British War Office, has used the aperture sight since 1909. There is nothing new about it whatever. There is not a rifleman in Great Britain but has the aperture sight at his disposal, and would have the right to use it, were it not for the rule recently imposed by the British War Office. There would be no hardship in allowing it to be used. The British rifle has the middle sight, the aperture sight being an attachment at the rear; whereas the Canadian rifle has no middle sight and there is no place where a middle sight can be attached, and therefore, the Canadian riflemen cannot compete. The gentlemen who are enforcing this regulation must know this fact just as clearly as we do here, and they must know that we must either abandon our rifle and use the obsolete Lee-Enfield rifle or else retire from the contest.
We have used the aperture sight since 1909; the British riflemen have used it. Our rifles are not fitted with the middle sight. As far as I am concerned, I do not intend to interfere with the Dominion Rifle Association; but we control the funds and the volunteers, and no volunteer will be allowed to leave the shores of the Dominion of Canada with any such handicap upon him as is placed upon him by that regulation. It is violating the rule laid down by Her Majesty in the constitution of the association whereby it was designed to encourage rifle shooting in our dominions beyond the sea as well as in Great Britain.
For the last number of years, the British War Office have been endeavouring to build up a model war rifle. I heard about it four years ago. I happened to be at Washington and, from the war authorities there, I learned the full details of the new British rifle. During the following year I was in Germany, and from the German officers I learned the full details of the new British rifle. I went to the British War Office, but could learn nothing from them. I was informed that, if I went to Enfield and poked

around a bit and got on the right side of some subordinate official, I could get the information in that way. If an officer in {he British service was not entitled to see the new rifle, I was not going to poke around any back door at Enfield to obtain the information. The year before last the rifle was in an experimental stage. The British War Office have been experimenting with it ever since, and it is a failure as a war rifle.
This is the. opinion of the British War Office in regard to the aperture sight:
The aperture sigrht possesses two main advantages: (a) As the eye looks through, and not at, the backsight, it is not strained by the constant effort to focus itself on an object very near to it, as is the case with the open backsight. (b) As the sight can be placed quite close to the firer's eye, the sight radius (that is, the distance between fore and backsight) can be considerably increased. .It is. much easier to point a long ruler accurately at a distant object than a short one, and the same principle holds good in the case of a rifle. It is thus much easier to align a rifle which has a long sight radius.
It goes on to show how this will check wild firing. There are a dozen other advantages of the aperture sight over the open sight to which it is not necessary for me to refer to here, other than this. Those of us who are getting on in years, find considerable difficulty on account of the blur in aligning with the open sight. With the aperture sight, the old eye can pick up the target just as accurately and just as clearly as the young eye can.
The action is not that of the National Eifle Association; it is the arbitrary action of the British War Office. The only people who can possibly be hurt by it are the riflemen of the Dominion of Canada. So far as I am concerned, for a great many years, we have made every concession in regard to the rifle trouble, and in every instance our contention has been upheld by the riflemen of Great Britain, as distinct from the War Office. The former are standing by us in demanding that the aperture sight be used. After discussing the matter, we have come to the decision that Canada is to-day prepared to lend to the British riflemen sufficient rifles for this season, in the hope that by next year they will have got what the British War Office frankly admits is the only sight that should be used. In that way the British riflemen will not be taken at a disadvantage for this season, and they can return the rifles later. There is no need, however, to lend these rifles, as the Birmingham Small Arms Company can supply the British War Office

with any aperture sights for every rifle in Great Britain. Therefore, in enacting this arbitrary rule, the British War Office can have only one possible object in view, and that is to exclude the Canadian team from competing at Bisley or to force the Canadian team to use the obsolete Lee-Enfield rifle with the open sight. Why should the British War Office force an arbitrary rule upon the National Eifle Association to the detriment of the Canadian team, and why should the Canadian team and Canadian volunteer bow to such a ruling without resenting it and standing to his weapon? We intend to stand by our rifle. We have used the aperture sight since 1909, and it is now part and parcel of our rifle. The British War Office know that we have no open sight on our rifle; and, so far as I am concerned, I do not propose to change it.


Mr. F. B. CAEVELL:: It is so seldom that I can entirely agree with the hon. Minister of Militia that I feel I would not be doing myself justice, let alone the hon. minister, if I were to remain silent in such a case as this. I heartily congratulate the hon. minister on the manly stand which he has taken in this matter. It is a well known matter of history to hon. members who have been for some years in this House that the Minister of Militia has made no change of front in connection with the rifle now under discussion, but is now in exactly the same position in which he was at the beginning. He stood by the Boss rifle when it required some courage on the part of a gentleman in his position to do so. He has stood by it since he has been in power. I am glad to know that he is standing by it now, and I am sure he will win, not because of his courage in standing by it, but because he is right.
I am entirely out of harmony with my hon. friend in regard to the large amount of money he is going to spend in Canada on the militia. I am entirely in harmony with him so far as the encouragement of rifle shooting is concerned. In my opinion, the only reason, in the final analysis, for spending money on the militia of .Canada is to teach men to handle a rifle or'a piece of artillery. We all hope the time will not come when he will need to use it, but-a soldier who does not know how to use a rifle is about the most useless piece of humanity, when it comes to time of trouble, that one could imagine. You want a little drill, of course, a little training, perhaps a good deal of organization, but above all you want to have your men trained to handle a rifle.

As I understand it, the National Rifle Association was formed in order to perfect not only the mother country, but the outlying dominions as well in the art of rifle shooting. I have never been able to understand why the National Rifle Association, or the War Office either, should object to the use of the best rifle that the empire could afford, and let the best man win. I should have thought they would be glad to have a better rifle shown them than their own, and that they would adopt it. I think they must be convinced that ours is the best rifle, otherwise they would not try to bar it from the competitions. The very fact that they do bar it is an admission that it is a better arm than the one they themselves have. As I have said, I shall not discuss this matter at length. I wish only, in this public manner, to congratulate the Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) on standing up for the rights of Canada, because it is Canada and because it is right; because we have the best rifle in the world to-day-or in the empire at least, I will go that far. I think the hon. gentleman is a little over-magnanimous, when he offers to loan the British Government the Ross rifle. We should go there with our own weapon and try out this contest on our merits. I do not understand that this is simply a sport. I do not understand that there is any good reason for barring would-be competitors because they have a better weapon than others have. I understand that this National Rifle Association competition is the acme of rifle practice all over the empire, the place to which the selected shots of the empire go to show their prowess, and let the best man win. I hope that the hon. minister will stand by his manly course and not contribute a dollar to send men to England unless those men are to enter the contest with the national arm of Canada, free to win in an open field.


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE (North Ontario):: I would like to ask the hon. minister if the regulations of the National Rifle Association bar out the Ross rifle or merely the aperture sight. As I understand it, the aperture sight is not usable under service conditions,-that is, if a rifle is equipped with the aperture sight it becomes a rifle that is incapable of being used in actual service. It is apparent that there is no unanimity of feeling among the marksmen who have gone to Bisley, because some of them feel that using the Lee-Enfield or other arm with the open sight they could compete on
equal terms with others. It would be unfortunate if our claim could be construed as a demand to be allowed to use a rifle that cannot be used in regular service. The whole object of the competition is to increase the efficiency of rifle shooting with a view to efficiency in the field. Now, as I understand the matter, the regulations of the National Rifle Association are for a rifle that can be used in regular service. For years we had a discussion in this House about certain rifles being manufactured by the Ross Rifle Company that did not comply with the conditions, weapons that were not the rifles used as the national arm of Canada, I understand that the National Rifle Association do not wish to do injustice to the national arm of Canada, but that they are against having the aperture sight which cannot be used in actual service. The Americans, as I understand, have an aperture sight which can be used in actual service, and so the objection that is raised against our rifle does not stand against theirs. I noticed an interview given by Sergeant G. W. Russell, a marksman of note, who does not quite agree with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) the hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell). Sergeant Russell says:
I would be quite prepared to go to Bislev and use the Lee-Enfleld rifle. The Nationa'l Rifle Association has always enough extra rifles available to provide a team such as the Canadian team, and I have no objection to using any sight that the others use. In fact I would prefer using the Lee-Enfleld rifle. I believe that the Long Ross rifle is the better match rifle and would prefer not having the advantages over men using the Lee-Enfleld, even if the association did allow it.
According to this experienced 4 p.m. rifleman, who has gone to Bisley
several times and distinguished himself in the use of the Ross rifle, the aperture sight affords an undue advantage over those who use the national arm of England which has an open sight. He would prefer to use the Lee-Enfield, such as they are using. He goes on:
As far as the peep sight on the Ross rifle is concerned-*
I have spoken of it as the ' aperture sight/ but I understand that it is the same thing.
-I would not say that it is a practical sight for active service purpose. I have no doubt that a peep sight will be devised that will be practical for all purposes, but the present one is not. However, I have never shot over ranges where I did not prefer the peep sight. I used it in rapid firing and it worked well. The present peep sight, however, is too far back.

Speaking of the American rifle, he says:
A prominent expert on military rifles stated that the Americans claim their peep sight is practicable for active service conditions. They have the peep and the open sight and either can be used. Their sight is also placed much farther from the eye than in the case of the Ross.
The object of the regulations of the National Rifle Association is not to discriminate .against the Ross rifle, as one would be led to believe from what has been said, but merely to prevent a peep sight being used which could not be used in actual service. These competitions are carried on under actual service conditions with a view to increasing the efficiency in service-that is the object of the whole expenditure. If the Ross rifle has a sight attached with which that rifle cannot be used, in service, the regulations are not unreasonable. I do not think members should get excited about this matter. For one, as a humble member of this House and a humble member of the militia, I should be very sorry-if that the purpose of these regulations be what I have indicated-to see it result in the abandonment of the annual event which every militiaman and every Canadian follows with, a great deal of interest, that of having our volunteers go over to the old country to take part in this great rifle shooting contest.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Before the hon. Minister of Militia answers those who have spoken, I should like to put to him directly a couple of questions. I need hardly say that I am far from being an expert on this matter; it is out of my latitude altogether. But I may say that I have not unlimited faith in Government departments, even in Great Britain. Last winter, we were afraid the ministers had too much faith in Government departments in Great Britain. We had a great deal of discussion along that line.


Mr. S. HUGHES:: Does the hon. gentleman refer to me?


Michael Clark: No, I refer to the fighting department on water; my hon. friend the Minister of Militia has charge of the fighting department on land. The danger of the Government this year appears to be that they are going to the other extreme, and are breaking off from British connection altogether.
The first question I want to put quite clearly to my hon. friend is based upon an assertion which he has made very confidently, but not more confidently than it has been repeated by the hon. member for

Carleton, N.B.-that the Ross rifle is a better arm than the Lee-Enfield. I should like to ask the hon. minister if the War Office admits that the Ross rifle is a better rifle? I should like to ask a second question. Does the War Office issue this regulation, which is complained of, in an arbitrary manner-which is, perhaps, a manner easy to acquire in military matters -or does it give any reason for the regulation?


Samuel Hughes: I will answer the
question of the hon. member for Red Deer first. As to whether the War Office admits that the Ross rifle is better than the Lee-Enfield, I would point out that they recognize that the Ross rifle has won its way to the front in all matches and. in all places where it has been tried throughout the world. Although they do not officially admit its superiority-it is a difficult thing to get the War Office to recognize that the colony has a better rifle than the motherland-they recognize it by doing away with their own rifle and attempting to bring out a new one based to a certain extent on our new rifle, the Ross. As to whether or not the War Office issued its regulations in an arbitrary manner, I may say that they have notified the National Rifle Association that if certain regulations are not complied with they will absolutely withhold all assistance. Their assistance, which is given in the way of concessions of ammunition, officers to control matches, and so on, is the life of the association, and therefore it must bow to the will of the British War Office. I do not know that they give a reason, unless it is to train the riflemen in the system of musketry laid down in their regulations. It is only in very recent years that the British soldier has been trained in musketry at all, but the authorities are recognizing now that it does count for something in time of war to know whether a soldier can hit the enemy or merely bang off shots in the air and scare him away.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), I am of the opinion that if he had left out the word 'if' there would have been nothing left of his speech. The only definite assertion he made was that the aperture sight rifle was not fit to be used in active service. If the hon. gentleman had been listening to me, he would have observed that I quoted the opinion of the best British expert on the subject, Major Richardson, who said that at Stockholm last year the Yankees, with the aperture sight rifle, fired twice as rapidly as the British soldiers. At the

Raima matches in Ottawa the Yankee soldiers popped in two bull's-eyes to our one every time, and the United States soldiers were enabled to dodge the tricky winds which put our men out of the matcn, because they were able to fire twice as rapidly as we could. The aperture sight is the only one of any efficiency in active service.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is the aperture sight as used on the Ross rifle capable of being used in active service?


Samuel Hughes: Certainly, that is what we are making them for.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are they used in active service?


Samuel Hughes: We have never had a chance to have a crack at anybody since they were adopted.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are they used in the
Militia corps?


Samuel Hughes: Certainly. The hon.
member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) last year went down to Halifax with his team .and won all before him; on that occasion the aperture sight was used. Rifles fitted with this sight have not been used in active service, as I have said, because we have never had a chance of so demonstrating them. I can assure my hon. friend that if a time of trouble comes he will have an opportunity of putting this sight to the test in active service, and then he will see the efficiency of it, and be enabled to realize the benefits of the aperture sight when firing at an enemy as compared with the *open sight. The hon. gentleman tried to pop at a target one day through an aperture sight, and he did very well for a novice, but when he tackled an old and experienced rifleman he fell far short of the mark.
The soldiers of Canada have thirty-five thousand of these rifles with aperture sights; we have them all over the Dominion, they are being attached to mark 2 and mark 3 rifles. As to the United States rifle, I do not wish to depreciate its value, but their aperture sight is not in it with ours for active service. Our aperture sight is part and parcel of the rifle; it is not a detachment, and in this we differ from the British people. As I have said, the British people have an opportunity of using the aperture sight, but the War Office will not let them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How does the minister account for this action on the part of the War Office?


Samuel Hughes: I do not know; I am not running the War Office; I am endeavouring to struggle along with the Canadian Militia Department.


Mr. GRAHAM:: We believe, I suppose, in autonomy in rifles, anyway.


Samuel Hughes: If the British Government would adopt a rifle which is equal to the Ross rifle, I would be delighted to conform with their practice and use it, but they have not yet done so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend is
taking the same exceptions to the instructions of the War Office that we took to the advice of the First Lord of the Admiralty last winter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I should like to say a word or two on this subject.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think this
motion permits of a second speech on the part of any hon. gentleman.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As a matter of preserving my own right, perhaps, more than from any desire to inflict a speech upon the House, I would not care to give any assent to the proposition that an hon. gentleman moving a motion of this kind has not a right to close the debate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I understand the matter correctly, a motion to adjourn the House does not permit the hon. gentleman who moved that motion to speak again.
Hon. SAM. HUGHES: So far as' I am personally concerned, I should be very glad if the House would permit the hon. member to speak.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to paragraph 2 of Rule 21:
A reply shall be allowed to a member who has moved a substantive motion or the second reading of a Bill, but not to any member who has moved an order of the day, not being the second reading of a Bill, an amendment, the previous question, an adjournment during a debate, or an instruction to a committee.
Clearly my hon. friend is entitled to a reply on this motion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have always understood that in the case of a substantive motion the privilege was granted to the mover in order that he might answer the arguments that had been brought up after his first speech. It may be that the House regards this as a purely substantive motion. If that be so, the hon. member would have a right to reply. I have always understood

that when a motion to adjourn the House was made, the party making it had no right to reply.


Wilfrid Laurier: That was a
new rule passed in 1909.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was quite sure that this was a substantive motion, and I felt that it was only right, in the interest of other members who might make motions on other occasions, that the rule of practice might be settled so that we might know what the rights of - hon. gentlemen were. I wish, first, to congratulate the minister upon the robust Canadianism which he apparently has developed in regard to this question. Perhaps developed is not the right word, because he has given indications at various times of possessing Canadianism of a robust character, and when I heard my hon. friend tell us as he did today that he had to go to Washington and Berlin in order to get information which he as the Minister'of Militia in the greatest of the overseas dominions-
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: No, I was not the Minister of Militia. I said four years ago, and I have been Minister of Militia only a little over two years. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten 1911?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) says, ' Worse still.' So he was not Minister of Militia, but a man who had seen service in South Africa, and had succeeded in driving out of Canada two or three British generals who had come here at various periods in his career. I think he ought to have been able to obtain from the War Office, without going to Berlin or Washington, the information which he, as a man interested in the question of what was the best arm for the service, desired to get. Perhaps since he has attained the position which he now occupies the means of communication between the British War Office and himself are a little more natural, a little more proper, than they were on the occasion of which he speaks. I agree with him when he says that this action on the part of the War Office in regard to this matter is an arbitrary action. There are some people who happen to hold positions in the Imperial Parliament-fortunately they are growing -less-but everybody who studies British history knows that there have been occasions down into very recent years when men holding positions of responsibility connected with the War Office and the Admiralty looked upon those of us who live in these overseas dominions,

and the representatives of the people in these parliaments, as belonging to some inferior order of beings who had not the wisdom necessary to legislate on behalf of the people whom we represent. Apparently the opinion of the War Office with regard to my hon. friend as representative of the Canadian people in .regard to militia matters is that he was not able and is not competent to represent the judgment of the Canadian people in regard to military matters. Hence their action is an arbitrary one. Last year Hon. - Winston Churchill, who happened to be connected with another department of defence over there, showed that he regarded these people as being incompetent to form a judgment-


Samuel Hughes: I said nothing about
Winston Churchill.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister has
said a great deal about the War Office, and I am going to say something about Winston Churchill. He belongs to a type of men who regard the Canadian people as incompetent to engage in legislation and regards them, as was clearly shown in his second memorandum which was sent out to Canada, as belonging to an inferior order of beings. Apparently there are some gentlemen belonging to the War Office of the same type of character, and I am glad to say that the minister, with his fiery Canadianism, is making a protest against that kind of parental interference in our affairs by these men who happen to hold a little brief authority on the other side.
The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) spoke in regard to this question and stated that this aperture sight- which was used on the rifles was some terrible concern which was not of any value whatever when it came down to actual results. I made the statement in my opening remarks, and I had it on the very best authority, that in the rifle which has been decided upon by the military authorities of Great Britain the aperture sight forms part of its composition.


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear, the new rifle. I read their official report on it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Consequently, if
this very WTar Office, which is acting so arbitrarily upon this question, have in their possession the latest development in regard to arms which maintains as part of its composition this aperture sight, on what possible grounds can they complain and say they will not allow Canadian riflemen

to enter that competition simply because they have aperture sights on their rifles? That is the situation and I hope the min-listen will matke a vigorous1 defence of Canadian rights on this question, and see that the arm of Canada is recognized by the proper authorities at home.
Motion negatived.



COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for the House to go into Committee of Supply:
Wilfrid Laurier: May I intervene? I see, Mr. Speaker, you are leaving the Chair. Is no motion to be made on Thursday or Friday on any occasion? The rule is as follows:
On Thursdays and Fridays, when the Order of the Day is called for the House to go into Committee of Supply, or of Ways and Means, Mr. Speaker will leave the Chair without putting any question, provided that, except by the consent of the House, the Estimates of each department shall be first taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.
If to-day your Honour can leave the Chair and if you should do so, there are certain Estimates which could not be discussed to-day. We have discussed all the departments with the exception of the Department of the Secretary of State; and, if you were to leave the Chair without any motion, then, if the Government wanted to go into the Estimates of the Department of State, they could not do so. I wanted to have a discussion of this matter the other day, but the Prime Minister said: ' No, the rule would not apply, because we were proceeding by consent.' I would call your attention to what took place a week ago to-day, and particularly to the concluding sentences of the Prime Minister, which are to be found at page 323 of ' Hansard.'
I would think that every one of the departments which are enumerattu, commencing at page 8, would be regarded as a separate department, and not as one department, as the right hon. gentleman suggests. In so far as I understand the construction of the rule, I think there is no difference of opinion betw-een himself and myself. I would further say that we are taking this up practically by consent 10-day, as the Government could not reasonably ask hon. gentlemen to go on except by consent, and I would not regard any common finient that we may make to-day as bringing the case within the operation of the rule. We must bring each one of these departments before the House on some other day before we can make use of the rule in regard to Thursday and Friday.
Therefore it is very clear that the Government have no intention of using the rule with regard to Thursday and Friday so as to allow the Speaker to leave the Chair without any motion at all. That is a very valuable privilege. Last Thursday we went on by consent, and we allowed all the departments to be taken up and disposed of except one, which was not called. We were proceeding by consent, and therefore- we raised no objection. But if the rule is laid down to-day that because every one of these departments has been taken into consideration we can go into any one of them on Thursday or Friday, we are deprived of the valuable privilege of having a motion made. To-day we do not intend to introduce any motion, but some other day we may desire to do so; and, as the Prime Minister stated in the plainest terms that the rule would not apply, I think we should adhere to that, and that a motion should be made before we proceed with these Estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I merely wish to say that my understanding was that the Prime-Minister, in saying that the rule would not apply, meant that it would not apply that day. To say that it would not apply throughout the session would be quite a different thing. That was my understanding of it. I have no desire to prevent the-carrying out of an understanding between the two sides of the House. My interpretation of the rule seems to be different from that of the right hon. gentleman who-has just spoken, and of the Premier himself, but I have been endeavouring to-follow what I regard as the correct interpretation. I can readily see, however, that if the rule is to be applied as I interpret it, as to the departments that were introduced last Friday, they would be regarded as having been taken up the first time on a day other than Thursday or Friday. It would deprive the Opposition of what is to them, and to every other member of the House as well, a very valuable right, that is, the right to make-a motion when a new department is introduced. I must say that I cannot read into the rule the same interpretation that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition places upon it.
Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER: It may be
that the rules prevent the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition from making an arrangement across the table which is in opposition thereto. If the
*522

Speaker holds that ground, I suppose that 4he Premier and the leader of the Opposition will have to bow to the rule. But what I want to bring to the Speaker's mind is this. If this had been a motion to go into Supply on Estimates that we had not taken aip last Friday, none of this present objection would have arisen. The motion of Friday last was to go into Supply to take up civil government for every department. If, therefore, the rule held, we would, in an .omnibus way, have been able, by your leaving the Chair, to go into every department that the Government had Estimates in. That would, as has been said, take away a very valuable privilege from the Opposition. The other day, if my .right hon. friend had objected, and if he had maintained his objection, we .could not have gone into Supply at all .except with respect to one single department. The language of the Prime Minister as to his intent, I think, is as plain as can be. I was sitting at his side at the time, and we spoke together about it, and my impression was exactly the same as his, that the rule, if applied absolutely, might 'be unfair to the Opposition, and might deprive them, and a great many members of the House, of having a discussion on the [DOT]motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair rather than that the Speaker should simply leave the Chair. If the Speaker can see his way to allow the arrangement, which I think was really made between us, to go into operation by consent, it would be [DOT]better to move the motion for going into [DOT]Supply to-day and settle the difficulty, -about which I am sure my hon. friends are anxious.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of course, it can be done with the consent and desire of the House. 'When the House has unanimously expressed its desire, I do not take it that the Chair has any right to interfere with that desire. But, in regard to the interpretation of the rule, it seems to me that there is a very significant and important difference in saying that the rule shall not apply now and saying that it shall not apply for the whole of the session. Usually, when we suspend the rule, we suspend it in regard to a certain motion, Bill, or action now, and it only applies to now. If I apprehended the explanation [DOT]of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), the suspension which he understood the Prime Minister to make und the right hon. leader of the Opposition ;io accept would apply to the whole session.


Wilfrid Laurier: To-day my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce proposes to take up the Departments of Trade and Commerce and of Labour. If these items are not completed to-day you will leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, next Friday as a matter of course, and they can be taken up again. All the departments have been gone into with the exception of that of the Department of the Secretary of State, and to-day, Mr. Speaker, you can leave the Chair without having a motion made. But, if the Government were to attempt to take up the Department of the Secretary of State, I would have the right to say: No, you cannot take up that department, because those Estimates have not been considered on any other day than to-day. The rule appears to be very clear:
The Estimates of each department shall be first taken upon a day other than Thursday or Friday.
If the Solicitor General were here, I think he would confirm my view upon this matter. But the estimates of a department, having been submitted on any other day, may be continued on Thursday or Friday without any motion. To-day we are going to consider the Estimates of the Departments of Labour and Trade and Commerce. Next Thursday, if we are called upon again to consider the estimates of these departments, you, Mr. Speaker, can leave the Chair without any motion; but if that is done the Government cannot proceed with anything except that which has already been commenced. The Minister of Trade and Commerce understood that, I understood it in the same way, and therefore we allowed all the departments to be gone into because it was done by consent. The Prime Minister said: I will not interfere with your right and we will not apply the rule with regard to Thursday and Friday, today. Therefore, we would still have the privilege of moving, should we have a motion to make. Otherwise, we would simply cut off our arms and we would have no opportunity, except one, of making a motion on going into Supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that my right hon. friend will recall to his memory that I said on the occasion that it might pass to-day, but that, at the same time, you were laying up a lot of trouble for the future. That is what was in my mind at the time. This rule contemplated that every department would be considered for the first time on some day other than Thursday or Friday, so as to give

a member of the House who desired to make a motion an opportunity to do so. But, on the other hand, if an efford were made to start the estimates of any department on Thursday or Friday it could only be done by the unanimous consent of the House. That has always been my interpretation of the rule. The unanimous consent did not refer to the fact that the Speaker might or might not leave the Chair, but it referred to the fact that the estimates of a department must be first taken up on some other day than Thursday or Friday unless by the unanimous consent of the House. With the unanimous consent of the House they may be taken up on any day. I understood the leader of the Government to say at that time that at any time the Opposition desired to move a motion on going into Committee of Supply, there would be no objection to their doing so. That is my understanding of the matter. In pursuance of that opinion, if it is the expressed desire of the House that any member of the House should make a motion and discuss it to-day, I would not feel that I would be justified in refusing to receive it.
It is moved by Mr. Foster, seconded by Mr. Reid, that I do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.


Wilfrid Laurier: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
[u"I am right, in saying\nthat they were the same \xa9lass of people, *except the Chinese who were brought in. In 1910 the same people were there as are there at the present time. There was no difficulty then in settling the dispute. The *people came .together. I do not know whether there was any magic possessed by the then Minister of Labour, Mr. King, or whether it was his knowledge of labour conditions in this . country; but as .a matter of fact the strike was practically averted.\nAt six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.\nThe House resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce place on the table a copy of the contract recently made with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company for the West India service?


George Eulas Foster: I shall do so, before the departmental Estimates are taken up.
Department of Labour-Conciliation and Labour Act, including publication, printing, binding and distribution of the Labour Gazette and allowance to correspondents, and for clerical assistance in preparing tables of statistics, $30,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Would the minister give us some information as to the working of the Conciliation Act?


Mr. CROTHERS:: There has not in my time been any proceeding under the Conciliation and Labour Act. On one occasion there was an application made concerning
the Intercolonial railway but the difficulty was adjusted and no board was appointed. Speaking generally I find that both parties to these disputes prefer proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, which they consider more direct and more satisfactory.


Wilfrid Laurier: There unfortunately has been a strike on Vancouver Island and a commission was appointed by the Government to make inquiry. Would the minister give ns information as to that?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The first intimation I had of any difficulty on Vancouver Island was contained in a press despatch which appeared in one of the Ottawa papers on the 19th of September, 1912, stating that at the Cumberland mines some 1,500 miners had gone out on strike. Upon seeing that despatch I at once sent the following telegram :-
Ottawa, September 19, 1912.
Peter McNiven,
Secritarv, United Mine Workers' Lodge, Cumberland, B.C.
My attention has been drawn to newspaper despatches announcing the occurrence of coal miners' strike at Cumberland mines. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act provides means for possible settlement of all matters in dispute by reference to an impartial board of three members, on which company and workmen concerned may each have a representative of their own selection. Law does not compel acceptance of board findings but forbids strikes or lockouts pending inquiry under severe penalties. In present case requirements of the Act do not appear to have been satisfied, and I am desirous of learning particulars of dispute by telegram without delay. Department will furnish any fuller explanation of Industrial Disputes law which may be required, and is to-day mailing you copies of this law and forms of application thereunder. In the event of proper application being made, everything possible will be done to expedite procedure under Act.
T. W. Crothers, Minister of Labour.
It appears that Peter McNiven, to whom the telegram was addressed, and whose name we got from the officers of the different unions throughout the country, had been superseded by a man named McAllister, and the telegram was handed to McAllister, as secretary of the lodge. The next day, September 20, I received this reply :-
Cumberland, B.C., September 20. Hon. T. W. Crothers,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
There is no strike declared at Cumberland mines. The company have openly discriminated against men who were taking an active part in union organization. They have also refused

to meet a committee of men. The men decided to take a holiday, after which the company gave orders for men to take their tools out of the mines.
J. J. McAllister.
The men have always contended that they did not go on strike, that they quit work for a holiday, and that the employers locked them out. The employers have always denied that, and they told me personally that the whistle blew every morning for thirty days, calling the men to come back to work, but the men refused. The owners of the mines then proceeded to have the mines operated by others, and they succeeded in getting men to go from different places to Cumberland.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Neither party applied for a board?
Mr. CEO i HERS: No.


Mr. MURPHY:: The men contended that they had not gone out on strike?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The men contended that they had not gone out on strike; that they were only taking a holiday. There are seven mines at Cumberland operated by the Canadian Colliery Company, and one at a place called Extension, about sixty miles south of Cumberland. The owners of the mine proceeded to secure other miners to take the places of those who had gone out on strike, as the owners claimed. They got them from different places. They sent a man to England to secure some miners from there; they got some miners from Edmonton and other places. They gradually increased the number of men at work in their mines. Some of those who had quit work returned, and by the first of May, 1913, with these men that they had secured in place of those who had quit work, they were putting out about 60 per cent of the normal output of the mines. The vice-president of the United Mine Workers of America, whose headquarters are at Seattle, gave instructions to the officer of the district to call out all the mine workers in Vancouver Island, not s;mply those who had been employed in the Canadian Colliery Company, but all the Mine Workers in Vancouver Island.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: in British Columbia?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, in Vancouver Island. It did not apply to the Crowsnest or to the eastern part of British Columbia.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did the Government
have notice of the intended strike before it actually occurred?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, the first notice I had of it was in a press despatch in an Ottawa paper saying that fifteen hundred men had gone on strike the day before.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think the hon. minister understands my question. Did the department have notice of the general strike that was called on or about the first of May, before it actually happened?
Mr.'CROTHERS: No, we had no notice of that either. On that call all the mine workers in Vancouver Island quit work. At the mines of the Western Coal Company, the Pacific Coast Company and at Jinglepot mines, the men all quit "work about the first of May.
We had an officer at Vancouver, and he was instructed to go to Vancouver Island and to do everything possible to induce either the men or the owners to apply for a board. Under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act we have no power to establish a board without application first being made therefor either by the men or by the mine owners. Our officer was instructed, if the union miners or the owners would not apply for a board, to see if he could induce the non-union men to do so, because we were very anxious to have a board established. He was not able to induce any of them, and in that way we are not able to get an investigation by a board under the Industrial Disputes Act.
In order that the facts of the case might be brought to the attention of the public, the Government appointed a commissioner in the person of Mr. Samuel Price of St. Thomas, who had served as Mining Commissioner for the province of Ontario for seven or eight years and who was familiar with such matters.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What was the date of that appointment?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: June 27, 1913.
I regarded the matter as a very serious one and was anxious to ascertain the facts at first hand. Therefore I went to Vancouver myself and spent about half the month of July there. I interviewed the different mine owners and the leaders of the mine workers. I was perfectly satisfied that there was no possibility of securing any adjustment between the mine owners and the mine workers. On the one hand, the mine owners seemed unalterably deter-

mined that they would not in any way recognize the United Mine Workers of America or their officials.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That was a point at
issue?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That was a point at
issue.


Michael Clark: How long was
the minister on the island?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not remember. I think I was there about ten days. I visited all the different mines and interviewed the owners and many of the miners. At Cumberland, I had before me twenty-seven men who were out on strike, and heard what they had to say. Then I had before me exactly forty of those who had taken their places, and heard what they had to say. I heard what the Board of Trade of the town of Cumberland, the mayor and certain of the councillors, had to say about the matter.
I was satisfied that the two parties felt so strongly on the question at issue that there was no probability whatever of bringing them together. The mine workers thought that the whole thing would be settled in a couple of weeks if I would just leave them alone; that the mine owners would have to take them back in order to get any coal out of the mines. On the other hand, the mine owners said:	We will not recognize
this union, if the mines are closed for forty years. I never saw two parties so determined.
Mr. Samuel Price inquired into conditions in Vancouver Island; saw the owners and miners and the Government at Victoria; interviewed some officials of the miners in Vancouver and made a report.
Hon. gentlemen will understand that, as time goes on in such matters, and things do not turn out as the people expect, when the mine owners do not get sick of the strike and take the men back as quickly as the men thought they would, and the men do not go back as soon as the mine owners thought they would, it usually happens that after a lapse of time, there is a better opportunity of making another effort to see if the dispute cannot be settled.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the meantime
how many men had been brought in for the purpose of working the mines?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think I have any direct information as to that. About a hundred were brought over from England, but only about fifty ever reached the mines.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They joined the
union?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: They joined the union, but I do not know the number that was brought in.
Mr. Acland, the deputy minister, has for many years had a great deal of experience in these matters, and I may say that he has been very successful in adjusting them. We thought it would be well to make one more effort to see if anything could be done. Mr. Acland went to Vancouver Island about the first of November and spent the largest part of a month in interviewing the various parties.
He returned-feeling as I did in July when I returned, that it was utterly impossible to bring these people together. Now, that is the last effort that we -made-in November last. Things went from bad to worse, and hon. members are all aware of the troubles that arose. A large number of men were arrested, under the authority, as I understand it, of the provincial government. Many of them have already been tried. The process of trying them is going on now in New Westminster, the venue having been changed from Victoria. It is a very bad state of things that exists in Vancouver Island. It is really the only serious labour trouble we have had in the last two years. As every one at all familiar with these matters knows, the most difficult problem between miners and mine-owners is that of the recognition of the union. If it was a matter of wages, you could compromise-


Mr. CARROLL:: May I ask if there is
only one labour union operating among the miners there?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, the United Mine Workers of America.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Was the objection to the recognition of this union or unions generally?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: This particular union.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They would have recognized some other union?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: They said so. But the men said they would not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The employers said they had no objection to unions generally?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, but the men said that they would not recognize any union. That was their idea, but they had no direct evidence as to that. The mine-owners said they were willing at any time to confer with the men actually working for them,

but they would not recognize men from Indianapolis or Seattle.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sure the House has been almost put to sleep by the careless manner in which my hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) has discussed this serious national problem'. One would think to hear the hon. gentleman that it was a matter of no importance, something which happens every once in a while in the course of the day's work, and while it was unfortunate for these people that it did happen, it could not be helped; there was nothing more to do about it; and there is an end of the whole matter. If ever the hon. gentleman convinced the public of Canada that he has well earned the title of ' Minister of Play ' instead of ' Minister of Labour ' he has done it this afternoon. I am not dubbing him that-it is a name that he himself has coined. Here, Mr. Speaker, we have from the minister a most remarkable statement. A strike involving three or four thousand men took place on the 17th of September, 1912, and outside of sending a telegram to these people pointing out in a very general way the terms of the Conciliation Act, not a finger has been lifted, not an act has been done, not an effort has been made by the Department of Labour to settle these difficulties for some six or seven months until practically the whole island of Vancouver is aflame. Was ever such a contention made by a Minister of Labour in this House or in any other Parliament in any civilized country from the beginning of the world to the present day?


George Eulas Foster: That is a long time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is, my friend the
Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) realizes the position in which his colleague finds himself this afternoon. Not a finger has been lifted according to the minister's own confession to try to alleviate the terrible condition of affairs-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did not make such a confession.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No person of ordinary
intelligence could listen to the hon. gentleman without coming to the conclusion that that is the only result of the confession he has made. Now, things went on until about the 1st of May, when, as I understand it, practically all the miners of that portion of British Columbia went out on strike. The Minister of Labour says he did not know this was going to happen. Well, again I assume that he is sincere in the

matter, but that is only another evidence of the absolute carelessness with which he views the whole subject. For, if he had looked at his own publication, the Labour Gazette, he would have found that he did have notice, or his department had; but I would be prepared to believe that his department might have notice of a great many things and he know nothing of them. At page 1299 of the Labour Gazette, 5 p.m. the issue of May, 1913, the following statement appears:-
The department was informed about the end of April that the United Mine Workers authorities had announced their intention of calling out for May 1, all men employed in and around the mines at Nanaimo, South Wellington and Jinglepot.
So, the hon. gentleman 'had notice, or his department had, that there was going to be a strike, that on the 1st of May all the men in that industrial centre were to be called out. But the same policy of masterly inactivity was followed as had been followed for six months before and not a finger was lifted to avert the strike. The thing went on, as I understand, for a month or so. Along about the 1st of July, the minister starts out on a junket-ting tour with his law partner. They left here in a private car on the 1st of July, if' the records I have are correct, and went out West to try to settle the difficulty. Now, as the Minister of Labour was going out to settle this trouble, what on earth {lid he want to take a commissioner with him for? Why was it necessary for him to appoint his law partner as royal commissioner to take him out there? They went in the same car. The country is paying the-expenses-and the Lord only knows how much it will be-to give his law partner a pleasant trip to the Pacific coast to accompany the minister who says he was going out to settle the difficulty. He went there and stayed a few days-I do not remember how many. He accomplished nothing and at once returned and made a hurried trip to England. No, it was even worse than that. He came back to Ottawa and yet did nothing. And about the 13th or 14th of August, at a time when the most serious labour conditions existed in Vancouver Island that had ever existed in Canada since Confederation, I believe, when there was almost a condition of civil war, when a thousand troops were called out, when that portion of Vancouver Island became an armed camp, at the very most important and most critical time in the history of this country from the standpoint of the Department of Labour since

it was organized, the minister starts off to England to ' study labour conditions.'


Mr. NEELY :: He took his camera.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, he went out and bought a hundred dollar camera and 'took it with him to ' study labour conditions ' in England, and asks the country to pay for it. It is no wonder he did not want to make a statement this afternoon regarding the Vancouver strike. He spent two months in England, with his camera. Men were being shot in Vancouver Island, women and children starving, the most terrible state of affairs existed that ever existed in Canada; and the Minister of Labour off on a junketting trip to England. If ever the time existed when a department of .this 'Government required to be severely castigated, it is now in view of the action of the Minister of Labour over the Vancouver strike. And after this extremely serious condition of affairs had existed for some three or four months, down to November, the minister sent his deputy, and has made no attempt since then to settle the difficulty. Not only this side of the House, but the other side as well should refuse to give one dollar of Supply to this minister until this matter is settled.
If the Minister of Labour cannot settle this matter, he is not fit to be Minister of Labour; if the Government cannot appoint a man who is fit to be Minister of Labour, they should abolish the office. He says you cannot do anything under the Industrial Disputes Act; you cannot force these parties to arbitrate. But if my hon. friend had followed, the example of his predecessor; if he had taken cognizance of the information to be found in his own office, he would have become acquainted with what former ministers of labour were able to do under conditions very similar to these. I believe the Act was first applied in 1903 to a dispute involving coal miners-which, the minister says, are the worst class of people in the world to get along with.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did not say anything of the kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, the hon. minister says that the troubles between coal miners and their employers are the most difficult in the world to settle.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did not say that
either.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As to the dispute with the coal miners in 1907, I think it was at
Crowsnest Pass, the former Minister of Labour did not have any trouble in deciding the matter. As soon as there was any indication of danger of a strike he sent his-deputy minister to the mines, and the deputy minister never left the locality until the matter was settled. He finally succeeded in inducing one of the parties to apply for a board, and immediately a commissioner was appointed in the person of Sir William Mulock. When he got there the matter was settled amicably, all through the good offices of the Minister of Labour,, and by the very method which my hon. friend the Minister of Labour has simply snapped his fingers at and treated with the utmost contempt. Again, some years afterwards, another dispute arose in the same vicinity, the eastern portion of British Columbia. Again the then Minister of Labour, the Hon. Mr. King, sent his deputy there; they pursued exactly the same course as was followed in the first instance, and again they succeeded in settling the matter, I think that in 1911 there was another dispute-I am speaking from recollection, but hon. gentlemen will correct me if I am wrong. This dispute occurred in connection with the coal mining industry of British Columbia; I think it was in progress during the time of the last election. Efforts were made by the then Minister of Labour and by his deputy to conciliate the disputants, and I think the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) went west shortly after the election. In any case, through the good offices of all parties concerned, these disputes were settled. Here you have three instances of industrial disputes-which my hon. friend ought to be thoroughly familiar with-in which the Minister of Labour, by exercising his good offices and acting as mediator between capital and labour, was enabled to settle, thereby returning the men to work and giving women and children the food and raiment to which they were entitled, and the country the benefit of the work done by these lalmurers. But by hon. friend the Minister of Labour folds his arms, takes his law partner out west on a pleasant trip, and then turns round and runs off to Europe. No wonder he calls himself minister of play. I think we are entitled to a little more information from the Minister of Labour in respect to this most important matter before a dollar of supply is granted to him. I am not going to say it is possible for the minister to settle every dispute that comes up; I am willing to admit that a very serious condition existed in British Columbia.

Just in passing I .may say that it is remarkable that we have heard not a whisper in regard to t'he matter from the member for that portion of Canada, If I remember rightly-and I was here during all of the last session of Parliament-he did not open his mouth on the subject, or if he -did I did not hear him. Of course I am *subject to correction if I am wrong. It is somewhat interesting to compare the attitude of this member with that of the former member for the same district, when labour troubles were present in his constituency. However, I suppose the hon. gentleman in question will be able to speak for himself on that point. A member has a perfect right to act or not to act, according to his discretion; not so with the Minister of Labour-it is his duty to attend to these things.


Mr. SHEPHERD:: May I suggest to the hon. member that there was no labour dispute in the constituency of Nanaimo during the last session? The labour dispute was in the constituency of Comox-Atlin.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I must accept my hon. friend's assertion, but Comox-Atlin, I understand, is in the island of Vancouver, and so is Nanaimo, and my hon. friend cannot get away from the responsibility thrown upon him by drawing any such fine line as that. The case is worse than I thought it was. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour is paid to look after these things, and he cannot hide himself behind any such curtains as that behind which the hon. member for Nanaimo seeks to hide himself. The minister must take the responsibility. During a period of six months, when a strike of fifteen hundred men was in progress in British Columbia, he did nothing. Then, after the whole mining industry became involved in the strike, he made a hurried trip to British Columbia, and afterwards, as I have said, went to Europe. If this is all the Minister of Labour is good for, if this is all his department does towards settling these strikes, then the sooner they are out of commission the better. I think the members of this House would do well to refuse the granting of one dollar of Supply until this whole industrial dispute is settled.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: As usual, my hon. friend draws upon his imagination instead of presenting facts to the House. He speaks of three strikes, and how they were settled. I am not here to find any fault with my predecessor's actions in respect of

these labour troubles; I think he did the very best he could under the circumstances. But when my hon. friend tells this House that my predecessor succeeded in settling all these disputes, he shows either that he does not know the facts or that he is very careless in handling the truth.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Were not the three strikes I refer to settled?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then what is the hon. gentleman talking about?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I will tell my hon. friend how they were settled. There was a dispute amongst the coal miners in the eastern part of British Columbia, in the course of which seven thousand men went on strike-more than double the number that went on strike in Vancouver Island. They were on strike for eight months, and my predecessor did not go there at all during that time, nor did he send his deputy. In the usual way he appointed a board under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. A few days after that we came into power, and we, not my predecessor, settled that dispute. I am not finding any fault at all with my predecessor, especially in view of the fact that he is not here to answer for himself. I am glad to admit that he did his very best, and the gentleman who was his deputy is now my deputy-a very efficient man in such matters. I am willing to admit also that my predecessor's deputy, Mr. Acland, did everything possible to have the matter -settled. However, they did not succeed, nor did they go there.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did the minister not send an official of the department there?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: He sent one of the fair wage officers.	*


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What was his name?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: J. D. McNiven-the same man whom I sent to Vancouver Island. My predecessor did not go to Crowsnest Pass neither did he send his deputy; he appointed a board. As I say,
I am finding no fault; I am simply pointing out that the minister did not feel it necessary to go or to send his deputy; he did send one of his fair wage officers. That strike continued for eight months, and it was settled a few days after we came into power. I do not say that we were able to go out there and in a few hours

settle that matter. I am quite ready to admit before the House that when we succeeded in settling that matter, about a month after we came into power, conditions had changed; both parties had become pretty well tired of it during the eight months. I do not take credit for being able to settle that strike. I did not go there. My colleague, Hon. Mr. Rogers, went there; we talked the matter over before he went and he succeeded in bringing the parties together and reaching a settlement. I do not take credit for the whole thing, conditions had changed, that is all. The matter was more easily settled a month after we came into power than it was six months before. It could not have been settled then at all. My hon. friend lives down not very far from Nova Scotia, and he must have a very poor memory if he does not remember that there was a strike in Nova Scotia that continued for twenty-two months, while my predecessor was in office. He was not able to settle it. No doubt he did all he could, employed all reasonable means to effect a settlement; but he did not effect it for twenty-twc( months. My hon. friend speaks of the difficulties in Nanaimo in 1903. The conditions at that time were very different from what they are now. It was not the same question at all, it was a matter capable of settlement and it was settled. Mr. King went there and he succeeded in settling it. My hon. friend speaks about our having notice in the last of April of the strike that commenced on the first of May. There was not very much time between the two dates. We heard on the 30th of April that there was likely to be a strike and it occurred the next day. My hon. friend says we did nothing from the 16th of September until the 1st of May. He is all out in that. I do not say that we did nothing; we were in communication during all that time not only with the miners, but with the mine owners endeavouring to bring about a settlement. To-day all the mines on Vancouver Island are being operated. There are to-day three hundred or four hundred more men working in the Cumberland mine than when the strike occurred on the 16th of September, 1912.


William F. Carroll: Chinese, are they not?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Not at all, there are
some Chinese and some Japanese. The other mines, it is only frank to say, are not being operated to the same extent as the Cumberland mine.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How many Chinese and Japanese are there ?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Four or five hundred working underground at the Cumberland out of about fifteen hundred. The Chinese receive certificates from the Governmnt of British Columbia to work in the mines. They have to pass an examination before a board of examiners, having passed which examination they get a certificate and are entitled to work underground. If they do not get the certificate they are not entitled to work underground. My hon. friend speaks about a camera costing $100. That is quite true, a camera was got. It was got before I personally knew anything about it. When I came to know about it I had it sent back, and it has not been paid for by this Government. It was got by a man acting at the time as my private secretary, without my knowledge, and when I found out about it I sent it back, so that the country is not paying a cent for the camera. I thought it was improper to buy a camera and charge it to the country.


David Bradley Neely: Did not the minister take it to the old country?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My secretary took it, but I did not know about it until I got back, and then I had it returned. That was long before the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) objected, or anybody. I was not waiting for any person to object to it.
The hon. member has referred to the fact that the commissioner appointed by this Government was my partner. I have not felt it necessary to deny all of these things, but I think I should do so now. The fact is that Mr. Price and I practised together as law partners in St. Thomas from 1897 until he was appointed mining commissioner by the Ontario Government in the year 1906. The partnership was then substantially dissolved, but it was not formally dissolved until I was placed in charge of the Labour Department. Then it was formally dissolved before Mr. Price had done an hour's work for this Government or had ever received a single cent from this Government. That is all there is about the law partnership. We dissolved our partnership in 1906, over seven years ago, and formally dissolved it when we came into power and before Mr. Price was asked to do anything for this Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the minister tell
the House why the commissioner, whom he



claims is not his partner-and I do not intend to insinuate that the minister has any pecuniary interest in Mr. Price's affiairs, when he was making out that report, chose to saw it off on the 14th day of August, just on the very eve of bloodshed on Vancouver island? Why did he not continue it dov/n a few months later? Why did he not give us, in the form of his report, the actual condition of affairs, that bloodshed was going on, that so many men were killed and so many men arrested?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Simply because nobody had been killed or injured and there had been no riot up to the time he completed his report.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Thomas Wilson Crothers: The hon. member for
Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), becomes very eloquent over what he describes as- some misconduct on the part of Mr. Price.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, no misconduct.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, in not reporting the proceedings that occurred after the finish of his report. He was appointed by the Government in June.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I said that I did not believe he had finished his report on the 14th day of August.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: You said that he
chopped off his report,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, that is what he did.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It would be more to the credit of the hon. member for Carleton if his reputation stood as high in this country as that of Mr. Samuel Price.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is not an answer.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Mr. Samuel Price published his report and it was completed. He was sent from here to Vancouver by the Government. He did not write his report there but he wrote it here after he came back.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When did the department receive it?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not remember; I think about the 14th August. I know I received it before I went to England and that I read it over. My hon. friend lashes himself into a paroxysm of eloquence because Mr. Price did not report something that occurred after he had completed his report. Mr. Price went to Vancouver, came back and completed his report on the 14th of August before these disturbances took place at all.


William F. Carroll: Did the minister say he received it before he went to England?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, I assume I got it when Mr. Price completed it. I have known Mr. Price for a good many years, and I want to say that his reputation is so high in the province of Ontario that it cannot be affected by anything the hon. member from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) may say about it. I refer to his charge now, that Mr. Price chopped it off, and to the baser charge that Mr. Price sent in a report with a false date upon it. I resent that. There is not a man in the province of Ontario who would believe Mr. Price capable of doing such a thing. I repeat my statement that it would be well for the hon. member for Carleton (Mr, Carvell) if his reputation stood as high in this country as that of Mr. Samuel Price.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will take my chances on that.


William F. Carroll: The Minister of Labour, in his defence of his attitude on the British Columbia strike, in attempting to show that his department has done as much, if not more, than the Department of Labour under the late Government, stated that' the strike was continued in the coal mines of Nova Scotia for 22 months under the late Government. The strike in Nova Scotia and the strike in British Columbia
are absolutely different. The strike in Nova Scotia was started owing to differences between two labour organizations.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Was it not a question of the recognition of the union?


William F. Carroll: No, and I am going to explain that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That was the same question in Vancouver.


William F. Carroll: I shall show that the situation was absolutely different there. We had in Nova Scotia for the last 25 years, in fact ever since coal-mining began to be developed in that province, the Provincial Workman's Association, and practically every miner in Nova Scotia, from the beginning up to 1908 or 1909, belonged to that organization, and it was the only miners' organization in Nova Scotia. I may add that it did much benefit to mine workers in Nova Scotia in very many ways. In 1908 or 1909 internal troubles started in the Provincial Workmen's Association. Let me tell the minister that during all these years the Provincial Workmen s Association was recognized by every coal operator in that province as the labour organization in Nova Scotia, and that during that time all the troubles were settled between the Provincial Workmen's Association and the mine operators. Internal dissentions occurred in 1908 or 1909, and as a result of these dissensions a number of men broke away from the Provincial Workers' Association, and introduced an organization known as the United Mine Workers of America.


George Eulas Foster: Had the Provincial Workmen's Association any affiliation with the United States organization?


William F. Carroll: None whatever. When
the trouble came in 1908, the Provincial Workmen's Association divided practically into two camps. Lawsuit after lawsuit was started in Nova Scotia between the different organizations, as to which should be the custodian and owner of the property of the organization, and the courts in every instance decided that the Provincial Workmen's Association was entitled to the property. The United Mine Workers came in there and they started a strike in 1909; they wanted to be recognized by the different coal companies as a labour organization. I may tell the minister that at that time all the companies (except perhaps the Dominion Steel Company, which did not

recognize any union) recognized and did business with the Provincial Workmen's Association. The Dominion Coal Company recognized it, but the Dominion Coal Company could not recognize two labour organizations, which were most hostile, the one towards the other, because one organization would ask for one thing and the other organization would ask for another thing, and so it would be impossible to get along with the two. I point this out to the minister to show him that there is the greatest difference in the world between the Nova Scotia case and the Vancouver case, because, as the minister has told us, there was only one mine organization in the province of British Columbia.
I am not going to argue that the late Administration did all they could do to settle the dispute in Nova Scotia; I will not give them that credit. They may have done so; but I am not in a position to state that they did. I rather think they did not, but that does not justify the Minister of Labour in the attitude he has taken on this strike question in British Columbia. I tell the Minister of Labour, that had he, and the Prime Minister, and ether members of the present Government, who were approached in June, 1912, by representatives of the United Mine Workers of America with reference to the importation of foreign labour into Canada-I will not say foreign labour; I will say immigrant labour-had they listened to the protests and representations made by that delegation as to the importation into British Columbia of strike-breakers, who were induced to come to that province by fraud, perhaps the conditions which have obtained for the last two years in British Columbia would not have been so bad.
In the case of the Nova Scotia strike there were no importations of labour to break the strike. As a matter of fact there was no strike in existence because the mines, with the exception of one, were operated by the Provincial Workmen's Association, and they got good Canadian white labour from Nova Scotia and from the other provinces of the Dominion. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of the Interior of that day saw to it that no company in Nova Scotia was allowed to attempt to induce immigrant labour to come in as strike-breakers in that province, and especially so on fraudulent representations.
The agitation and the unrest increased considerably in British Columbia when it was found that the present Minister of
Labour and the Government allowed the coal operators of British Columbia to induce, by fraudulent representations, immigrants to come in and act as strike-breakers in the mines of Vancouver, and other mines in British Columbia.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Was the Prime Minister notified?


William F. Carroll: The Prime Minister was notified. I do not think the Minister of Labour caught the point made by the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) in reference to the date at which this report of Commissioner Price was brought down, and if he did, he did not deal with it. I want to point out that there was no very severe disturbance, in the nature of riots, in British Columbia, until the 13th of August, 1913, and then the rioting-began, and began in good earnest. On that day 300 militiamen were called in, and on the day following they came to Nanaimo and Ladysmith. The Conservatives when in opposition blamed the Minister of Labour of that day for being instrumental in calling out the militia in the case of the strike in Nova Scotia, but I will not follow that example and blame the present minister for calling out the militia, because I know the members of the Government have nothing to do with that. I want to be fair in the discussion of this question, and I admit that the militia are called out under a special statute. While I think that statute should be somewhat amended, still the law is there, and if certain persons go before a magistrate or county judge and declare that the civil authorities are not able to cope with the situation, then the militia may be called out. I want to be fair in this matter. It is however a marvellous coincidence that the moment the strike became most serious in those provinces, on the 13th day of August, 1913, and the moment that the militia were introduced there to quell those riotous disturbances, the commissioner's report was brought down. Is it a coincidence ? If it is, it is rather a remarkable one. I should rather think that, from the 13th of August, when the riot broke out and matters became very serious, a commissioner on the ground to investigate the matter would have been of more value than a commissioner who had investigated the matter in the first instance, when everything was in a peaceful condition. That was the point made by my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell). While it may be

a coincidence, it is rather a remarkable one,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Rather a synchronism.	.


David Bradley Neely: Then the minister leaves the country.


William F. Carroll: Of course the minister leaves the country. There is something else for which I think blame attaches to the hon. Minister of Labour. He has the chance of his life to study the most acute labour conditions that have ever existed in this country, and yet at that very time he goes to the Old Country to study labour conditions. Why did he not stay in British Columbia, where there was a beautiful field for study ? There was an open book. There was the most acute labour situation which has ever existed in this country, while there was peace in England at the time. Notwithstanding that fact, the Minister of Labour told this country that British Columbia did not afford him at that time a good field for the study of labour conditions. I fear that the Minister of Labour did not do all that he should have done in reference to this matter.
The labour people are perhaps the most independent, from a political standpoint, of any people in this Dominion. A great many of them are Socialists; and I have not a word to say against the Socialists. Some of their creeds are all right. The leaders of these organizations are nonpartisan in politics. They give credit where credit is due, and they criticise adversely where they think adverse criticism is necessary.
On November 9, 1913, Mr. J. C. Watters, who is neither a Liberal nor a Conservative -and my hon. friend will probaly agree with me in that-who is president of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, issued a statement to the press that the Minister of Labour was unwilling to carry out the promise which he had previously made to appoint a board to assist in the adjustment of the Nanaimo dispute. There must have been something behind that statement. That statement has not been contradicted up to the present time, either in the public press or in this House. That statement, coming from a source independent from a political standpoint, has considerable weight in my mind.
On December 23, the executive of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress issued a circular letter complaining that the Minister of Labour had refused to

appoint a board of conciliation when asked to do so by members of the congress. I am not sure that the members of the congress were in a position to ask for that board. I am not sufficiently well acquainted with the facts, but I am prepared to say that they could have placed themselves in that position and the probabilities are that they did so, because no doubt some of them belonged to the union in British Columbia. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour knows, better than I do, what action would be necessary in order to ask for a board of conciliation. The Minister of Labour may say that at that particular time the members of that congress had not placed themselves in a position to ask for a board of conciliation. Under the circumstances, that is no defence. If they were not in a position, the Minister of Labour the custodian of the labour interests of this country, should have shown them how to place themselves in such a position.
During one of the labour troubles, previous to the strike of 1909 in the province of Nova Scotia, the labour organization there, the Provincial Workmens' Association, had some trouble with the operators. The leader of that organization undertook to carry out the procedure necessary in order to ask for a board of conciliation. He made some technical mistake, some blunder in procedure; but instead of refusing to grant the board of conciliation, the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Mackenzie King, wrote him a letter explaining how he could put himself in a position, showing him where he had made a mistake in procedure, showing him where he had fallen short in calling a properly constituted meeting of the workmen around the mine in order to ask for this board of conciliation. In a week the labour organization of Nova Scotia placed themselves in that position and the board of conciliation was granted. As a result that labour trouble was averted.
My hon. friend the Minister of Labour has said that he never met two classes of people, the miners of British Columbia who were on strike and the operators, who were more difficult to make an arrangement with. I think that is stating fairly what he said.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 
Thomas Wilson Crothers: Not on the island.


William F. Carroll: Well, it was in 1907.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No.


William F. Carroll: 1910 is right.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: But that was at Crows-nest, not on the Island.


William F. Carroll: 

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 46, respecting the Erie, London and Tillsonburg Railway Company.-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 47, respecting the Lake Erie and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Fisher.
Bill No. 48, to incorporate the Peace River Tramway and Navigation Company.-Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 49, respecting the Saskatchewan Central Railway Company.-Mr. McCraney.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Department of Labour-Conciliation and Labour Act, including publication, printing, binding and distribution of the Labour Gazette and allowance to correspondents, and for clerical assistance in preparing tables of statistics, $30,300.
William F. Carroll: When the House rose for dinner, I was attempting, to show the different methods pursued by the late Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) in the settlement of labour troubles. I mentioned a strike which occurred in British Columbia in 1910. I was pointing out that
in this strike, which had been settled, the same people were involved as in the present strike. The Minister of Labour had said that he had never met more headstrong people, both the operators and employees, than those concerned in the present strike.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did not use that
language at all.


William F. Carroll: The Minister of Labour made a very much stronger statement than that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Better put it as I put it, then.


David Bradley Neely: We have not * Hansard '
here.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: You have not that in ' Hansard.'	_


William F. Carroll: If I had 'Hansard' I
could prove that the minister used far stronger language than I have attributed to him. He said it was impossible to bring these parties together. What does that mean? Has he ever before, during his occupancy of his present position found labour organizations and employees whom he found it impossible to bring together? Therefore, using his own language they must have been very headstrong and very arbitrary.
Now, I want to refer to another strike in the very district in which this strike is taking place. In 1905, there was a strike at Nanaimo, and the principle which is involved in the present strike was involved there, namely, the refusal on the part of the companies to recognize American labour organizations. At that time Mr. Mackenzie King was sent to Nanaimo. He made a settlement, and the employees and ithe operators came to a satisfactory agreement which existed up to May, 1913. The people then were as headstrong and as arbitrary as to-day; still, it was not impossible for the late Minister of Labour-who, I believe, at the time of which I speak was deputy minister-to settle the dispute. Again, in 1903, there was a dispute in which both the railway and mine operators in British Columbia were involved, and the Government of that day appointed a commission consisting of Chief Justice Hunter, Mr. G. F. Lowe, and Mr. Mackenzie King. These gentlemen went fully into the matter and brought the difficulty to a speedy settlement. The gentleman whom the present Minister of Labour appointed as a commissioner to look into the existing labour troubles in British Columbia recognized in his report

the valuable assistance that Mr. Mackenzie King gave to miners and operators alike in the settlement of their difficulties. This commissioner, at page 8 of his report, referring to the history of labour troubles in the West, said:
Though it has often been a subject of remark that the coal mining industry is more subject than others to labour disputes, Vancouver Island for a considerable time past has been comparatively free from such troubles.
Now, while speaking of the strike in Nova Scotia which my hon. friend the Minister of Labour lengthened out into twenty-two months-which is only an extravagance of between six and eight months-I want to point out that the former Minister of Labour intervened before the strike came on and that a board of conciliation was appointed. Mr. Adam Shortt was chairman of that board. When the miners of Cape Breton were asked to name a representative on that board, they named Mr. McDougall, who was then the president of the United Mine Workers local in the county of Cape Breton. Now, ordinarily, under the act, a Government would not have appointed a person who was directly interested in the strike. But notwithstanding that, Mr. Mackenzie King, who was Minister of Labour, showed to some extent his sympathy with the labouring people of this country by allowing this appointment to go, so that the President of the United Mine Workers' local was a member of this board. And in the recommendation which they brought down they refused to recommend that the United Mine Workers of America should be recognized as a labour organization by the Dominion Coal Company, because that company was already recognizing and doing business with a local organization.	[DOT]
The Minister of Labour says that he had no way by which to intervene further than he did in this British Columbia dispute. He said that neither the operators nor the employees asked for a board of conciliation. I would like to point out, that while that is true, there is another Act on the statute book of this country which would fairly give to the Minister of Labour the right to do more than he did in connection with this strike. I refer to chapter 96 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, an Act respecting Conciliation and Labour. This Act has reference to coal miners as well as other trades. Section 11 provides:
If it appears to the minister that in any district or trade adequate means do not exist for having disputes submitted to a conciliation

board for the district or trade, he may appoint any person or persons to inquire into the conditions of the district or trade, and to confer with the employers and employed, and, if he thinks fit, with any local authority or body, as to the expediency of establishing a conciliation board for such district or trade.
The Minister of Labour did not do th it. He appointed a commissioner, but that commissioner did not mention in his report the expediency of establishing a conciliation board. I say that is one way in which the Minister of Labour could have intervened in this matter. Then section 6 of this Act seems to have some bearing on this matter:
Where a dispute 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, namely:
(a)	Inquire into the causes and circumstances Of the dispute;
(b)	Take such steps as to him seem expedient, for the purpose of enabling the parties to the dispute to meet together, by themselves or their representatives, under the presidency of a chairman mutually agreed upon or nominated by him, or by some other person or body, with a view to the amicable settlement of tlie dispute;
Suppose that under one or both of these sections the Minister of Labour could have done nothing, I wish to point out that during the time the late Administration was in power in this country the Minister of Labour and his friends in this House, then in Opposition, cried out day after day for amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act which would make it a more workable piece of legislation. I am now going to put the matter plainly before the Minister of Labour. This strike still exists in the mining district of the province of British Columbia. Let him introduce as speedily as possible an amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act which will enable his department to appoint a conciliation board, where the disputants may fail or neglect to do so; and let that board investigate the matter and recommend some settlement or arrangement between the parties. Let him include in that amendment a penalty to be attached to the party who refused to be bound by that award. The minister has told this House that under present legislation, he cannot intervene in this way. That strike is still on in British Columbia, and let me tell my hon. friend that I think he will get support for legislation of that kind from every hon. gentleman in this House, if in the estimation of the House it will settle the unfortunate labour troubles that have

existed and still exist in the mining regions of British Columbia. If the minister is sincere in this matter, he will do that. This strike is one of the most unfortunate things that has ever occurred in this country. There has been bloodshed; there has practically been murder. A young boy who pleaded guilty on the understanding that he would be acquitted or pardoned or released under parole if he did so, subsequently died in jail. I say again if the minister ^is sincere he will introduce this legislation and amend the Act under which he says there is no provision made for such a case as this.
The minister has also told us that this matter first came to his attention through press despatches which he noticed on September 18, 1912. But months before that date it was within the knowledge of almost every person in this country who read the newspapers that a strike was threatened in the coal mining districts of Vancouver Island. I want to read part of an editorial with reference to this strike which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of Tuesday or Wednesday, I think, of this week. It says;
For nearly two years, since May, 1912, the coal miners of Vancouver Island have been fighting for the right to organize on similar lines to their comrades in Britain. A very large proportion of them are old countrymen; sons, brothers, relatives and friends of the men who make such a strong showing in the British Parliament. To smash their organization on Vancouver Island, the monopoly interests in control of the coal lands, dismissed the men's organizers and finally locked out every union man in the Nanaimo district.
Those organizers were dismissed two or three months previous to the day which the hon. minister mentions as being the first time this matter came to his notice, and that this is what led up to the strike. They were dismissed simply and solely because they were endeavouring to better the conditions of labouring men in the mines of Vancouver Island, and I say that those conditions were such as to make men feel keenly the position taken against them by the coal mine operators of that country. The article goes on:
To Sir Richard McBride they appealed in vain for a commission of inquiry. A miners' delegate was dismissed from the Maclcenzie-Mann mines for reporting unsafe conditions, although provincial mine inspectors subsequently verified the report. Asiatic labour was imported and is now employed in the mines, doing the work of skilled miners. Protests to Premier McBride were merely ignored or evaded, although Commissioner Price, appointed by Hon. Mr. Crothers, verified the fact in his report, as the following excerpt will show:
. .the number of Orientals employed underground in the mines of the Canadian collieries. (Mackenzie-Mann) has increased very materially since last September, not only relatively but absolutely, the total number of Orientals employed in May, 1913, being 432 out of a total of 690, as against 315 out of a total of 766 in 1912, and probably among surface men the increase has been proportionately greater. ***** *
In addition to Oriental labour, coloured men and mongrel breeds were imported, to be used as serfs, to smash the solidarity of the white miners. The cheap imported labour included a lawless element of thugs and gunmen. On the authority of a responsible minister of religion in Nanaimo, the imported blacklegs provoked a ,riot by insulting conduct to the miners and their womenfolk. But the riot provided the loolced-for excuse for the McBride Government to send militia to Nanaimo.
As I explained this afternoon, I cannot altogether agree with that last assertion. (Reading):
While the locked-out, or striking miners were holding a peaceful meeting to consider an offer to return to work, their hall was surrounded by militia with machine guns. They were ordered to file out of the meeting and were subsequently placed under arrest. Many were held without trial for several weeks, and finally sentenced on a trumped-up charge:	to disfranchise them from voting at the next elections, it is alleged-
Then there is some reference to a member of the House, which I am not going to read. (Reading);
Some of the men, decent English, Welsh and Scottish coal-miners were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment; arousing strong protests from pulpits, press, and all classes of Canadian citizens in the west. One miner's boy innocent of any offence, died in prison a few days ago. He had been advised that if he pleaded guilty he would be let off with a nominal sentence. He took the advice but instead of an acquittal he received a heavy sentence and died in jail. The editor of the Vancouver World, Mr. B. E*. Taylor, refers to the miner boy's death as 'blood that calls from the ground.'
And yet the Minister of Labour tells us that August 14, 1913, the day after those riots occurred, was an opportune time for his commissioner, Mr. Price, to make his report. I maintain that this report, if correct, discloses a shameful condition of affairs-and it is taken from the Ottawa Citizen, a paper which has not much sympathy with the Opposition in this House or the political creed of the party to which I myself belong. Canadian militiamen shooting down Canadian workmen who are endeavouring by peaceful methods to better their positions by proper labour organization-it means that and nothing more. Whilst both the Murray Administration in Nova Scotia and the Laurier

Administration were charged, not only in -this House by quasi-labour members, but on every public platform where a coal miner could be found in the province of 'Nova Scotia, with having been guilty of bringing out the militia to quell the strikers during the Nova Scotia strike. I am fair enough, and I have been fair enough, to say I am not charging the Department of Labour or the Militia Department-and no man knowing the Militia Act or anything about it would do so if he were sincere-with being instrumental in calling out the militia of this country in aid of the civil power; but very many people in Nova Scotia have been led to believe that. In this connection I want to say that the way in which the militia is called out in aid of the civil power in this country at the present time is, to my way of thinking, absolutely wrong. The operators, of course, always ask for the militia to be called out and how is it done? It is done by an ex parte application to either two justices of the peace, two stipendiary magistrates, or a judge of the County Court. Affidavits are read from friends of the mine operators; no person appears for :the miner, and very often those affidavits are exaggerated or absolutely false. Yet the miner is not represented before the judge who, upon an ex parte statement of the case, calls out the militia to quell miners or other labourers, when there is absolutely no necessity for such a course. If the facts had been investigated, if the miners of British Columbia had been given a chance to be heard before the tribunal "that ordered out the militia, they could have shown that it was the gunmen, the thugs, the Oriental labour, the coloured labour, brought into this country by the operators in British Columbia, who started these riots and in return were set on by the coal miners of British Columbia. Had there been a proper inquiry into the facts before the militia were called out the probabilities are that the scenes that have disgraced this country-the militia of Canada shooting' down their fellow Canadians who were engaged in an effort to better their own positions-would not have been witnessed.


Francis Henry Shepherd: Does the hon. member think that it was not necessary to call out the militia in the Nanaimo strike after the riot at Extension of August 14?


William F. Carroll: I am not giving an opinion on that. I am giving the opinion that if it had not been for the introduction of the gunmen, thugs, coloured labour and Orien-

tal labour brought to that country by the operators, the calling out of the militia would never have been necessary, and if the Militia Act had provided for the appearance, by solicitor or otherwise, before the tribunal that called out that militia, of the miners, and had they been allowed to state their case, the militia would never have been called out. Of course, the hon. gentleman was on the ground: what does he think about it?


Francis Henry Shepherd: I will tell you presently.


William F. Carroll: I really think it is the duty of the Minister of Labour to introduce an amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act providing that his department may appoint a board of conciliation where the operators and employees do not ask for one, where a strike is called on, and providing that the recommendations of a board of conciliation may be enforced by penalty. If he does not propose such legislation during the present session of Parliament, he is not doing justice either to himself, to his department, to the labouring people or to the corporations or operators of this country. I do not think, as a matter of fact, that the Minister of Labour takes his work as Minister of Labour seriously. He has told us that he is minister of play. I do not envy the good times that the Minister of Labour gets out of being minister of play. I would surely expect that the Minister of Labour would do a little work as well as play. There is a time for work and a time for play. I say he does not take the duties of his office seriously. We had a visit from the Minister of Labour to the province of Nova Scotia last summer. I was pleased to meet him there. Some days before his appearance in the county of Cape Breton a large advertisement appeared in one of our local papers, the Glace Bay Gazette, telling the people that the Minister of Labour was going to hold a labour demonstration in King's theatre in the town of Glace Bay, and invited all to go there. Arrangements were made for special trains to Glace Bay from all the surrounding towns. We expected to get some wonderful pronouncements from the minister on that occasion. His visit was talked of all through the mining centres. The meeting was not supposed to be in any sense a political gathering. This was advertised in the Glace Bay Gazette. On the morning of the day when the minister was supposed to address this wonderful meeting a notice appeared in the Sydney Post, a

newspaper haying a circulation in some parts of Glace Bay, but not having anything like so large a circultion there as the newspaper that heralded Ills coming. The notice in the Post advised that, owing to bad roads in that part of the country, the Minister of Labour was unable to meet his friends in King's theatre. Of course, there are not very many in this House who understand our local conditions there. When I tell you-and remember that this notice did not come from the Minister of Labour or from the agent whom the Minister of Labour had advertising his meeting in Glace Bay-that the town of Glace Bay has connections by tramway every hour of the day from seven o'clock in the morning till twelve o'clock at night with the city of Sydney, where the Minister of Labour then was, you will be surprised at the excuse the Minister of Labour gave for not being able to be at Glace Bay. bad roads. Now, Sir, what happened? Hundreds of people gathered at King's theatre that night to hear the minister speak. People of both political parties were there. They were glad he was coming to their midst. But what was their surprise when eight o'clock, half-past eight, nine o'clock came, and no Minister of Labour appeared. Finally a chap came along "with a copy of the Sydney Post and said:	' The bad roads have prevented the
minister from coming to the meeting; and from that day to this the Minister of Labour has given no excuse and no apology to the miners and workers of Glace Bay for his non-appearance at that meeting.
I give this as an illustration, Mr. Chairman, to show that the Minister of Labour was not serious in his task. Had he been serious, he would have considered before advertising this demonstration, and if he had been serious, after having advertised it, he would not have fooled the poor people of Glace Bay by getting them to congregate there and then not putting in an appearance. He has dealt in the same manner with this labour situation in British Columbia. He dealt with it in a jovial, good-natured way. He has not shown that he has any strength behind him; he has not shown that he has any backbone. When the serious part of the labour strike in British Columbia came on, when the riots and shooting began, the Minister of Labour went away to England to study the labour conditions there. Probably he thought he might have better roads than he had found on the island of Cape Breton. He has not handled
this question well from start to finish. If he had I believe he would have achieved the very same success that Mr. Mackenzie King achieved during the eight years between 1900 and 1908. The situation is a serious one. It is due not only to the miners of British olumbia but to all wage earners that the Minister of Labour shall exhibit a strong arm in this matter. If there is no provision made in the law under which he can act, let him bring down some of the amendments that he and his party preached about before 1911, let him amend the Act so as to make it applicable to all cases that may arise, let him bring those amendments down this session, and if the minister brings them down this session, he will have the satisfaction, small though it is, I admit, of knowing that I, at least, will come to the conclusion that he is giving the affairs of his department some serious consideration.


Francis Henry Shepherd: Mr. Chairman, representing as I do, a constituency on the Island of Vancouver, I wish to say a few words in regard to this matter.
I will commence by referring to the charge of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), that I have been guilty of apathy during the last year in that I have not taken any interest or part in the trouble on Vancouver Island. I assure the hon. gentleman that during last session there was no disturbance such as he would lead the House to believe existed at that time in my constituency. At one mine, belonging to Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann, in my constituency, the men had been on strike since September 16, 1912. The men employed in the mine at Nanaimo had been on strike from May 1, and, of course, the House adjourned on June 6, 1913. But there was no disturbance in my constituency such as the hon. gentleman would indicate to this committee. We have been led to believe, and I think rightly so, that the main object of this trouble is to secure the recognition of the United Mine Workers of Anjerica. But this was not the initial cause. I wish particularly to refer to this feature of the matter because it bears upon a report that appeared in the Citizen a few days ago reflecting very seriously upon the Minister of Mines of British Columbia for not ordering an investigation to be made in reference to the discrimination of the Gas Committee who examined the mine at Extension. I wish briefly to put forward the position of the Minister of Mines in that regard. The Mines Regula-


William F. Carroll: Is it true that in British Columbia to-day, in only two mines are Orientals employed?


Francis Henry Shepherd: Yes, but both belong to the one company; I mean, of course, underground. There are Orientals employed at Nanaimo - above ground, not under ground.
With reference to the convention I have spoken of, and to show that the discrimination was the question at issue at that particular time, I will read a letter that was sent to the hon. Minister of Mines at Ottawa, dated Nanaimo, October 3, 1912. This letter will show clearly that the reason for the strike was really the question of discrimination.
Nanaimo, B.C., October 3, 1912. Hon. T. W. Crothers,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-We, the representatives of district number 28, United Mine Workers of America in convention assembled, beg leave to submit to you our reply to your request for a statement of our position re the present

difficulty between the Cumberland Coal Company (Dunsmuir), Limited, and their employees. Sunday, the 15th of September, 1912, the employees of said company held a mass meeting and elected at that meeting to take a holiday as a protest against the action of the management of the company in discriminating against two of its employees. There were no arrangements other than that made at the meeting. At the session of the local union, United Mine Workers of America, held in the evening, the action of the mass meeting was endorsed and a committee appointed to confer with the management; that committee went to the officers of the company on Monday, September 16, accompanied by District President Poster, when the management positively refused to meet the committee; on Tuesday, September 17, the management posted notices ordering all men to take their tools out of the mines, also stating that all the late employees of the company would be paid off just as soon as the payroll could be made out. Later, the men held another mass meeting and sent another committee to meet the management. Mr. Clinton, whom they met in the office and whom they had been informed would represent the management, told them he had no authority to do business with them. On the 23rd of September another committee went to the office and met Superintendent Lockhart and discussed the situation with him. There was no offer made by the committee of conditions under which the men would be willing to return to work, nor did Mr. Lockhart make any proposition that the men should return to work or any statement that the company had changed its position or withdrew the notices they had posted or modified them In any particular. Nor as yet have they made any statement to accommodate or posted any notice that they have changed their attitude that simply amounted to a wholesale discharge of all these men. On the 18th day of September, Ladysmith mine workers decided to stop work until the Cumberland mines resumed, and they also were ordered to take their tools.
Yours respectfully,
Robert Poster, President.
John McAllister, Secretary.
You will see, therefore, that the strike in the Extension mine was simply a sympathetic strike, it being one of the mines operated by the Canadian Collieries Company. Passing on to the commencement of the trouble on August 12 the conditions in the strike zone seemed as if the men were becoming very uneasy. There was an undercurrent of ill feeling which led to the supposition that something ill was foreboding. The men assembled at No. 1 shaft in Nanaimo to the number of about 1,000. I was phoned up to ask if I could use my good offices in an endeavour to effect some solution between the company and the men, and I told them I would be willing to do whatever I possibly could in the matter.
I went down in an automobile and went through the mob; and, as the press reports stated, they threw brickbats at me, but fortunately none of them hit me. 
However, this did not deter me from doing what I thought was right. I spoke to them and told them that I had come down in order to endeavour to effect a settlement between them and the companies so that this trouble might end peacefully. I made a proposition to them. I could see, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, that the 'ricks were blazing and the mob was mad.' I pleaded for a twenty-four hour armistice, so that they could repair to a hall and there formulate their demands; and I would endeavour, to' the best of my ability, to secure a promise on behalf of the company that they would meet them, say at ten o'clock in the morning. My good intentions were evidently misinterpreted. One of the men cried out, 'You want an armistice to get the militia here.' However good a man's intentions may be, they are very often misinterpreted. They turned my- proposition down and asked me if I would get the manager to come and speak to them. I got the manager to come and speak to them, and he made a very fair proposition. He said: 'If seven of you men who were working for me on the 30th of April will come to my room to-morrow morning, I will make arrangements with you so satisfactory that I think you will return to work.' They appointed seven men; these men went down to the company's office, but accompanying them was Mr. Farrington, strike manager of the United Mine Workers of America. Mr. Stockett, manager of the mine, refused to meet Mr. Farrington, and consequently the latter's presence rendered the whole proposition abortive.
We come now to the 13th of August. A boy rode into Nanaimo on a foam-flecked horse, rode to the office of the Free Press and stated that six men had been killed by the non-strikers. The result was that a mob a thousand strong, armed 9 p.m. with clubs, guns or rifles, or anything they could command, went out to Extension. At the time the riot took place, an ineipent riot took place at Nanaimo, a serious one at Wellington, and a very serious one at Ladysmith, a mining town about fourteen miles from Extension and really the mining town of Extension mine. The most serious riot, as far as injury to the person was concerned, occurred at Ladysmith, where a man by the name of McKinnon had his arm blown off by a stick of dynamite being thrown into his building.
With regard to the hon. member's statement about bloodshed, there was abso-

lutely no bloodshed in the sense he tried to convey to the House, with the exception of this injury to McKinnon. One man, who was simply an onlooker, received a bullet wound; he should not have been there, and he had his curiosity satisfied.
I have no wish to enter into the deplorable details of what happened at the Extension grounds. I visited them two days afterwards and saw the desolation that had been effected by this mob. There is one thing so abhorrent that I can not refrain from mentioning it: that is, the driving of forty innocent women and children from the Extension mine into the woods. These women and children were in the woods without shelter and without food for from thirty-six to forty-eight hours until they were rescued by the militia. This is an act which would bring the blush of shame to the cheek of an Apache Indian, and is not trades unionism in any shape or form.
With regard to the militia, do you not think, Sir, that under such conditions the sending of the militia was well advised ? The ricks were blazing and the mob was mad! Do you not think that it was wise, even to save these men from themselves, to say nothing of saving the lives and property of non-combatants in this trouble?


William F. Carroll: Was it after the committal of the offences mentioned by the hon. member that the militia came ?


Francis Henry Shepherd: Yes.


William F. Carroll: The first riots were on the 13th.


Francis Henry Shepherd: They commenced on the 13th.


William F. Carroll: And the militia appeared on the 14th.


Francis Henry Shepherd: At daybreak on the
15th.	'


William F. Carroll: All those riots happened in a day.


Francis Henry Shepherd: It was very unfortunate that the militia were not there twenty-four hours sooner. They were not called until after the damage was done. After the advent of the militia, further damage to property ceased. The militia were called out in the usual way, upon the application of two or three justices of the peace. I want to pay the highest tribute to Lieut.-Col. Hall commanding the militia force in Nanaimo. He has probably handled one of the most serious labour disturbances
that have occurred, as one hon. member stated, since Confederation.


William F. Carroll: Does the hon. member
agree with the editorial of the Citizen which states that the miners were assembled in a hall discussing the advisability of a peaceful settlement, when the militia surrounded the hall and, with drawn bayonets, ordered them out? Is that story correct and does my hon. friend agree then that the militia acted as the militia should act?


Francis Henry Shepherd: This is my version of the affair, and I think that my version is the correct one. It was known to the provincial police that from 150 to 200 of the active participants in the riot were in the-hall. It was necessary, in the administration of law and justice, that these men be placed under arrest, because they had been guilty of burning homes; they had been guilty of burning property, of driving-women and children into the woods. A state of anarchy existed. It was not trades unionism. I am perfectly safe in stating that It was at the request of the provincial constabulary that Lieut.-Col. Hall surrounded that hall in order that he might make his arrests without any further trouble and; in order that the men might not escape. The meeting to which my hon. friend has referred was a meeting of the United Mine-Workers of America in reference to the-settlement of the trouble in one mine, the-Jinglepot, owned by the Nanaimo and Vancouver Mining Company. Lieut.-Col. Hall entered the hall and stated that the men. were under arrest. He said to them: ' I require you to walk out in single file to the court house, and any one attempting to run away will be bayoneted or shot.' It is no good denying the truth. It is the truth we want. The operation continued until two or three o'clock in the morning. The result was that probably 150 men were placed under arrest, and. many of these men, whether the Colonel's action was right or wrong, whether he was justified or not, are serving terms in. jail for breaking the law. Now, I desire to-offer here the highest tribute -to Colonel Hall for the manner in which he handled' this most difficult state of affairs, without firing a single shot or shedding a drop of blood, he handled probably the worst labour dispute that ever occurred in the-history of the Dominion of Canada. Now, Sir, as I have said, this dispute arose-through the action of the United Mine-Workers of America. But I do believe that many of these men, the greater part of

them, were misled, that it was in a moment of excitement that they entered into this, and that many of them now are sorry. I believe, and I take this opportunity of expressing the belief, that no good can come of bringing this matter up for further discussion here in all its harrowing details.
I believe that society has to a great extent been satisfied, and I think it would be conducive to harmony and it would hasten industrial peace and the return of prosperity to our stricken town and district if the Minister of Justice could see his way [DOT]clear to approach His Royal Highness the Governor General to ask for clemency at least in those cases, in which I feel sure the men have been misguided.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I desire to say just a word. I did not pretend this afternoon to give to the House the cause of the strike, because I did not know much about it.
Some'hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Some hon. members say, 'hear, hear.' I quite agree with them.
I was trying to show the Minister of Labour that he had not done anything to prevent it, and I ventured the opinion that my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Shepherd) had not done very much to prevent it. If any confirmation were needed for that statement, we have it in the confession the hon. *gentleman has made here this evening. I do not know what the hon. member for Nanaimo was doing on that fateful 13th of . August, but he has not told this House that he ever even spoke to the Minister of Labour, to say nothing of writing to him, to try to use his good offices and to use the power of his department to prevent this condition of affairs.


Francis Henry Shepherd: I did not think it
necessary to go into that matter. But I may tell the hon. gentleman that I was in daily communication with the Minister of Labour from the 1st of May until the 6th of June before this House adjourned.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then, the hon. gentleman took mighty good care not to say anything to the public. So far as his constituency is concerned, so far as the people of Canada are concerned, he was as dumb as an oyster; he sat here from the 1st of May until the 6th of June, and never a word was said by him; and he has been in this House since the 15th of January and has been as mute as he was last spring. The same with the Minister of Labour. They are linked together, and they are both in-

competents so far as dealing with this matter is concerned. I am sorry to couple the hon. gentleman with the Minister of Labour, but as he wishes to take that position, I can only allow him to have his own way. I congratulate the hon. member on his confession to his constituents of his masterly inactivity in regard to bringing to a conclusion this unfortunate affair. The hon. gentleman says that he was in daily correspondence with the Minister. But both of them took precious good care not to give anything to the public as to what they did-and certainly they did not accomplish very much. I give the hon. gentleman credit for admitting that he would like to have settled this affair if he could. I am sorry I cannot throw the same bouquet at the minister, because I do not think he cares two straws whether it is settled or not. It seems to me he regards it all as a huge joke. The fact is, he is the ' Minister of Play.' But I wish to direct the attention of the hon. member for Nanaimo to this branch of the case: Can lie tell this House and this country of a solitary movement made by the Department of the Minister of Labour from the 17th of September, 1912, until 29th July, 1913, to obviate or alleviate the condition of affairs existing in his town?


Mr. BUCHANAN:: He sent a telegram.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, he sent a telegram telling these members what the law was. I think the fact that they proclaimed a holiday rather than a strike is pretty good evidence that they knew the law without his telling them. Then, as I have said, he appointed his friend to go out and make a report. A lot of information there is in that report. If there is anything in it at all it is confirmation of the fact that the mine owners absolutely refused to allow one of these men to go back to work. He was prevented from getting employment not only in one mine but in the other mines, because he had made a true report as to the conditions in one of them in relation to gas. I want to take the hon. member for Nanaimo back to the matter we were discussing this afternoon, back to the incompetence of the Department ol Labour. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he feels that the department did what it ought to have done or what any live Department of Labour should have done, in order to alleviate the condition of affairs which we have been dealing with this afternoon. I do not blame the hon. gentleman for not going into the harrow-

ing details of this affair. That was not necessary; we have read all that in the newspapers, and do not wish to go into it. If conditions were bad, it was the duty of the minister to make them right. The hon. gentleman has not said a word to defend the minister, and I should like to hear any member who would defend him. 1 should like to find any newspapers that had tried to defend him. I should like to know which of his colleagues will attempt to defend him. The hon. member for Nanaimo will not do so; the minister himself will not attempt it. I think it is up to the minister to give us the true reason why he has allowed this thing to diddle-daddle along the way it has done, why he has maintained a condition of inactivity in the deplorable condition of affairs that we have been told about this afternoon.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I represent a constituency in which there are a large number of coal miners. I know them intimately. And let me say that a feeling has grown up that under the administration of the present Minister of Labour the Department's affairs are not being dealt with seriously. There is a feeling also that the employers have the ear of the minister more than the employees have. I can say for the late Minister of Labour, that, so far as the miners of my constituency are concerned they felt that the Hon. Mackenzie King was anxious to bring about better relations between capital and labour. This does not exist at the present time, but it is felt that the minister now in charge of the department is not anxious to bring about better relations between capital and labour. This very strike in Vancouver Island is an instance of it. It was established here today that no serious efforts, no prolonged efforts, were made by the minister to settle this trouble. I wonder if this has anything to do with the parties who are in control of some of the mines in Vancouver Island. These parties are very intimately in touch with this Government. They have been able to get large subsidies for some of their railroads. Is it possible that they are so much in touch with this Government that they, have the ear of the Government in regard to labour disputes in industries in which they are concerned? There is a feeling of this kind among the people of this country. As to the commissioner sent out to investigate, Mr. Samuel Price, of St. Thomas, I have nothing to 35
say against him personally except that I do not believe he was a man properly qualified to settle this particular trouble. It is true that Mr. Price had something to do with mining in New Ontario, but not in so far as it concerned labour and conditions of labour. There are men in this country who have made a study of the matter; there are men in this country wno are familiar with mining conditions and who would probably have been accepted by employers and employees as absolutely fair men. If such a man had been sent to Vancouver Island to look into this matter a solution of the problem would have been brought about. I have before me a letter addressed to the Minister of Labour by Mr. Frank Farrington, who was in charge of the strike, and who represented and directed the forces of the labour unions on Vancouver Island. In this letter, written on December 15, 1913, he makes an assertion which goes to show that Mr. Price did not display evidences of fairness in his efforts to get at the bottom of the trouble on Vancouver Island.
I believe it is only fair to the labouring men of this country that the views of their representatives should be placed before Parliament and before the country. Here is what Mr. Farrington has to say about Mr. Price's report:
To those who are familiar with conditions on the island it is clear that the Royal Commissioner has predicated his report upon the unsupported statements of the mine owners and their satellites; and, on the other hand, denied the union men the opportunity of appearing: before him in defence of their position or to refute the untrue statements of these hostile agents. In view of my prominent connection with this trouble I should be expected to have much valuable matter to contribute to the investigation, and I have, yet I was given no opportunity to present it to the commissioner. In fact, I never met him but once, and then only informally, during my brief conference with you in Vancouver city the first week in July. I do not mention this because I feel slighted, but because it shows the commissioner was not anxious to have facts. Furthermore, I have made careful inquiry of the district and local officers connected with the strike and many individuals of influence and activity among the strikers, all of whom unite in declaring they did not have the privilege of appearing before the commissioner, and none of whom were even aware of his visit to the island; which further indicates his desire to escape rather than to find the truth.
Couple his transgression in this respect with his transparent disposition to favour the mine -owners and his apparent willingness to accept and include in his report everything, no matter how flimsy, that reflects discredit upon



the United Mine Workers of America, and you must agree the Royal Commissioner's report is destitute of justice to the striking miners.
That is the view expressed by the gentleman who directed the miners in the strike on Vancouver Island; that is the charge he makes against the commissioner who made the report with which we are dealing to-night. The views of this gentleman should be received and considered by the members of this House. I know that the mine workers' officials are anxious to promote the interests of the miners; they feel that they are in just as responsible a position and that they are just as worthy of consideration in a case of this kind as the men who direct and are in control of the mines. I think that if the Minister of Labour would treat both elements in the same way, and do his utmost to bring about better relations between the employers and the employees, he would be doing something which would make the administration of his department worth while. This gentleman refers to the matter of wages as connected with the commissioner's report. He says:
A number of Nanaimo miners, as well as the mayor, testified before the Labour Commission referred to in. the quotation. They told of low wages, blacklists, discrimination, disobedience of laws, robbery and other injustices suffered by the men, but their testimony failed to supply the commissioner's wants. What was needed was something to indicate the men were earning substantial wages, so the testimony of the men was ignored and that of the mayor was incorporated in the commissioner's report. The fact that the mayor had never worked in the mines a single day in all his life and was not in a position to furnish first hand, reliable information as to the conditions under which the men worked or the wages they earned does not seem to have made any difference. The mayor had something that had a tendency to verify the managers' assertions that the men were receiving good wages, and that was sufficient to make his testimony worthy of mention in the report.
That is a rather serious assertion: that every statement made to oppose the contention of the mine owners was given prominence in the report, and that the testimony of the miners was not given the same prominence-in fact, was not treated at all. I believe there is much to be said in criticism of Mr. Price's report, of the methods he adopted in obtaining the information upon which he based that report, and, in fact, of his appointment. Mr. Price knows no more about mining conditions in western Canada than I do about fruit conditions in eastern Canada; yet he was sent to western Canada to investigate these con-

ditions-the most serious industrial conditions that have ever arisen in this country-and he made a report which is open to this criticism on the part of the men he was supposed to be anxious to conciliate; whom he was supposed to be endeavouring to establish on better relations with their employers.
The minister took occasion to-day to boast of one settlement which was effected by this Government. If that is all he had to boast of so far as the administration of his department since he took charge of it is concerned it does not say very much for that administration. I want to say that the Alberta strike of 1911, to which he referred, was not settled by the Minister of Labour or by any member of the Government. That strike was settled before the minister of the Government got to the city of Lethbridge. The terms were agreed upon and the miners said: If the Minister of the Interior will get anything more for us, let him come along. The minister went there, but he did not get anything more for them than had been agreed upon with the operators before his arrival.


Mr. ROGERS:: I should like to correct
that assertion of my hon. friend, which is absolutely incorrect. No agreement whatever was made.


William Ashbury Buchanan: I have the authority of an official of the miners' union, a gentleman who was a member of the conference held on that occasion, that this is true, and that an agreement had been reached. Anyway, the agreement that was signed in connection with that strike was the one recommended by the Rev. Dr. Gordon of Winnipeg, who was the chairman of a board appointed by the late Government to investigate that particular trouble. The miners accepted that agreement, and the reason that the strike was prolonged was because of an addition made to the report by the representatives of the operators. As soon as that addition was removed, they accepted the report of Rev. Dr. Gordon, and the strike was settled. I say, therefore, that this settlement is no credit whatever to the Government; it is a joke in my part of the country to talk about the Government having settled that strike. If that is the only thing that the Minister of Labour has to point to in respect of his administration of the Labour Department, then no credit is due for his administration of that department of the Government since 1911.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver):: I
think it is somewhat unfortunate that the

discussion of a subject of such very grave importance-a subject so closely connected with one of the greatest problems we have before us to-day, that of the relations between capital and labour-should have degenerated into a very petty attack upon a member of the Government. Many of the assertions made by those who have spoken on the other side of the House are quite true; many of the assertions made can be justified by a careful perusal of the facts. But there has been an absolute failure on the part of the hon. gentlemen who have attacked the minister so bitterly to point out where the weakness lay in this matter of failing to secure a settlement or to point out remedies that might be introduced to overcome this difficulty. I shall reply to one or two of the statements made. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) asked: Has there been a single case where the present Minister of Labour effected a settlement in a labour dispute of this kind? I would call attention to the dispute which occurred prior to this Government taking office between the Grand Trunk and its employees which dragged along, after an award was made, for two years or thereabouts. As a matter of fact the then Minister of Railways and the then Minister of Labour (Mr. King), had frequent conferences with the Grand Trunk and utterly failed to get a settlement of that dispute. The present Minister of Labour did secure a settlement after he came into office. That alone, I think, should be placed to his credit. Another occasion I can cite is that of a strike which occurred at the Britannia mines at Howe Sound in my constituency involving about six hundred mein. I drew the attention of the Minister of Labour to it and at once steps were taken to appoint a board. The men in that case acted in accordance with the Act and made an application in proper form. A board of conciliation was appointed and an award was given, but there happened at that time what will happen in almost every labour dispute we attempt to settle with the limited powers contained in the present Act, the company refused to accept the award and the Government were absolutely powerless. In the case of the Grand Trunk the minister exercised what is known as the power of the big stick; he exercised a power through another source to effect a settlement. But in the case of the Britannia mines there was no other way in which a settlement could be forced on the company or the company could be forced to accept the award.
35*	*


William F. Carroll: Would the hon. member be favourable to an amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act imposing a penalty upon any party to the trouble not obeying or fulfilling the recommendations of a board of conciliation?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall discuss that in a moment. I may say now though that I am in favour of such an amendment. I am informed by the minister himself, and I think the notice is on the Order Paper, that he is introducing a Bill so to amend the Act as to incorporate this and many other points. I do not know that this point will be included as we understand it but if it is not I intend making reference to it on the floor of the House. He is at present drafting amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act to remedy the defects which have been found to exist. It is amusing to listen to the very generous bouquets that have been flung to the-gallery. Whatever credit may be due to the-gentleman who drafted the Act, there is one thing we can certainly say and that is that the Act is made absolutely useless-by the absence of the point made by my hon. friend, the absence of any penalty that can be possibly applied to enforce the findings of a board of conciliation. You cannot enforce the Act under any statute of Canada.
I wish to refer briefly to the unfortunate conditions obtaining on Vancouver Island. A very unfair attack was made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) on the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Shepherd). I know, as a matter of fact, that the hon. member for Nanaimo was constantly in touch during the last session with the Minister of Labour in connection with this matter; not only was he in touch, but other members from British Columbia, who were appealed to by the labour men in different parts of the province, were constantly in touch with the Minister of Labour as occasion arose. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) is an astute, keen lawyer, and he knows that to rise in this House, prior to the outbreak of a riot, and declare that danger was in the air, that a riot was going to occur, would be the very way in which to incite a riot. My hon. friend would be the first to advise his clients in such a case to take the matter as calmly and quietly as possible.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the hon. member mean to say that I wanted the hon. member for Nanaimo to state that there was going to be a riot?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I gathered from the hon. gentleman's remarks that he blamed the hon. member for Nanaimo for not having discussed on the floor of the House all the features of this dispute and prophesying, shall I say, that there was grievous danger of an outbreak.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member practically toou it for granted that we knew before the riot broke out that a riot was likely to occur. I do not think any persons were more surprised than those in British Columbia when the riot did occur, except for the day or two prior to their occurrence.
I wish to refer to what I consider to be the important feature of this whole trouble. In the first place, it was pointed out here to-night and conclusively demonstrated that the actual cause of that strike or labour trouble was the discrimination against Mottishaw. The unfortunate thing in this whole trouble is that when the miners, in a thoughtless, unguarded moment, broke out into violence they alienated 'from their cause all the sympathy which had been in the public mind up to that time. Right up to the day of the riot there never was a strike in the province of British Columbia conducted with more fairness on the part of the men or observance of law and order; but the minute they broke into a riot they alienated the sympathies of the public at large. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to make the [DOT].statement on the floor of the House on any responsibility as a member, that my sympathies lean largely towards the men in this strike; but there is nothing which can justify the violence which was perpetrated against innocent parties in that district. And the unfortunate part of the whole thing is that their actions involved the question so much that I believe it is now almost an impossiblity to separate the causes of difficulties so as to place the blame where it actually belongs. This discrimination by the company is one of the vilest acts that can be perpetrated by an employer against an employee. As I remember, a suggestion is made in the report that some action should be taken by the Government to deal with cases of this kind. In British Columbia there is a law which makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee, and which fixes a distinct punishment for that offence. This Act has been applied in several cases where discrimination has oc-

eurred. One incident was cited in the very mine in which the present trouble occurred. The foreman was deprived of his certificate as a mine foreman because of discrimination. We have provided for that in British Columbia, but there is no Dominion Statute and I think the Minister of Labour will be well advised to take that point up in the amendments he is now considering.
The insinuation was made by one hon. gentleman that the present Government, because of the friendly relations which have been said to exist with the employers, referring to Messrs Mackenzie & Mann, I suppose, refused to take any action in this affair. In fairness to the Government it must be stated that no such thing influenced them. There is no evidence of any such thing being the case. I do not think it is wise to throw out carelessly damaging insinuations of that kind. The evidence upon which the hon. gentleman based that insinuation was that last year we granted some heavy subsidies to the Canadian Northern. If there is logic and reason in that, what about the subsidies granted to the Canadian Northern in the years prior to the time at which this Government came into power? We could just as reasonably argue that the late Government was very friendly to this concern. There is no sense in this allegation.
I wish to refer to a man who has been very prominent in this light and that is Mr. Frank Farrington. I met Mr. Frank Farrington on many occasions in Vancouver and discussed this and other matters with him. I found him a very intelligent man, a man whom you would recognize immediately as a very skilful labour leader and administer. He is the representative from, I think it is, Indiana, of the United Mine Workers of America. All the companies absolutely refused to deal with Mr. Farrington because he was the representative of a foreign union. This raises the question of how many members of this House are prepared to support the policy of acknowledging international unions in Canada. How many of us are in favour of having the labour organizations controlled by Canadian committees? The hon. member for Cape Breton(Mr. Carroll) who has arraigned the Minister so severely, is absolutely opposed, from his statement to-day, to the control of labour unions by a foreign organization.


William F. Carroll: I have never made any such statement.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is your position?


William F. Carroll: My position is that if there is an international organization and no other Canadian organization the workers of this country should be forced to recognize them as a labour organization.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I remember rightly,
the hon. gentleman stated clearly, and 'Hansard' will show it, that during the progress of the labour dispute in Cape Breton some years ago, there arose dissensions in the ranks of the labour organizations and there came into the country representatives of the United Mine Workers and organized a strike. He stated that in so far as he was concerned he was in sympathy with the attitude assumed by the provincial association.


William F. Carroll: I beg to differ from the hon. gentleman and I wish to tell him that he will find no such statement from me on the 'Hansard' of to-day, or on any other 'Hansard.' I said that the recommendation of the Board of Conciliation stated that the Dominion Coal Company was justified in not recognizing two labour organizations in the same district. They were recognizing one, and they could not, in justice to the organization, recognize the other. It would lead to innumerable difficulties.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite remember the
statement that the hon. gentleman made. Possibly his memory is a little short.


William F. Carroll: I want to rise to a point of order.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think that the hon. gentleman should take the word of the hon. member for Cape Breton.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not disputing his word. I am simply suggesting that it is a lapse of memory.


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I understand that the rule of the House is that the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), is bound to accept the statement of my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll). I was sitting beside my hon. friend when he made his speech, and I gathered exactly the sense he has now stated as being the sense in which he spoke. Far from being guilty of a lapse of memory, my hon. friend's memory absolutely confirms what he actually said. If there be a lapse of memory it is on the part of the hon. member for Vancouver, but I only rose to a point of order for the
purpose of pointing out that the hon. gentleman is bound to accept the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll).


Henry Herbert Stevens: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement without any question whatsoever. I have a very high regard for the veracity of my hon. friend. The question of the recognition, of international unions or Canadian organizations is a very important one which is fraught with very grave consequences. At the present time there are in Canada many unions of the highest possible type which are of an international character. The Typographical Union is one of the strongest and best in the country and there are also different organizations of railway employees which are international in their scope. On the other hand, there is a widespread sentiment throughout the country that an American organization controlled entirely on the other side should not be recognized. In order that I may not be misunderstood, I 'hold this, that the labour body have a perfect right to organize themselves for the advancement of their own interest. They have a right, and one which should never be disputed on any occasion, to organize for- the protection of their rights and privileges, but the difficulty about labour organizations in Canada and other countries is that you cannot. fasten a penalty upon them. The property and funds of this union are always placed in the hands of trustees so that you cannot fix a penalty successfully upon any labour organization. The reason for that, as explained by the men, is that if they allowed their property to_ remain in the hands of the recognized treasurer or secretary of the organization,, there would be great discrimination in the settlement of a dispute and the labour organization would be forced to pay the penalty whereas the employers would go free. I wish that the hon. Minister of Labour would undertake to devise an amendment to the Act which would place an equal responsibility upon the employer and the employee. I think it would be far better to attack the labour union by the disbanding of the union than by imposing a fine, while imposing a fine in the case of the employers. One of the difficulties of such an Act would be that a large number of employers, such as manufacturers' associations, are in existence but in name only. There is no legal organization, and in this way the employer is enabled to escape responsibility. I freely

grant that this is an extremely difficult proposition. I believe that until such a measure is placed on the statute books it will be utterly impossible to deal properly and equitably when such questions as these arise.


William F. Carroll: How does the hon. gentleman propose to disband a labour organization without making it a criminal offence?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is better able to explain that than I am, being an astute and clever lawyer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like the hon. member to explain it; he has put it forward.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I presume we have poweT under the British North America Act to pass such a statute. You could make it criminal if you liked, but you could pass a statute which would enable the Government to disband a union in case of the violation of the Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a very violent presumption, I am afraid.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend makes an off-hand statement, but I doubt very much if he has given the matter any great thought. I submit the proposal as the only way in which we can secure the settlement of labour disputes. You cannot enforce the penalty now. My hon. friend, when he was supporting the late Minister of Labour, was unable to suggest any amendment of this Act which would enable the Government to bring about a settlement of these disputes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The late Minister oi
Labour always settled them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, he did not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He had no trouble
under this Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The late minister made just as many jokes, as the hon. gentleman calls them, as the present Government or the present minister has-quite as many.


Mr. OLIVER:: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would give instances which occurred under the late Minister of Labour that would compare with the incident we are now discussing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We all admit that the present dispute is one of the worst that has ever occurred in the country; but I referred a moment ago to the Grand Trunk strike, which was a very serious one.
tMr. Stevens.]


Wilfrid Laurier: The Grand Trunk strike was settled.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was not.
*


Wilfrid Laurier: Pardon me; it was.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Grand Trunk strike was settled in so far as the award was made, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company agreed to take back some 200 employees; but two years ago, when the Grand Trunk Bill was up before the Railway Committee, there were 125 or 150 of these employees who had not been taken back, in spite of the fact that a written agreement to do so had been made by that railway company with Mr. Graham, then Minister of Railways, and the late Minister of Labour, Mr. King.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does not the hon. member know very well that what he is talking about is the carrying out of the terms by the Grand Trunk; but the strike was settled, and the railway was operating, which was the important thing for the country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The strike was settled, and the railway was supposed to be operated by the men who had been ordered by Judge Barron to be reinstated, but 150 or 170 of the older employees were absolutely not reinstated, and when the Grand Trunk Bill was before the Railway Committee, the company was compelled to reinstate them before that Bill was allowed to be passed.


Wilfrid Laurier: The big stick was used then, and very properly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly, but it proves the point I am making, that under this Act which was passed by the right hon. gentleman's Government, you cannot effect the settlement of a dispute.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How do you propose to do that ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have suggested that
both the employees and employers be made responsible parties and that penalties be employed. I have suggested a remedy which my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell), with his great depth of wisdom, lightly flings aside as being unworkable; but I venture to say that if he studies the matter out and gives his advice on it two weeks hence, we may get something more erudite from him than anything he has suggested up to the present moment.
I do not believe that the militia of Canada

should be a mere tool in the hands of employers for the settlement of labour disputes. There are times when it is absolutely imperative to call the militia out in the interests of law and order, but I believe that very great care should be taken before the militia is called out. In the present ease, the facts are simply these: the riot had been on for over twenty-four hours before the militia was called out, and several members of the provincial police, special constables, were driven off a wharf, as I understand it, into the water by a mob. I am not saying this was done by the union men, but it was done by a mob which had congregated as a result of the labour trouble, and the militia was called out under these circumstances. Then, in regard to the meeting which my hon. friends opposite have referred to, that meeting was convened for the purpose of discussing certain business. Colonel Hall entered the building at half-past eight o'clock and he told the men to go on and finish their business, and they stayed there until one o'clock, some five hours after Colonel Hall entered the building, and they finished the business they had under discussion. Then they were marched out as described, and arrested. I am not at this particular time attempting to justify or to blame the militia in their action. They were called out and it was incumbent upon them to restore law and order in that vicinity. After the militia is called out, it is under the control of the commanding officer who is supreme, and the responsibility for his action must rest upon his own shoulders. But insofar as those present at the meeting were concerned, they were allowed to finish their business. It is desirable in a discussion of this kind that we should be fair and seek to get at the root of the matter.
I contend, insofar as this dispute, is concerned, that the blame rests upon the Act for the failure to arrive at a settlement. Reference has been made to the Minister of Labour; very bitter reference; very unjust reference. The Minister of Labour went out there and spent ten days or more on Vancouver Island right in the strike area. When he came to Vancouver Island a committee of the Labour Congress of British Columbia met the Minister of Labour, who received them in his car, and spent several hours discussing the matter with them, with perfect frankness and perfect courtesy. I am not here to-night holding a brief for the Minister of Labour; he is quite capable of defending himself, but it is right and fair that we should give
him credit for what he has done. He spent ten days on the Island.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What else did he do?


Henry Herbert Stevens: He did his utmost to settle the strike, and to bring the parties together. But he was met with this difficulty: the company declared there was no lockout, and that they declared up to the present time, and on the other hand the men declared there was no strike. There was an investigation held under the Immigration Act into the case of the men who were brought from the old country, and in that investigation the parties refused to acknowledge that there was either a strike or a lockout. It was, therefore, impossible to appoint a conciliation board. I blame Mr. Stockett and some of the managers of the mines, because I believe that the employers should exercise a little more common sense, shall I use that expression, than we may expect from the workers; for the reason that the worker looks upon such a question from the standpoint of a personal grievance; he believes he is injured, and he has but one idea in his mind. We all know perfectly well that while it may not be in harmony with our wishes to meet a party who is 'holding opposite views to ours, at the same time any reasonable man possessed of intelligence will go more than half-way to meet his opponent, and to discuss the question. I hold that the managers of these mines ought to have set aside their prejudices to a large extent, against Mr. Farrington and some other workers, and at least have met them and discussed the question with them. It was not necessary to meet all the demands; they might have considered some of them unreasonable; but I say the mistake made on the part of the company was that they refused to meet these men. The Minister of Labour could not force them do do so; he used every power and influence he had to bring about an adjustment, or a conference on that occasion.
I hold that insofar as the Minister of Labour is concerned he has done what he could, under the provisions of this Act, but we know now, as we have known for some time, that this Act is faulty, and that it is impossible to enforce, and the Minister of Labour should give his specific attention to an effort to remedy it, if it is possible to remedy it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would the hon. member go so far as to advocate an amendment to

the Act, providing for compulsory arbitration?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The question of compulsory arbitration is an exceedingly large one, and I am under the impression that compulsory arbitration is not a very successful method of dealing with these disputes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then how would you enforce the Act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand that the method known in New Zealand as compulsory arbitration is not very successful, but if we had on our statute hooks a power which could be exercised in a case of necessity, I believe we would have less disputes, and there would be, in the minds of the parties, a greater inclination to deal with the question outside the Labour Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: That would be compulsory.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would not be compulsory; it would be a sort of inducement.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens), in propounding his solution of how to cure the labour troubles in this country, has, I am sure, not satisfied this committee that he has discovered the happy medium, because, as my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has pointed out, his proposal is nothing more nor less than compulsory arbitration. It is compulsory investigation, with compulsory carrying out of the recommendations. That is another way of saying that you have a tribunal which makes a finding, and that the finding must be carried into effect by some legal method.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If it was considered of sufficient importance by the minister or the department which controlled the matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If it was considered of sufficient importance by the Administration to have it carried into effect. That is a very elastic method, and I must say that the leading labour men of this country would not be disposed to entrust the investigation to this minister. The minister knows very well that he has been condemned by resolution by a great many of the labour men of this country. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), referring to the very curious visit which the minister paid to the island of Cape Breton, stated that one of the trails which he left

behind him, besides his non-appearance in Glace Bay, was that the Trades and Labour Congress of Cape Breton passed a resolution condemning his methods right there and then. The minister is aware of that fact. It is a fair inference that if the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) is willing to commit the carrying into effect of the finding of any tribunal, however constituted, into the hands of this minister, he is doing something which the labour men of this country do not want.
This discussion as to whether wn should vote to the present Minister of Labour the sums of money which are contained in this Estimate, has naturally caused us to drift into the consideration of the very important situation existing in the province of British Columbia. There for a year and a half industrial trouble has existed, and up to the present moment this minister and his Government stand absolutely incompetent, by any means under the law, by any power which they may possess inherently by statute or otherwise, to settle it.
Of course in this particular province of the Dominion, this situation is but the natural heritage which these gentlemen ought to expect. They are reaping what they sowed. Who was it but these hon.
gentlemen, some of them at
10 p.m. present sitting in the House, that made that province ring with the cry of a white British Columbia, who attacked my right hon. leader day in and day out with the most inflammatory appeals to the labour men of that province, because he permitted to remain on the statute book a law which carried into effect an international treaty made by the Government of this empire? These same gentlemen last year, after all their protestation, after all their inflammatory appeals, passed a treaty wider in its effect as regards the admission of Orientals than this treaty in regard to which they had been attacking my right hon. leader. Every one of them knew, as did Sir Richard McBride, when he was passing legislation, which he knew for Imperial reasons solely must be vetoed, which was passed simply for the purpose of misleading the people of British Columbia, that the Premier of this country at that time, just as the Premier of this country to-day, was bound to carry into effect the terms of an international arrangement made by the Government of the empire. Therefore these gentlemen are only reaping what they sowed, and if the labour men of the province are beginning to ascertain that

the men who there preached sedition, the men who talked about the evils of Orientalism, did not mean what they said, and if they have a Minister of Labour supposed to deal with this particular matter, who goes out to British Columbia on a jaunting tour of two weeks and then proceeds to England, is it any wonder that the labour people of British Columbia have no respect for the Minister of Labour and the Government which is in power? That is one of the reasons why this strike remains unsettled, and why these gentlemen are absolutely unable to go forward, and it is impossible for them to go back. That is where these gentlemen stand in regard to this whole matter.
In his report, we have the evidence of the reaping time. This gentleman, whom the Minister of Labour sent out to investigate, comes back and reports to this Government that to-day there are more Orientals employed in the mines of British Columbia than ever before. One result of the methods of those gentlemen who stood-for a white British Columbia, has been that after two years of administration, the miners from the old land, from Northumberland and Wales, and the men from the East who have gone out to that country to earn their livelihood in the mines, have been driven out of employment by the Orientals who have been permitted to come in by this Government. Mr. Price says:
It is true, however, that the number of Orientals employed underground in the mines of the Canadian collieries has increased very materially since last September, not only relatively, but absolutely, the total number of Orientals employed in May, 1913, being- 432 out of a total of 690, as against 315 out of a total of 766 in 1912, and probably among surface men the increase has been proportionately greater.
Therefore, if this gentleman whom the minister sent out there to make inquiries has not settled this strike, these gentlemen who stood for a white British Columbia have the satisfaction of having it on record in this country, on the authority of their own appointee, that under their control Orientalism is making strides against the white men of that province.
What is the situation ? This strike began at the mines at Cumberland and at Ladysmith, and was allowed to run for eight long months without any intervention on the part of this Minister of Labour, except that he sent a telegram. Hon. gentlemen representing that district sat in Parliament for a whole month last year and yet never suggested that, if the laws of this country were inadequate to permit the minister to
interfere, in the business interests of the country as well as in the interests of the labour men, the necessary powers should be sought from Parliament. I am speaking about the time when the strike had taken a wider range on the first of May last year, and when the minister woke up and sent a telegram.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He had five weeks.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: After he awoke from his slumber he had five weeks in which to pass legislation. Did he know when Jie sent that telegram that he had no power to enforce these terms? If he did know, then why did he not take the power from Parliament? If he did not know, that is only an evidence of the truth of the opinion that is entertained of him by labour people of this country. For five weeks my hon. friend came to Parliament day after day. I assume he knew that the legislation of the statute book was inadequate to enable him to deal with the situation, but he never asked Parliament, for further legislation. After sending the telegram, he sat down to wait. After a while he took the jaunt to British Columbia, and spent two weeks in his private car looking over the situation. Those who have been born and bred among the labouring classes know with what curiosity the miners would view this gentleman from Ottawa who came there in a private car and wanted to settle the strike in a minute. They would just size him up and come to the conclusion that he could not do it. The consequence was that my hon. friend thought he could not do anything, and he went out to Europe on a pleasure jaunt. This Minister of Labour, like every Minister of Labour of this country, has not such very wide duties to perform. If he had as much to do as the Minister of Public Works, such tremendous expenditures to oversee, if he had such responsibility as attached to some of the other ministers, it would be a different matter, but the Minister of Labour, like my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel) has not very much to do. The estimates of the Minister of Labour are something like $100,000 a year. The labour people of this country have a right to complain of the minister in that, with the serious condition existing which he had allowed to rise through his own neglect and inability to give himself power through legislation to deal with it, with a rising breaking out on the 14th of August, he showed so little regard for the responsibility of his office as to leave Canada and

proceed to the old country. What would be thought of the Minister of Railways, for instance, if all the engineers on the Intercolonial railway, from Montreal to Sydney were on strike, and in the middle of that strike, the Minister of Railways should go to England? Yet, when this difficulty arose in British Columbia, originating in two collieries and extending to all the labour, interests of British Columbia-for it was not confined to the miners but extended to other sections of labour as well-this of all times was the one the minister chose for his holiday. Is it any wonder that the public, whether labouring men, employers or men who view public affairs only in a most casual way, were shocked that, under these circumstances, the minister should desert his post? I am sure the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) would not have done it. True, he allows steamers to go off carrying flour barrels with whisky in them. He says he does not know about that, but I think he has a shrewd suspicion as to what was going on. I will say this for the Minister of Customs, that he is usually on his job. But it was apparently not so with the Minister of Labour. Compare this with what was done in England. There they had coal strikes and threatened railway strikes. Did ministerial gentlemen of that country hold their hands in supine content? Did they run away from the country? The Prime Minister of Great Britain summoned to his aid the most active of his colleagues, treated by intercession with the different interests involved, to save the country from the difficulty which would arise through the stoppage of the coal supplies and of the railways. It does not seem to make any difference to the Minister of Labour whether the miners of British Columbia have work or not, whether the artisans in other lines of labour are employed or not, whether the business men of that country have to import coal from the United States or not. He was in England, enjoying himself with the Unionists of that country. No doubt, sitting at the table of the Carlton Club or some other organization of the kind, the hon. gentleman over his good dinner never thought for a moment of these men, who, exasperated by their sense of wrong were fighting for what they deemed, rightly or wrongly, to be their rights. Such thoughts were not for the minister; he was on his jaunting tour and proposed to have his fun. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) went out to British Columbia, and I believe a picket stopped him somewhere. But, so far as he is concerned, the mention 
of that incident is the only one to show that he ever gave the slightest thought to this question involving the welfare of the labouring men of British Columbia and the business interests so seriously affected by that strike.
I now come to my solemn and intellectual friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). He jaunted out to British Columbia. Has anybody told us that he applied his intellect to an attempt to solve this problem as to how labour and capital could be reconciled? So far, there is no glimmer of such an idea. One minister was in England-the responsible minister-others were everywhere else. Two of them happened to go into the country where this strike existed, but they did not bother their heads about it. Is it any wonder that the labouring people of British Columbia reached the point where they had no respect for this Government or for the men composing it? And that is why the strike is on.
Now, we have the report of Mr. Price who was sent out as commissioner. I do not know the gentleman, but I agree with my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) in his criticism of the selection made. Coal miners are a class of workingmen whose sense of justice, whose desire for remedies for the problems of labour, are peculiar to themselves. And so, though the hon. minister's late partner may have been a most estimable man, I do not think that the fact that he had had some experience in regard to miners in Cobalt fitted him for the work he was called upon to do in this case. Every one familiar with these matters knows that there is a great difference between the coal miners and the gold miners in their conceptions of labour conditions. The hon. minister should have come to Nova Scotia or should have gone to British Columbia, to find a man, who knew what were the coal miners' conceptions of right and justice. Had he selected some one familiar with the ideals of these men and with the methods adopted by employers in dealing with these questions, instead of taking his former law partner, he would have had one whose opinions would have commanded more respect among the men and in that way might possibly have reached a solution of this diffficulty.
We have heard a good deal about the former Minister of Labour, and the question of what he did or did not do. I notice in his report the commissioner tells what Mr. Mackenzie King did on one occasion deal-

mg with the same conditions in the West as were involved in this strike. He says:
In 1905, trouble occurred at the mines of the "Western Fuel Company, arising out of an order of the company requiring the men to provide their own transportation to a shaft where they could enter in nearer proximity to the place of work. This order was said to have been by reason of the enforcement of the provincial law limiting the hours of underground labour to eight hours a day, bank to bank. As usually happens in such cases. Other differences were also presented after the trouble arose, and the recognition of the United Mine Workers' union, to which a number of the miners then belonged, was also demanded. With the assistance of the then Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King, the matter was finally adjusted between a committee of the men and the mine management, and an agreement entered into between the company and the men which with some alterations, has continued down to the time of the present strike.
Dealing with exactly the same conditions and exactly the same problems, the commissioner whom my hon. friend sends out to British Columbia comes back and gives us evidence that the late Minister of Labour knew how to deal with these problems and succeeded in bringing industrial peace to that part of the country. We need no further evidence as to this; I presume my hon. friend the Minister of Labour and his followers will not question the finding of their own commissioner upon that point.
There is another interesting finding here in which I happen to have a very great personal interest. I remember being in this House when the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act was passed, and I remember the election which followed. In my constituency we have eight or nine coal mines in operation,' and one thing for which I was bitterly attacked during that election campaign was that the Government which I had supported had undertaken to pass a piece of legislation which would take away from the labouring man the right to strike. Orators, party leaders, like the present leader of the Conservative party in the provincial House, who was my opponent in that election, shouted all over the constituency about the horrible treatment that had been accorded to the labouring men by the Liberal Government. One would have thought that this Government upon taking office would have hastened to the task of sweeping this iniquitous piece of legislation off the statute book. Every man on this side of the House who represents a constituency in which there are labouring men, remembers that he had to
pass through the same ordeal. If this Government came in committed to anything other than the Halifax platform, which they have forgotten all about, it was that this Lemieux Labour Act, as it was called, would be repealed. The hon. member for Vancouver does not want it repealed; he wants it made tighter; he wants compulsory arbitration. But here is the opinion of the commissioner:
I believe that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, notwithstanding defects, which could hardly be hoped would be avoided in its earlier history, is a very beneficial Act, not only in the interest of the general public, but also in the interest, ultimately, at all events, of both employees and employers as well.
I wanted to get that assertion on 'Hansard'; this Conservative Minister of Labour having sent out his own confidant to investigate labour conditions in this country, I wanted to put on record the deliberate opinion of his commissioner as to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I want to have it established that the stories told by Conservative orators in 1908 were all moonshine, and that this Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is a very beneficial Act. Out of the mouths of our enemies comes this praise of that piece of legislation passed by the Liberal Government in 1907. For two years hon, gentlemen opposite have been in power, and the Minister of Labour has allowed that Act to remain on the statute book untouched and unaltered even in the slightest degree. To argue the question as to whether or not the principle of this Act is a matter for which we on this side of the House have to make any defence to-day seems to me, in view of the position adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite at this stage, to be entirely unnecessary. But the hon. member for Vancouver has told us that the minister is contemplating some amendments to the Act; it will be interesting to see what those amendments are. I observe that the commissioner has given us some suggestions; these are the amendments he wants us to make:
In order that there may be no room for
doubt in the mind of any one as to what is forbidden by it, I think the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act should be amended, especially the definition of 'strike' and section 56, so as to clearly cover what Is in reality a strike or lockout, and make the provisions of the law more easily understood and more likely to be properly enforced.
That is a rather general recommendation, and it is somewhat difficult to see on the

face of it what its effect would be. He goes on to say:
Without any further comment upon the practice of calling cessation of work a * holiday,' or reflecting on the hona fides of the contention that the men at Cumberland and Ladysmith believed they were not offending against the law in what they did, it will be recognized that it is desirable and very important that this work should be made plain.
That apparently is a proposed amendment of the law intended distinctly to militate against the interests of the labour men. If that recommendation made by Mr. Price means anything, it is intended further to confine and limit the right of labour men under this Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. Here is another one :	-
I think it should he made clear by special prohibition, under penalty, that it is unlawful to practice any kind of intimidation, abuse or insult against any one or to publish, call or refer to any one as a ' scab ' or ' blackleg ' or as unfair to labour or to incite or threaten to do any of these things, with a view to influencing the acts of any person in connection with any strike or labour dispute.
Does the commissioner mean that we should have legislation absolutely prohibiting the right to picket? I remember being in the Imperial Parliament some six or seven years ago and, sitting in the gallery, hearing a discussion on the labour legislation proposed by the Liberal Government of that day, in which the right to picket was expressly recognized by statute; I think that is on the statute book of the mother country still. So far as I can judge from the report made by Mr. Price, his recommendations in regard to this matter are all intended to militate against the rights of labour men. His report is a very nice, academic essay upon labour questions generally, written too late in some respects, but all too soon in others. When the minister went to England, why did he not instruct Mr. Price to remain o'n the ground and investigate conditions after the riot? Why did he instruct him to fold up his portmanteau, come back to Ottawa and write his report when the most crucial point in the whole matter had been reached? The short time he spent in considering the matter and two weeks' deliberation on the part of the minister in regard to the industrial conflict which has now lasted for a year and four months is the only evidence we have that the minister bothered his head about the subject. Is it any wonder that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House raise questions in regard to this matter? Is it any wonder that when my hon. friend asks us for money to carry
[Mr. Macdonald. 1
on the affairs of his department we should take advantage of the occasion to arraign him for his incompetency in dealing with these matters? I think that those of us who represent constituencies wherein labouring men are employed, as well as those who represent constituencies where the interests of capital are concerned, would be recreant in our duty if we did not point out that the administration of this Government, after two and a half years of trial, has been marked by incompetency and absolute failure even to give any thought to the serious problems which have arisen throughout the country. For a year and four months in the great western province of British Columbia, not only have the labouring men suffered under conditions which have called forth protests from their representatives all over the country, but the business interests of the country as well have been paralyzed, and the conditions that exist in that province are wholly and largely due to the failure of this ministry and this Government to grapple with the serious situation which has arisen.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has expressed a burning desire to have pointed out to him conditions parallel to those which he has been describing during the last halfhour. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) also expressed a desire to have pointed out to him any conditions at all similar to those which have prevailed on Vancouver Island for several months.


Frank Oliver: What I asked the hon.
member for Vancouver was if he could point to conditions as extraordinary as those in the province of British Columbia.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is about what I said. As my hon. friend's request seems legitimate, I shall, even at this late hour, try to give him some facts showing a parallel case. In 1909-10 there was a strike amongst the coal miners of Nova Scotia extending over twenty-two months, seven months at Glace Bay, seven months at Inverness, and twenty-two months at Springhill. The militia were called out at Glace Bay, Spring-hill and Inverness. My hon. friend from Pictou was a member of this House. It is not on record that he suggested any amendment to this Act to meet the situation. That situation was obtaining in his own province, within a stone's throw of his own door. He was in this House but did nothing. I would not, by substantive motion,

find any fault with him for not taking any action but I am simply trying to gratify his burning desire for a parallel case. Perhaps the hon. member from Cape Breton was at Glace Bay at that time. It is not on record that' he did anything to settle the strike that was on at Glace Bay for about seven months or to expel the militia from Glace Bay. They were sent there by the preceding Government.


William F. Carroll: Would the hon. gentleman like to know what I did?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Perhaps I had better go on now.


William F. Carroll: Perhaps you had better.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It is too bad that the hon. member for Pictou did not enlighten the House as to what he did in those conditions in Nova Scotia. If he had been in a position to tell the House that on that occasion, in order to bring about peace at Glace Bay and Inverness and Springhill where the militia had been out, he did something as a member of this House, he would have been in a better position to find fault with me for not introducing any legislation last session. He never heard of such a thing as a minister of labour leaving this country when things were in such a condition. When the strike was on, when the militia were at Glace Bay and Inverness and Springhill, my predecessor spent two months of his time in Europe.


Mr. MORPHY:: And there was no criticism from anybody for doing it.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No. Hon. gentlemen
opposite seem to have short memories or not to desire to exercise the memories they have. I hope the hon. member for Pictou will not make so much noise again in insisting on somebody telling him that there was a parallel case some time, somewhere that occurred in his own province. According to his own remarks the circumstances convict him of having folded his arms when his fellow citizens were suffering the penalties which were inflicted on them by the militia sent there by the preceding Government.


William F. Carroll: Is the minister really in earnest when he says that the preceding Government sent the militia to Glace Bay?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The militia went to
Glace Bay. They were there.


William F. Carroll: You want to be fair.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Everybody knows
how the militia got there, we did not send the militia to Vancouver Island.


William F. Carroll: Certainly not; nobody said you did.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: They were there, and nothing was done by the preceding Government by way of legislation, and nothing was done by the hon. member for Edmonton, who would like to hear of a parallel case to-night, although he was a member of the Government at that time-and nothing was done by the hon. member for Pictou to allay the suffering and the want that existed in his own native province during twenty-two months. I think we have been perhaps a little premature in this discussion to-night, although it might as well have come to-night as any time; but I may refer the House to the fact that the right hon. leader of the Opposition has a notice on the Order Paper calling for a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents issued by any department ot this Government in respect to the strike on Vancouver Island. It is something like putting the cart before the horse to spend hours in discussing matters when many who have spoken do not know the facts and have made statement after statement that has no firmer bottom to rest on than base and discreditable insinuations. 'It. would be much more in order to wait until we get the documents before the House and then discuss the question on the facts brought forward by these documents. The hon. member for Pictou raised one or two points, that I may refer to. Mr. Price had had seven years' experience as Mining Commissioner. He was appointed after he had resigned from that position by the Government of Ontario to look into the question of" the eight hour movement, and he spent a year on that, not only in metalliferous mines, but in coal mines, and he got to know a lot.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What coal mines
are there in Ontario?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: He did not remain in Ontario.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not remember; but outside of Ontario.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would like to know where.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I can tell you when I see him and ask him.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But you cannot tell me.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: How dare you say that when I say I can tell you. He did inquire into the length of hours in coal mines as well as in metalliferous mines.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Was he ever in one?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think I have been
as deep in a coal mine as ever my hon. friend was.


William F. Carroll: You are deep in it now.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Hon. gentlemen opposite have seen fit to make a concerted attack upon the Department of Labour. Let me tell them a thing or two that they do not seem to know. During the first year I was in charge of the department the number of days lost in strikes was nine hundred thousand less than the year before, only about one-half the number of days lost in strikes that were lost the year before. When I was placed in charge of the department I found that the labouring men were finding a good deal of fault about delays in the operation of the Act, the length of time that elapsed between the application for conciliation boards and their appointment. I took the matter up at once and gave instructions that no unnecessary delay should be permitted, with the result that the number of days spent between the receipt of an application for a board and the establishment of the board was reduced less than one-half. In the first year I had charge of the Labour Department the average number of days between the application and the establishment of the board was seven days. The average time that elapsed during the previous year was fifteen days.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister include the Canadian Pacific railway freight handlers' strike in that category?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am glad my hon.
friend has mentioned that particular strike. He spoke about it last year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And you settled it up
about four days afterwards.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: And he said, amongst other things, that they had made an application that year and it had not been granted. I think the leader of the Opposition also said on that occasion that it was the duty of the Minister of Labour, on application being made to him in due form, to establish a board without further delay- that it was an administrative office 'hnd not

a judicial one. The facts are that the application to which he referred was dated on the 14th day of August, 1911, and hon. gentlemen will remember, and remember for a long time, that the election occurred on the 21st day of September, and that we came into power on the 10th day of October. That application, made on the 14th of August, did not reach the Labour Department until some days afterwards; but on the 23rd day of September, two days after the election and seventeen days before we came into power, the Department of Labour refused to grant that very same labour organization a board.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now tell us what you
did.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I will tell you what I did with respect to that particular matter. My attention having been called to it, upon going over the evidence I made up my mind that a board ought to be granted and a board was issued, or at least a settlement was effected with the men and they consented to our not proceeding.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: After this has been
brought up in Parliament.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, before it was
brought up in Parliament. That was not brought up in Parliament that I remember of. The hon. member tried to attach it to the other application but not to the one that was made to me. There were two applications made by this association. An application was made and on the 23rd September, 1911, seventeen days before we came into power, my predecessor refused that same association a board. They made another application to me but I do not think it is necessary to go into that as it has all been explained before.
In regard to this Vancouver Island strike, it has been said over and over again, and repeated here to-night, that the strike at Cumberland was caused by reason of two men being dismissed because they had reported that gas was found in a certain mine. That is not true, it never was true and I hope it will not be repeated.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is what they allege.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is what somebody alleges in this House.
Sir WILFRiD LAURIER: That is what the men alleged.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Did any of the men
allege that to my friend? .


Wilfrid Laurier: Not to me,
but to my hon. friend. That is what I find in the report.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: What do they report?


Wilfrid Laurier: A letter was written by the Minister of Labour to Mr. Peter McNiven. As the hon. gentleman stated, Mr. McNiven had ceased to be in office but he received an answer from the acting secretary at Cumberland as follows:
Hon. T. W. Crothers,
Minister of Labour.
There is no strike declared at Cumberland mines. The company have openly discriminated against men who were taking an active part in union organization.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That does not answer the question at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, what I said was that it had been stated in this House, and repeated over and over again, that two men had been discriminated against because they had reported gas in that mine. There is no truth whatever in that. As a matter of fact, the two men who ceased to work for the company were one Mottishaw and one Smith. The two men who were on the gas committee were Mottishaw and Portrey and the man who wrote the report reporting gas in the mine was Portrey. Portrey, the man who wrote the report, and a member of the committee, was working for the company right up to the strike. He continued right along. It is true that Mottishaw, the other member of the committee, though not directly, was substantially dismissed; I will admit that. If they had been dismissed upon the ground alleged Portrey would have gone too. Portrey was really the man who made the report. It was written by his own hand; yet, he continued to work for the company. I think that is pretty strong evidence that they were not dismissed because they reported the existence of gas in the mines. Mr. Price finds in his report that they were not dismissed for that reason.
One of the hon. gentlemen who spoke referred to the charge that the mine owners on Vancouver Island had sent to England and secured a number of employees in Durham by fraud and misrepresentation. My hon. friend from Carleton is very familar with these words. The facts are that the Department of the Interior appointed an immigration agent at Vancouver to inquire into some charges that were made against an employment agent
in Vancouver, and during the progress of his investigation a number of these miners who were brought out from England gave evidence under oath. I have had the advantage of reading the evidence of these men. I have the evidence right in my desk here. Five of these men who were brought out declared before Mr. Reid, the immigration officer at Vancouver, that there was no misrepresentation whatever made to them in England, that when they got to Cumberland they found conditions exactly as they had been represented to them in England, and even better. It is said that some of the others jointly signed an affidavit in Vancouver to say that they had been deceived. It is only fair to state that. There were a number of them in Vancouver, they were being taken care of by the labour organization and the labour leaders were in the room and in their presence these men signed the affidavit one after the other. Some of those who signed that- affidavit gave evidence under oath before Mr. Reid and stated that they were under the care and protection of these men and that if they refused to sign that affidavit they would not get any more shelter or food. I am not stating that they were not deceived in England, but I am stating that there is plenty of evidence touching that, because five of them who testified under oath stated that they found conditions, when they reached Cumberland, better than those which had been described to them in England. The question arose in this way: The company at that time was working the mine and putting out about 60 per cent of the normal oqtput. These men who gave this testimony stated that they were told in England that there had been labour trouble at Cumberland but that they had got some men from other places and some of those who had gone on strike were returning, and that they were putting out 60 per cent of the normal output. They also said that they believed in England that they were justified in coming and working in these mines, that they had come and that they were not deceived in any respect. Others stated differently, signing this affidavit in Vancouver to which I have referred. It was stated by the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Cafroll), that an officer of the labour union had made a statement to the effect that I had refused to establish a board. To this day I have never been requested to establish a board in connection with the dispute on Vancouver Island. I requested the parties who were interested in it to apply for a board-the

miners, the mine owners and those who did not belong to a union. They all refused to do it. These gentlemen never asked me to appoint a board under the Act. They did come in one day and suggest that the men were willing to appoint a man if I would appoint a man and let the two go and inquire into the matter without any reference to the mine owners themselves. I never promised to do even that. I remember very well talking to these men and saying at a certain time that I would even at that late hour appoint a board if any one would apply for it.
In the meantime the Court of Appeal of the province of Quebec had given judgment to the effect that I had no jurisdiction to establish a board in a dispute between men who had gone on strike and former employers, because the Act applied only to disputes between employees and their employers, and as these men were no longer in the employ of their former employers, they were not in a position to ask for a board.


Wilfrid Laurier: What case is that?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The Montreal Street
Railway case. My predecessor established a board in that case, and a prohibition was -applied for and the judge in the first instance refused the prohibition, but there was an appeal and the Court of Appeal of the province of Quebec held unanimously that the board -should not have been established, because those who were applying for it were no longer in the service of the Street Railway Company. A decision directly opposite to that has been given by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. In that case, under one of the clauses of the Act, a man had been convicted for supplying food to strikers while they were on strike, contrary to the law. There is a section of the Act which prohibits any one aiding or abetting, and the court held that it was illegal to support men who had illegally gone- on strike. The matter came before the Appeal Court in Nova Scotia and the contention was put forward there that the Act did not apply to these men, because, as held in the Quebec case, they were no longer in the employ of their former employers, but the court in Nova Scotia held, that'within the meaning of the Act they were still employees. We therefore have a decision on both sides.	[DOT]


William F. Carroll: It was under the
Conciliation Act in Nova Scotia.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There was no board
there at all, and that is why it was illegal for them to strike. The conviction was sustained by the high court in Nova Scotia on the ground that although there was a strike, and they were no longer actually in the employ of their former employers, yet they still were employees within the meaning of the Act. These men who were to see me, did not ask, and never did ask for a board, but I casually told them of this decision, and that as I did not want to take any chances of another prohibition as in the Quebec case, I intended to propose to Parliament this session certain amendments which would become law sooner than an appeal from the judgment of the courts would likely be determined. It is not true that I ever at any time refused a board.
One hon. gentleman has read an extract from the Ottawa Citizen, and another hon. gentleman has read some sentences from a letter said to have been written by Mr. Frank Farrington. Well, I think we have all lived long enough to know that we should not place too much reliance on what we read in newspapers.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: To my mind there are mis-statements in that article in the Ottawa Citizen; several important mis-statements. I hope my hon. friends opposite will not too seriously try to palm off on this House as gospel truth everything they can find in any newspaper. As I have said, some sentences were read from a letter sent me by Mr. Frank Farrington, and notwithstanding the observations made with reference to that gentleman by my hon. friend from Vancouver, I may say that there are a good many statements in that letter that I personally know to be untrue. I may say, further, that I wrote to this gentleman, as an officer' of the United Mine Workers of America, and pointed out to him-I think it was his chief the president who referred it to Farrington, but the reply came from Farrington-I pointed out that it was illegal to strike in this country until there was a board appointed, and asked him to make application for a board that we might have all the evidence before the public and an award given by an independent tribunal of three men. He wrote back that he was not breaking any Canadian law. That is the gentleman, part of whose letter to me was read by my hon. friend.
Then, some hon. gentleman opposite made

the statement that Mr. Price denied the men the right to appear before him. There is not a word of truth in that. I know that on one occasion Mr. Price had one hundred and twenty-five men before him and gave an invitation to each and every one of them to come forward and say anything he had to say touching the matter. On another occasion I was present when he had seventeen men before him, and on another occasion when he had forty men before him. There is no manner of foundation for the statement that he refused to hear anybody. Mr. Price is not a man of that kind; he is one of the most high-minded men we have in the country, and he is so regarded by every one who has the advantage of acquaintance with him.
There are some general observations which I might make with reference to the Labour Department. I have told you that during the first year I was in charge of it there were 900,000 less days lost in strikes than there were the year before. I may state now that for twenty years before I was placed in charge of the Labour Department there was on an average a strike in the coal mines of Nova Scotia every year. There has not been a strike in Nova Scotia in the coal mines since I came into office. There have not been any other labour disputes of any significance, and every one of them has been settled by boards established under the Industrial Disputes Act. When we came into power we found that strike out in the Crowsnest Pass going on for eight months. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was in the House at that time, and so was my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell), and neither of them introduced any measure to amend the Industrial Disputes Act so as to settle that strike. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition was leader of the Government at that time, and there is no evidence that he suggested any additional legislation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was not necessary;
the existing legislation did the trick.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: They were on strike
for eight months and it did the trick about a month after we came into power, but not before. My hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works, succeeded in getting put into that agreement a very important clause, and that was a provision that should any disputes subsequently arise within, I think five years, it would be decided by one man named in the agreement to act on behalf of the mine owners, and another man to act on behalf of the miners, and if these 36
two failed to agree on a third the Minister of Labour would appoint him.


Wilfrid Laurier: Did the Minister of Public Works do that?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I understand he was
the means of getting that put into the agreement.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then why
didn't you send him to British Columbia?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Under that agreement there have been several disputes settled in the Crowsnest Pass, and we have had no serious strike since it was entered into. My right hon. friend need not be too gay about sending the Minister of Public Works to Vancouver Island. There are some disputes more difficult to settle than others, as he has lived long enough to know. He was Prime Minister of this country for 22 months, during which there was a strike at Springhill, and he did not succeed in settling it.
He was here and saw the militia sent to three points in Nova .Scotia; yet he did not raise any disturbance about it. As far as concerns anything which has occurred since the rioting and unlawful acts on Vancouver Island, I am glad to know that the Government of British Columbia has recognized the fact that it is their duty to preserve law and order in all parts of that province, and I am very glad to know that they are vigorously performing their duty in that regard.


David Bradley Neely: The
Minister of Labour seems to be under the belief or suspicion that members on this side of the House are conducting a concerted attack upon these votes in order to attack the minister himself. I am sure that there is no desire on the part of any member on this side of the House to deal unfairly with the Minister of Labour or -with the vote that he has passed, or is asking this committee to pass. All that this Committee wants is a fair and reasonable explanation by the minister of the part that he and his department have played in this very serious labour disturbance that has agitated the province of British Columbia and, in fact, practically the whole of Canada during the last year and a half. It seems to me that the minister has absolutely failed to meet the point of criticism from this side. Not only has he failed, but the hon. gentlemen from the province of British Columbia, who have undertaken to defend the minister



and his department" and to show that the minister has earned out his responsibility in a proper way in this matter, have absolutely failed to meet the real point of the criticism. The minister knows very well that in my country we do not believe in putting out a prairie fire after it has devastated forty or fifty miles of country; we believe that a prairie fire is such a dangerous thing that we must attack it right at the beginning or as near the beginning as possible.
I	take up this report of the special commissioner appointed by the minister, and what do I find? The minister says that we are somewhat previous in our discussions because we have not had certain returns brought down. So far as that is concerned, I might retort that the minister is previous in asking us to vote these sums of money until information, to which the House is entitled in connection with his department, is brought down.
From the somewhat incomplete report of a certain part of the events which took place on Vancouver Island in connection with this strike, what do we find in regard to the minister carrying out his responsibility as Minister of Labour, as the one upon whom devolves the responsibility of seeking to avert these unfortunate crises that sometimes arise between labour and capital? What evidence have we from the minister's own statement that he has actually seriously undertaken to carry out that responsibility? In the report of his special commissioner, so far as the inception of the trouble is concerned, we have one document signed by the Minister of Labour, that is the telegram in which he tells the contending parties on Vancouver Island, the mine owners and the miners, what their duty is under the Industrial Disputes Act. In other words, he tells them what they already know, that before striking they should have applied for a conciliation board.
In my judgment, the whole
II	p.m. trend of the Minister's statement is to the effect that the men were to blame for the strike. From the facts I do not find that the mine owners communicated with the minister or with the Department of Mines of the province of British Columbia in connection with the trouble, but I find in this report four communications, three addressed to the Minister of Labour at Ottawa and one addressed to the Premier of the province of British Columbia, in which representatives of the different

labour organizations addressed themselves to the minister to see if some way could not be found out of the serious difficulty in which those miners found themselves as the result of the disagreement between them and the mine owners. So far as I am concerned, the real essence of the criticism against the minister is the fact that, from the month of September, 1912, until the strike became general on the first of May, 1913, the minister, beyond sending the telegram pointing out to the miners of Vancouver Island what they already knew to be their duty under the Industrial Disputes Act, month by month sat still, realizing that the dispute was not settled, realizing that if it were not settled it must inevitably become worse as the disease spread.
I did not notice in the House last session that the Minister of Labour-we will call him that although he prefers, I understand, to be called by another name, the Minister of Play-was so acutely and actively busy that he could not have spared two or three weeks to take a trip last winter, instead of waiting until the following summer, to investigate the conditions that prevailed. Does not the minister himself think, does not any right-minded man in this House think that, when the first trouble commenced in the mines on Vancouver Island, the minister should have gone himself or sent his deputy or some man experienced in the settlement of disputes of that kind, preferably of course the Minister of Public Works, who is the wonder of the age, judging by what his colleagues say of his ability to settle strikes? If there was any time when he should have been busy in the settlement of the dispute, surely it was before the trouble became general and not when the minister went -out last July, when he found a situation which he himself could not control and with which he found it impossible to deal.
Having allowed the situation to go so far, and having allowed the strike to become general, what do we find the minister endeavouring to do? A general strike is called on the 1st of May. Surely the hon. minister must have had advance notice of it through his correspondents. If not, I wonder what these correspondents, who in different parts of the country are paid from $100 to $300 for furnishing reports to the Labour Gazette, which this House is asked to vote money to publish- I wonder what the correspondents in Van-

couver or Victoria were doing. If they did not furnish the hon. gentleman with information as to this strike, he ought to fire those correspondents and appoint men who would he alive to the situation. For here was a strike which threw hundreds of men out of employment, and with further trouble impending, yet the minister-tells us he knew nothing about it until the announcement was made that a general strike had been called by the President of the United Mine Workers of America.


Francis Henry Shepherd: The correspondent at Nanaimo, I may tell the hon. gentleman, is an appointee of the late Government.


David Bradley Neely: If he is, and if he does not furnish better information than that tp which the minister refers, he ought to be fired. There is one decapitation which I can tell the hon. gentleman, we on this side will heartily endorse, if that is the way this man carries out his responsibility to the minister who is over him.
Now, when the general strike is called the minister seems to awaken out of the lethargic condition of somnolence which, apparently, like some animals, he enjoyed through the winter months. The session of Parliament over, the minister recommends the appointment of a Royal Commissioner to investigate the matter. I have no fault to find with this commissioner. I do not know anything about Mr. Price or his qualifications, but I have no reason to doubt his qualifications for the position. But I would like to ask this question: In the name of common sense what is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, what is he appointed for by the Government? Why is there such a portfolio, why does this House vote the minister a salary year by year? Is it to sit in his office in Ottawa the year round, or to take pleasure trips to Europe or somewhere else? I have no fault to find with the minister fob taking a pleasure trip at the proper time. But why appoint a special commissioner to investigate a situation when he, as the member of the Government responsible "for the conduct of labour affairs was taking a trip to look into the situation? If I were a labouring man in Vancouver Island and saw the minister of the Crown who is responsible for looking after the interests of the workingman travelling to the seat of trouble in a private car accompanied by a gentleman to whom he had transferred a portion if not 361
all of his responsibility, I certainly should begin to wonder what sort of an administration was in charge of affairs in this thing. I say it is an extraordinary thing, it is anomalous, this appointment of a commissioner when the minister was going to the seat of trouble to investigite personally the state of affairs. I have here the report of the commissioner. I am not going to discuss it. It is somewhat extended and the commissioner's conclusions are general. Like the minister, he has come to the conclusion that nothing could be be done. When a man's house is afire, he may think it is a hopeless case and that the house will burn down, but surely he will struggle to preserve as much of his property as he can. But what do we find happens so far as the minister is concerned in the case? He comes back to the city of Ottawa and spends two or three weeks, I suppose in the supervision of his departmental affairs. Then, on the 13th of August, the press despatches contain the information that a serious condition has arisen in connection with the strike, that riots have occurred, that there is danger of loss of life and property. So serious is the matter that we find the militia are called out to maintain order. And in four days' time from that, we find the minister packing his grip and taking the first train out of Ottawa to put several thousand miles of briny ocean between him and the possible stray bullets from Vancouver Island that might reach the city of Ottawa. That may be the minister's view of the proper way to discharge his duty towards the workingmen of this country. But the workingmen, especially those in the province of British Columbia, must have heard with wonder the news that immediately the situation in Vancouver Island had become acute, the Minister of Labour packs his grip, takes the train out of Ottawa and presently is on the ocean on his way to have a little pleasure trip across the sea.
Perhaps I speak unfairly in referring to that as a pleasure trip; if I am not mistaken some one has suggested that the minister went to England to study industrial conditions and investigate conditions of labour across the sea. If the minister is prepared to get up in this House and say that the reason why he took this trip across the sea, when the real crisis of the trouble in British Columbia had been reached, was to find a solution for the labour problem in British Columbia, which, apparently, he could not find in this country, then he

would be offering some justification for his action. But I quite fail to understand how it was possible for the minister to manifest such absolute callousness and indifference in respect of this matter when the most serious crisis of the situation had been reached, by deliberately packing his grip and leaving on a trip to Europe. We have not had from the minister any report with regard to his trip to Europe. He is asking us to vote money to-night for the purpose of carrying on the work of his department. It has been said that the minister is asking for less than $100,000 whilst other ministers have the responsibility of spending larger sums. It may be quite true that the Minister of Labour is not responsible for the expenditure of a large sum of money, but I do maintain that he is the responsible head of one of the most important departments of this Government. The fact that he has the responsibility of dealing with labour disputes and of difficulties between employers and employees places upon the minister's shoulders a responsibility far greater, in my judgment, than the disbursement of money in public works. We are told that the minister went across the sea to study industrial conditions in England. There is one thing to be said in favour of the special commissioner who went to Vancouver Island; he did bring back a report, and we have it before us. I think the minister in asking for this vote should give the committee some insight as to the conclusions he arrived at as the result of his investigations in the old country. I am sure the committee would be delighted to know just what the minister discovered over there as to the best means of settling disputes of this nature. Did the minister actually look into labour conditions in England? Did he meet the labour leaders over there? Did he go down into the mines and collieries and study conditions there? Did he look into. conditions in the slums of London? I am sure we should all be glad to become acquainted with what the minister's trip to England means as far as any benefit to the people of this country is concerned. Is it the intention of the minister to bring down a report of this investigation? We are interested in this matter, because this country pays the minister for looking after his department. He has spent the money of this country not only in his trip across the continent to the province of British Columbia, but, I presume, also in his trip to Europe, and it is only fair that the minister should give us the information for which we are asking.

I wish to ask the minister if in his judgment he thinks that he used every proper and possible endeavour to prevent this strike in the province of British Columbia, which occurred in September, 1912, from becoming general, as it did, in the early part of May, 1913? That was the time to stop the trouble; did the minister take the necessary steps or put forth the needed efforts to bring about a cessation of trouble at that time? Everybody knows that a trouble of this kind, tackled at the proper time, is often very easily adjusted, but if it is allowed to grow for months and the passions of the contending parties are permitted to become inflamed by continuous friction and conflict, then it is very difficult to effect a remedy. I do not think that the minister ought to feel that he has been subjected to unfair criticism in this matter.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, go on; I have no objection at all.


David Bradley Neely: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did this Government
pay any portion, and if so what portion, of the expenses of the militia sent to Vancouver Island? Has the minister any well defined ideas in order to meet the various conditions that exist there at the present time?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think our department has paid anything towards the expense of the militia.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has this Government?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Not that I am aware of.


Robert Rogers: Not that I ever heard of.


William F. Carroll: It pays the difference
between what the officers and men would get when not on active duty and what they would get when they are on active duty.


Robert Rogers: The suggestion may be correct, but I am not sure. I would like to suggest that as the hour is late we should make a little progress, and then we might adjourn.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Labour referred to the fact that there is a notice on the Order Paper which I intended to move asking for all papers and documents in connection with this matter. I do not think that I should have been called upon to make such a motion; I think the papers should have been brought down as soon as possible. My hon. friend has already brought down part of the record of his department in the report of the commission which he has appointed. This report, without the correspondence, is only part of the information we should have, and I would suggest to him that he bring down the papers before the next sitting of the committee.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think my hon. friend from Humboldt is all out in saying that we have 39 on the staff now and that there were only 21 when we came into power.


David Bradley Neely: Those are on the list.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I want to look up the list. Perhaps the hon. member for Humboldt was not here when I stated that we knew nothing about this strike at Cumberland until after it had actually occurred; we had no intimation whatever. By the first of May the mines at Cumberland were in operation and the output had grown to be almost normal. At every other mine on Vancouver Island there was an existing agreement between the men and their employers. Some of these agreements would not have lapsed for a year and a half more, and some would not have elapsed for six months more, so there was nothing to indicate that these men were not going to observe the terms of these agreements between the strike at Cumberland and the strike of the first of May, nothing whatever. If my hon. friend knew anything about labour movements he would know that men by the thousand may be called out in a few minutes by telegram. That is what happened in this case. A telegram sent, as I understand, from Seattle, calling out all these men who had no grievance against their employers and whose agreements with their employers had not expired. I had some 27 of these men before me and they admitted that they had entered into a written agreement. These were employees of the Western Fuel Company, of Nanaimo, and that agreement would not expire until the following October. They admitted that since that agreement had been entered into they had not made a single complaint to their employers. Yet, notwithstanding that, on a telegram from an officer of their association they quit work five or six months before the expiration of the agreement.


Wilfrid Laurier: On account of the trouble at Cumberland.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Probably on account of the trouble at Cumberland, which was passing away. So we had no intimation of the strike until after it had occurred. Yet my hon. friend thinks we should have had a deputation out there watching all the time.


David Bradley Neely: Would the minister not
know from the history and course of strikes?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, it is not usual, it is very unusual to have these sympathetic strikes, and it is unusual for the men to break their agreement. The usual thing is that they carry out their agreement. As I said to them: You admit that you signed an agreement fixing the rates of wages and hours of labour; you admit that you never complained since that agreement was signed, and yet you went out on strike six months before the expiration of that agreement. That applies to all mines except those controlled by the Canadian Collieries. When the corespondence is brought down the hon. member for Humboldt will find that his statement that nothing was done except sending telegrams is absolutely without any foundation. I saw the man who controls the Cumberland mines, and my deputy went to Toronto to see another man, who is manager or next to the head man of the company that really controls those mines. We saw those men.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let us see the correspondence.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We will let you see it when you get an order of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why not before?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It is not usual to
bring it down when there is a notice of motion.	'


Wilfrid Laurier: It is usual to
bring any necessary information when you are asking for Supply.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not think it is
usual to bring all the corespondence you have in your office.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is useful if it is not usual.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.

Monday, February 9, 1914.