1922-03-30

NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Hon. James Horace King, member for the electoral district of Kootenay East, introduced by Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Sir Lomer Gouin.

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: Hon. members of the House will regret to learn that His Honour, the Speaker of this House, has just suffered bereavement in the death of his father at the advanced and venerable age of eighty-six years. I express what I know to be the wish of the House when I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to convey to Hon. Mr. Lemieux the deep sympathy of all its members. It will be the wish of hon. members that their sympathy should also be extended to other members of the late Mr. Lemieux's distinguished family.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: It was only as I entered the Chamber a few moments ago that I received the very distressing news of the death of Mr. Speaker's father. Filial affection is one of the strongest impulses and ties that have to do with human relationships, and those of us who have known the Speaker of this House for so many years are aware that in the case of his family, and particularly as regards his father, that affection has been of the most marked and deepest character. The loss he has suffered is therefore severe, and I associate myself most earnestly with the sympathy expressed by the Prime Minister.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: While, with other members of the House, I was aware of the fact that the Speaker's father was seriously ill,
I was not aware of the fatal termination of that illness until the announcement just made by the Prime Minister. For myself and those who sit with me, I wish to say that we associate ourselves with all that has been said by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition in extending the sympathy of the House to Mr. Speaker and his family in the sad bereavement that they have suffered.



RETURNED SOLDIERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order, Motions:
Hon. H. S- BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) : I move, Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, that before we take up this order we proceed to Government Notices of Motion, in order that a motion be made which otherwise we might not reach in the course of the day.
Arthur Meighen: I suppose it is a matter that will not take up much time?


Mr. BELAND:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move the following resolution:
That a Special Committee be appointed to consider questions relating to the pensions, insur* ance and re-establishment of returned soldiers, and any amendments to the existing laws in relation thereto which may be proposed or considered necessary by the Committee ; with power to send for persons, papers and records, to print from day to day its proceedings and the evidence taken, for the use of the Committee and to report from time to time; and that Rule
II	be suspended in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to*

Nova Scotia Miners


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move:
That the Special Committee appointed in conformity with the resolution agreed to by the House consist of the following members: Messrs. Arthurs, Black (Yukon), Brown, Caldwell, Carroll, Chisholm, Clark, Clifford, Denis (Joliette), Forrester, Hudson, Humphrey, Knox, McKay, Marler, MacLaren, Miss Macphail, Munro, Power, Raymond, Robinson, Ross (Kingston), Savard, Speakman, Stork, Sutherland, Turgeon and Wallace.


Mr. MACLEAN (York) :: Will this committee be similar to the committees of the two previous sessions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King the House returned to routine proceedings.

Arthur Meighen: If it meets with no objection, I move:
That the name of Mr. Stewart (Hamilton) be substituted for that of Mr. Stewart (Lanark) on the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and that the name of Mr. Stewart (Lanark) be substituted for that of Mr. Stewart (Hamilton) on the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary East) :: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the serious crisis developing at the present time in Nova Scotia between the miners of District No. 26 and the British Empire Steel Corporation.


Mr. FIELDING:: The hon. gentleman desires to have an opportunity of addressing the House on this subject- There is no objection.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I presume
that already most hon. members are aware of the situation in Nova Scotia for the discussion of which I now move the adjournment of the House. It is generally understood, I believe, that a difficulty has developed between the British Empire Steel Corporation and the coal miners of Nova Scotia, involving about twelve thousand men. The difficulty began about 1st January, when the company made a wage cut of about 37i per cent. Incidentally I might
point out that the cost of living in Nova Scotia is about 17 per cent higher than in Alberta, yet the wages are 71 per cent lower. Naturally the men concerned resisted this reduction. A conciliation board was granted. I understand that the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) appointed the chairman of that board because the representatives of the parties had some difficulty in agreeing on one themselves. The chairman was from Ontario. It seems that the conclusion which the committee arrived at was not very satisfactory to the men. It happened that the chairman agreed with the representative of the company, and I understand that his casting vote carried the day. The recommendation was that a 32 i per cent cut of wages should be put into effect instead of the 371 per cent that was previously imposed by the company; but a minority report was submitted recommending a 14 per cent reduction on contracts and a minimum on the datal rate of $3.50. The majority report was submitted to the men and was rejected by an almost unanimous vote. Following this the miners considered the whole situation at a general convention, after which a delegation was sent to Montreal and negotiations were re-opened between them and the operators, which resulted in the latter granting $2.85 or slightly over that to the datal men. This was submitted to the men and was also rejected.
Now, immediately on the wage cut being put into effect by the company the men, of their own volition, naturally struck on the job. That is, they said to themselves: We will not continue to produce coal which will make very high profits for the corporation at a wage on which we cannot live; and this is commonly called "striking on the job." It might be pointed out here that the miners were not in a position to strike in the ordinary way for the reason that they had already expended almost their entire surplus funds in giving relief to their fellows who have been suffering from lack of nourishment and proper attention throughout the past winter. I do not know whether it was decided at any particular meeting or whether the strike leaders authorized it, but it was decided almost unanimously by the men that they would lower production of coal to a point about corresponding to what they are getting in wages.
The fact of the matter is that the coal is not being produced at the present time, which is an economic waste; and the second fact is that the men are not getting a liv-

Nova Scotia Miners

ing wage, and the stories which are coming through of the conditions in Nova Scotia almost rival those that have come to us from the famine districts of the Volga. We hear of children under-nourished and suffering sickness; we hear of an increase in the death rate; we hear of parents being summoned by the educational authorities for not being able to send their children to school because they cannot buy them boots and clothes and properly nourish them. I do not think it necessary for me to bring that information to the notice of the Government, for I believe they are already well acquainted with it, but I may say that those stories are coming from authoritative sources.
Now, there are about twelve thousand men and their families involved in this situation; and we understand, both from the organized labour movement of that province, and from the delegation which is at present in the city of Ottawa to meet the Government in consultation on this matter, that the men have about reached the limit of their endurance, and must of necessity secure a settlement of some kind at the very earliest possible moment. In order to secure that settlement they have sought in a proper British manner to secure some amelioration through constitutional means. They made their appeal first of all to the provincial government, and I understand that that government has absolutely refused to have anything to do with the matter.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Would my hon. friend tell Us where he has received that information?


William Irvine: I have received that information, Mr. Speaker, from the delegation that is here waiting upon the Government to deal with this matter, and I have also received it from the organized labour movement of Nova Scotia. I have a copy of that information before me. Having failed to get redress at the hands of the local government, they have sent a delegation to Ottawa, consisting of mayors from the four mining towns of Nova Scotia, namely, Mayor Morrison, of Glace Bay; Mayor Ling, of New Waterford; Mayor McLean of Dominion, and Mayor Wilson, of Spring Hill. They have presented the miners' case to the Government, and I understand that they have not received a satisfactory answer. I am advised that the Government has practically refused to take any definite action. I have here the answer which was given to the delegation

by the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I will read it to the House:
Referring to the request made by yourself and Messrs McLean, Ling and Wilson at the interview with certain of my colleagues and myself in my office yesterday, that a Royal Commission be appointed forthwith to investigate matters pertaining to the coal mining industry in the Province of Nova Scotia, I beg to inform you that the Government has had this matter under consideration and is of the opinion that the situation is not one which in the public interest can be satisfactorily dealt with under the existing circumstances by a Royal Commission.	.
Now, while it may be perfectly true that a royal commission would not be able to do anything of very material benefit, yet apparently the Government does not propose to take any other course that would be better than the appointment of a royal commission. So we take it that the note virtually means that the Government has no intention of taking any particular action in the circumstances. I wish to read for the information of the House just a line or two from the manifesto presented by this delegation:
We feel that the situation will never be understood until a commission of sympathetic, just and competent inyestigators have gone into the mining districts of Nova Scotia and seen things for themselves; until they have seen with their own eyes the conditions under which these people are expected to live and bring up healthy families.
The delegation asks that a commission be appointed to investigate this matter. I may say that these delegates are not representative simply of labour organizations, they are mayors of towns, representatives of the citizens of Nova Scotia; and the matter with which they deal is of vital concern to almost everybody in that province. I repeat that they are not here to put forward any particular type of labour propaganda; they are here as representative citizens to consult the Government on a matter of real public importance.
Now, the point I wish to make is this. The miners of Nova Scotia have appealed to the constitutional authorities of this country to deal with a condition which to them is unbearable. The provincial authority says that it cannot or will not act; this Government says, or virtually says, it cannot act. Well, who is going to act? If these men cannot obtain redress by constitutional methods, what are they to do? Will any hon. gentleman tell us what they are to do? If they are receiving a wage upon which they cannot live; if they are contracting disease and, in some

Nova Scotia Miners
cases, dying through lack of nourishment, they must have some kind of redress; and if neither the provincial government nor the Dominion Government will take action, what is to be the outcome? It is too late for us to talk when things happen; now is the time for this Government-or some other government; we want to know where the authority is-to deal with this matter. Surely there is some constitutional authority which will face the situation and undertake to see that a fair deal is given both to the corporation and to the miners. I am not here to plead for anything that would not he fair to the corporation; I want to see the company as well as the miners get a square deal. But if we refuse to listen to the appeal of these men, I ask again, what is going to be the outcome? Human nature can only stand so much; if it gets a little more than it can stand, what is going to happen?
I would like to make a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and if I am not in order in doing so, it will not be much trouble to you to tell me that I am out of order. I would suggest that some one-say, Mr. Howard Ross, K.C., of Montreal, or some one else of similar standing-be appointed by this Government to investigate the whole situation with a view to arriving at a sane settlement.
I need not remind you of the history of this particular corporation; hon. members undoubtedly know what that history is. They know of the recent great merger under which there was formed a gigantic corporation which practically controls a monopoly of the. coal output of Nova Scotia. I understand also that this company through its manager has been enabled to create watered stock to the amount of some $19,000,000. If it is necessary to pay dividends upon that amount of watered stock, surely it can only be done by reducing the wages of the producers, particularly when the corporation has to compete in the coal markets of the world. I am led to believe that that is exactly what is taking place: the company is seeking to reduce wages to the point which will enable it to make sufficient profits on its watered stock, as well as on its dry stock, if you like, to make it worth while to carry on business. Perhaps you know also that this great corporation was refused a charter by the late government of this Dominion and was granted it by the provincial government. There is a Liberal government in power in Nova Scotia, and we have a Liberal Government here. Sir, the question of politics 32*
does not enter into this matter; I hope it is not simply because a Liberal government happens to be in power in Nova Scotia that the present federal Government does not see its way clear to take some action. This is a matter of great importance; it involves not only the rights of 12,000 workingmen in Nova Scotia, but the rights and privileges of the people generally of that province. In fact, if you look at the question closely you will see that it is of national importance. Therefore I would like to hear this House discuss the matter in all its phases and decide upon some course of action.
Mr. DONALD M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) : I wish to speak briefly, Mr. Speaker, in support of this motion. The Government cannot get away from its responsibility in this matter. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have given grants of large amounts to the companies that have been merged to form what is now the British Empire Steel Corporation and to that extent the Dominion authority is responsible for the establishing of this industry. Something like $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 has been granted to these companies. Therefore it is the duty of this Government to do whatever it can to bring about a settlement which will be fair in every way to the men who are doing the work in this industry. After all, is it the purpose of this industry merely to turn out icoal, steel plates, and so on? Should it not also provide a good living for the men who are doing the work in connection with it? I think it is the duty of the Government to investigate the whole matter, and to do so in a sympathetic manner. Let it find the best men it can to assume the responsibility of getting at the facts and of trying to effect a settlement which will be fair and just to all parties concerned.


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond) :: Mr. Speaker, I happen to be one of the representatives from South Cape Breton and Richmond where the large bulk of miners of Nova Scotia work and reside. I am deeply interested in the success of the coal mines in that province, and I am equally interested in the welfare of the miners and workingmen generally, especially of those engaged in the coal industry on the island of Cape Breton.
The delegation to which my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Irvine) has referred was introduced to the Government by hon. members from Nova Scotia including my-
Nova Scotia Miners

self, and their case was fairly and vigorously placed before the members of the Government then present. The Government saw fit, yesterday evening I think, to advise that delegation that it would not at this juncture establish a royal commission to investigate the coal industry in the province of Nova Scotia and to re-canvass the whole situation in that province. That, in effect, I think, was the answer of the Government.
The situation in the coal fields of Nova Scotia at the present time is a most serious one, and if anything could be done to help bring together the coal operators and the coal miners and secure better co-operation in the operation of the mines of that province, it would1 be a splendid thing. I am in no way talking for the Government or any member of it. I have lived with the coal miners in the county of Cape Breton for the past sixteen or seventeen years, and a finer body of men does not exist in this Dominion. It is true that they did not treat myself very well during the last campaign, but that, of course, does not enter into the consideration of the question which my hon- friend from Calgary has brought before the House.
The hon. member for Calgary has told us that this Government appointed the chairman of the conciliation board established by the Minister of Labour in the last Government, Hon. Senator Robertson. The facts are that the miners appointed as their representative Mayor Ling, an estimable man, who has been a coal miner himself. The Dominion Coal Company which operates the mines, refused to name a man, and Senator Robertson therefore appointed a gentleman to represent them. These two could not agree on the third arbitrator, and so when the present Government came into power the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) appointed U. E. Gillen, from the city of Toronto, as chairman of the board. That board held its meetings in the city of Halifax- Personally, I think it would have been much better if the board had sat in the town of Glace Bay, which is the centre of coal operations in the province of Nova Scotia, because the members would then have been able to see for themselves the actual conditions among the miners and could have had at a moment's notice any evidence which it would have been proper to bring before the tribunal. They sat, however, in the city of Halifax, and subsequently they made certain recommendations. That, of course, was the only thing

they could do, because, as I understand it, neither the Labour people nor those who have put their capital in industrial enterprise in this country, wish to have compulsory arbitration; neither party wishes to be bound to accept the findings of an arbitration board. I remember that while discussing in Parliament, in 1912 or 1913, a coal strike in the province of British Columbia in which there had been an arbitration, the findings of which were very much in favour of the miners, I suggested that it might be well if there were some way of enforcing the findings of that particular arbitration and of future arbitrations. But immediately I had letters from all of the large labour unions in this country telling me that while I had done them some service in bringing this matter before the House and the government of the day, the unions of this country were not in favour of compulsory arbitration and I think, perhaps, when everything is said and done, that they are taking the proper stand. So there is no way of enforcing the awards of a conciliation board.
The conciliation board that sat in Halifax brought in its findings, and I am not here to say whether those findings were or were not based on the evidence which came before the board. I understand that the Dominion Coal Company, at the request of members of the board, introduced as evidence the cost sheets of the company, and that the arbitrators had the right to go into these cost sheets and ascertain for themselves just what it was costing the Dominion Coal Company to mine coal. With that and other evidence before them I think the board should have been in a position to bring in very fair findings, but I am bound to say that some of the findings in detail do not seem to me to have been well thought out. However, I am not here to criticise the findings of that board. The mine workers refused to accept the recommendations of that board, and the Dominion Coal Company, which is part of the British Empire Steel Corporation, went into further conferences with the men, through the executive of the United Mine Workers of America, to which organization the miners of Nova Scotia belong. Conferences took place in the city of Montreal, and after some time a majority of that board agreed to certain proposals made by representatives of the Dominion Coal Company. I think the executive board, while in the city of Montreal, consisted of seven members, and four of

Nova Scotia Miners
that executive representing the United Mine Workers, signed a statement that the additional proposals of the Dominion Coal Company should be recommended to the good judgment of the miners of Nova Scotia and accepted by them as a working agreement until such time as further negotiations could take place. The recommendation was sent to various labour councils in the province of Nova Scotia, and a vote was taken upon it, but, strange to say, a week or so before the miners were to vote on the acceptance of that proposed agreement the executive of the United Mine Workers of America broke over it, and we found three members of the United Mine Workers, the secretary-treasurer and two district board representatives, going out among the miners in the various coal centres of Nova Scotia exhorting them not to accept the working arrangement which had been agreed to by a majority of the board in the City of Montreal. We also find those who favoured the agreement proposed by the company going out and opposing their brothers of the executive, and advising the miners of Nova Scotia to accept the proposals of the Dominion Coal Company. However, the result was that the miners, by an extremely large majority-I think seven to one-voted to turn down the agreement, and said they were not going to work under it. I want to point out that the proposals of the Dominion Coal Company and the arrangement which formed the basis of the agreement arrived at in the city of Montreal did increase the wages of the datal men beyond what were recommended by the members of the conciliation board, although the increase was small it is true. The wage, which had been cut down to $2.68, was increased to $3. Under the recommendations of the board it would have been $2.85. So that a minimum wage of $3 was established for these men who are not paid by contract but on a basis of what is ordinarily termed piece work. However, the agreement, as I have said, was turned down, and so the miners of Nova Scotia have reverted, as far as their wages are concerned, to the findings of the conciliation board of which Mr. Gillen of Toronto was chairman; and they are in a worse position than they would have been had they accepted the further proposals contemplated by the agreement entered into by the operators and by a majority of the board.
Knowing the career in this country of my hon. friend (Mr. Irvine) who moved the
adjournment, I know that he is wholeheartedly in favour of the labour people of this country getting a fair show. So am I, Sir; that is the position I have taken ever since I first participated in the politics of this country, and even before that. Now the trouble seems to be that, so far as legislation enacted by this Parliament is concerned, there remains nothing else to be done, and the federal government has refused to appoint a royal commission to consider the question. My hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) has stated that the United Mine Workers have done everything they could to cause the Government of Nova Scotia to act, but without avail. I can tell my hon. friend that he is somewhat mistaken in that statement. I have kept in the very closest touch with the situation since coming here, and I am aware that last week the Minister of Mines for Nova Scotia, Hon. Mr. Armstrong, wired Mr. Baxter, who is president of the United Mine Workers of America in that district, inviting him to come to Halifax,-and I may say in passing that Mr. Baxter is one of those who recommended to the miners under his charge, the adoption of the agreement entered into in Montreal. At a joint meeting held in the New Savoy theatre in Glace Bay last Sunday night, at which Mr. Mc-Lachlan, the secretary-treasurer, and Mr. Baxter, the president-who are taking opposite sides on this matter-were present, Mr. Baxter made the statement that Mr. Armstrong, provincial Minister of Mines, informed him that if the miners in the district would go back to work and not loaf on the job-as they were advised to do and as I think they are doing to some extent-he would appoint a royal commission to investigate the whole coal mine situation in the province of Nova Scotia. I am sorry to say that, according to my advices and instructions from that meeting his recommendations in effect were turned down. My hon. friend from East Calgary says that the coal miners have exhausted all their appeals so far as the government of Nova Scotia is concerned. Well, I want to point out that there is on the statute books of Nova Scotia the best piece of legislation-in so far as arbitration between miners and operators is concerned- that could possibly exist. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it excels, far excels, what is commonly called the Lemieux Act, or Conciliation Act, of the Dominion under which conciliation boards are held. I want to point out that this legislation is embodied
Nova Scotia Miners

in Chapter 21 of the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia, 1900. Now, there is no appeal from an arbitration board instituted under Dominion legislation; there is no way of compelling either party to the negotiations to accept the recommendations of the conciliation board; there is no higher tribunal to which either party may appeal. May I point out that under the arbitration provided for between miners and employers in Nova Scotia, if those on either side do not agree with the finding of the arbitrators, they may appeal to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia consisting of seven judges-who have always been, and I believe yet are, eminently fair men.


William Irvine: What is the government of Nova Scotia doing in this matter? And is it the case that certain members of that government are shareholders in this particular corporation?


William F. Carroll: Answering my hon.
friend's second question first, permit me to say that I do not know who the shareholders in the British Empire Steel Corporation are. However, I can take my hon. friend into my confidence and tell him that, happily, I am not one. In reply to his other question let me remind him that I have already stated what the Minister of Mines in Nova Scotia was willing to do if the miners would come to the conclusion that they would give a fair day's work for the wages which they were receiving. That communication was made to the miners through Mr. Baxter, President of the Union, at a mass meeting in Glace Bay on last Sunday evening, and was turned down by that meeting. In further answer to my hon. friend I may say that the government of Nova Scotia does not take the initiative under the provincial legislation to which I refer; the initiation must be taken either by the employees, that is, the miners, or the operators. They must make application to the Minister of Mines of the province, and if he is satisfied that they have established a good case he will grant a board. The men appoint two arbitrators and the operators appoint two and

as is usual in other arbitration cases-if they do not agree a judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia appoints the fifth arbitrator. Whatever may be said of the present or past Ministers of Labour of Canada, whatever may be said as to the character and political affiliations of the men whom they have appointed as chairman of these conciliation boards- whose appointment is part of the minister's duty-surely little fault can be found

with a provision that a judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia shall appoint the fifth arbitrator of a provincial board. And in that respect I say the act governing arbitration between miners and employees in the province of Nova Scotia is away ahead of the legislation which has been passed by this government in the Lemieux Act.
I am not going to criticise the leaders in Nova Scotia who think they are properly advising the men when they ask them to strike on the job. That is a matter for the executive of the United Mine Workers of Nova Scotia, and I suppose they know their business better than I do. But I think it passing strange that the executive of the United Mine Workers of the province of Nova Scotia have been so poorly advised by these legal lights who have been giving them legal advice in the past two years, that they have not yet been informed that there is such a magnificent piece of legislation upon the statute book of Nova Scotia to arbitrate and settle wage disputes. Neither am I here to say, Mr. Speaker, anything concerning the telegraphic communications between Mr. McLachlan, the Secretary-Treasurer of the United Mine Workers, and my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). That is their business. But something should be done to attempt, at least to bring those people together again.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Hear, hear.


William F. Carroll: I say that I believe

and I am not saying this on account of the fact that Mr. McLachlan and myself had some little controversies over politics in the last election-that Mr. McLachlan broke faith with the executive after he left Montreal, and he broke faith with the executive when he went down to Nova Scotia and did not assist them in putting through the agreement which was reached there. I believe that the miner, in common with every other class of labour in this country, is entitled to a fair and living wage. I think I can go so far as to say that there are some classes of labour in the province of New Brunswick, as in other parts of the Dominion of Canada, who are not paid a fair or living wage.
I did not know this discussion was coming up to-day. While my hon. friend from East Calgary was perfectly within his right in moving adjournment in order to discuss this matter, I am sorry he did not give notice of the discussion. He was perfectly in order in the course he has taken, and he did give notice to the Minister of

Nova Scotia Miners
Labour (Mr. Murdock). I regret that I did not have some time to prepare myself on the various phases on the findings of the conciliation hoard. As a matter of fact, I think the findings of the conciliation board were somewhat worse than described by the hon gentleman from East Calgary. Not only was there a cut of 221 per cent on the wages which certain men were receiving, but the 55 cents which was granted to those men by a previous board was taken off. It meant 22 per cent in some cases, plus 55 cents. In other cases it meant a 15 per cent cut plus 55 cents. Those getting $3.80 before, got more as a result of the findings of the arbitration board than did those who were getting $4. These were some of the little inconsistencies of findings of the board, and, perhaps that was the reason why the Dominion Coal Company went into further negotiations after that finding had been made.
I might tell the House, in reference to the question of loafing on the job-I forget the other word; oh, yes, sabotage-that that is where the war is on between the Dominion Coal Company and the men at the present time. The Dominion Coal Company tell the men: "You know what you are going down into the mine for. You know when you go into the mine you are going to receive $3.00 a day, and we want you to do a good day's work for that.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman enlighten me on a certain point? I have been informed that the great body of the men, indeed all the coal miners, are what we always called piece-workers, who received so much a ton. Therefore, they only get as much pay as they earn, whether they follow the order of which he complains, or whether they do as they did before. Consequently, how does he describe that as "loafing on the job?"


William F. Carroll: I think my right hon. friend is right. I think about 70 per cent of the employees are datal men at the present time. They receive so much a day. The remainder of the men get so much for the amount of coal taken out. Those are the men who work at the face of the mine. Hon. gentlemen who are familiar with mining know what that means. But the men who dig the coal and blow out the coal, are all paid by what they produce, and those are the men who are hurt by loafing on the job. They will not loaf on a job. It is in their interests to produce all the coal they can. The more coal they produce the more money will be in the envelope
on Saturday evening. But the men who take the coal from those producers, and get it to the top of the mine, are paid not less than $3 a day. It does not make a bit of difference whether they take out one ton or twenty tons, they get their $3. In that way the war is to this effect; that the men are trying to enhance the cost of production in order to bring the Dominion Coal Company to their knees and get better terms. As my right hon. friend says, the only men who suffer are those who produce the coal.


Arthur Meighen: Are they not parties to the arrangement by which they produce only so much? And are not the other men reduced by the company to such numbers as will only take care of the production of piece-work men?


William F. Carroll: I was coming to that. If a datal man refuses to carry the produce of the mines to the surface, he is immediately dismissed; and my latest advice from the mines last Tuesday was that 96 such men have already been dismissed from two mines of the Dominion Coal Company, who operate twenty-three or twenty-four mines in that area. Now, regarding watered stock, if what the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) has said is correct, it is a most unfortunate thing that a corporation operating a basic industry should secure an act of incorporation by which they could have $1,000,000 or $2,000,000, or, as my hon. friend has said, $19,000,000 of watered stock. I think the time has come when legislatures and the federal Parliament of Canada should say to such people: So far shall you go, but no further. I do not know how much watered stock the British Empire Steel Corporation has, but my hon. friend has stated that they have so many millions. A man does not need to be able to read or write to see that if there is $2,000,000 of watered stock in a company, when the accountant goes over the books to see how much they can pay their employees and get fair dividends for the money invested in the business, the men will have the worst of the bargain and will get lower wages than if the capital of the company consisted in actual dollars duly paid into the coffers of the corporation.
As regards the investigation into the affairs of this company, I fully agree with certain members of the Government, with whom I have discussed the matter, that if there is anything wrong in the company's organization, if it has any watered stock-
Nova Scotia Miners

I have no reference to their votes-it is the duty of the government of Nova Scotia, not of this Parliament, to investigate the matter. I do not think that the federal Parliament should investigate the affairs of a company incorporated under the laws of a province. I am reminded by my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Martell) that it is not only the duty, but it would be to the material advantage of the province of Nova Scotia, to make every effort possible to bring about a settlement of this unfortunate difficulty. On every ton of coal produced by the Dominion Coal Company in Nova Scotia the local government receives a royalty of 121 cents, and if the output of coal falls off it is obvious that the revenue of the province must decline. And, while I in no way represent any member of the provincial government and do not speak for any member of the Provincial Assembly or the Legislative Council of Nova Scotia, I feel that if an application were made to the Government of the province, under the provisions of Chapter 21 of the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia, 1900, and the men did their part while the negotiations were in progress, and stopped loafing, the government of the province would jump at the chance of giving them a board under that statute. I am saying this not so much in answer to my hon. friend, because I am not attempting to answer him, since I think he and I feel much the same way about the matter. But I am trying to show that the mine workers of Nova Scotia have not taken the opportunity of having their difficulties settled under the local statute and by a government which must of necessity be deeply concerned if the production of coal is curtailed. [DOT]
I am deeply interested in this dispute because of its public importance. It not only affects 12,000 coal miners in Nova Scotia, but, as well, every man and woman in the province living east of the county of Hants. In the county of Cape Breton, at Sydney, we have a great steel corporation which employs 8,000 or 10,000 men, and if the coal industry goes down the steel industry will naturally die, because there is an agreement between the Dominion Steel Company and the Dominion Coal Company whereby the former gets its coal for practically nothing. The dispute, therefore, not only affects the 12,000 miners to whom reference has been made, but it affects 9,000 steel workers in Sydney, 3,000 or 4,000 more steel workers at Sydney Mines, and 3,000 or 4,000 steel workers in

the county of Pictou. Furthermore, it affects the bread and butter of every man living in the vicinity of these large industrial concerns. For these reasons I believe that the government of Nova Scotia will do everything in its power, when the proper procedure is followed, to get the miners of Nova Scotia and the operators together to discuss the difficulty under the provisions of the Act I have cited. I know what I am talking about, because Mr. Armstrong sent to the president of the United Mine Workers a message which was delivered to the coal miners in the town of Glace Bay last Sunday evening, to the effect that if peace reigned for the time being he would institute a royal commission to investigate and re-canvass the whole coal mining situation in the province of Nova Scotia.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend says, "If peace reigns once more." I do not know just what he means by that.


William F. Carroll: If peace should reign for the time being, I said. Mr. Armstrong sent a message to the president of the United Mine Workers asking them to proceed for the time being and get as much production as they could, and that he would then institute a royal commission. But I would say to the mining population of Nova Scotia that as a lawyer I would give them this advice: Do not ask the Government for a royal commission, because the findings of that commission, whether they are against you or are in your favour, cannot be enforced, and you have no appeal from them. Go to a board, the chairman of which is appointed by a judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, the findings of which, if against you, can be reviewed by five of the Supreme Court judges of the province. If that procedure is followed I believe that the miners will get a fair deal and that peace will reign once more in the mining areas.
I am deeply concerned from the personal standpoint in the early solution of this difficulty, because if the trouble continues it will mean that the large industrial centres which have grown up in the locality during the past twenty years, and of which we are all proud, will decline, and the population will ultimately have to get out. Further, it will mean that the provincial government will be unable to carry on its legitimate business because it will lose the royalties, amounting to millions of dollars, which are now being paid by the Dominion Coal Company and other corporations. It will

Nova Scotia Miners
also entail untold sorrow, trouble and suffering to the men and their families, and that to my mind is the most serious feature of the situation. I hope it is true that the delegation has been advised by the Government that no royal commission will be appointed at the present time. This morning I conferred with the four mayors -very estimable gentlemen-and I told them of the Arbitration Act, and I advised them to go back to Nova Scotia, and get the miners to instruct their lawyers to put that law into operation.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, for having taken up so much time, but this is a serious matter and must be settled without further delay. Whether it will be settled by the authorities of Nova Scotia or by the federal authorities, it must be settled, for we cannot afford to have a continuance of the situation which prevails in Nova Scotia at the present time. I am not going to say whose fault it is that the present conditions exist, I am not going to offer any criticism of the parties to the dispute. I am here simply to outline in a general way the causes and the results of that unfortunate misunderstanding between capital and labour, and to advise, if I may, those interested how, to my mind, the misunderstanding may be settled. Having done that, and having assisted the delegation in every possible way, I hope, Sir, that this House will at least feel that I have done my duty as I see it.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) :: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) did not advise me-no doubt through an oversight -that he proposed to bring this matter up to-day. It is, however, only fair to say that a newspaper gentleman, a friend of mine, notified me at ten minutes past one. I am indeed glad that this question has been brought to the notice of the House, because I find that hon. gentlemen in this chamber and elsewhere appear to toe, and quite rightly, very much interested in this grave situation as it concerns the miners and other citizens of Nova Scotia.
The commencement of the dispute between the miners and the British Empire Steel Corporation and other employing coal companies was prior to the 29th December last when I became Minister of Labour.
My predecessor, Hon Mr. Robertson1- a gentleman for whom, by the way, I have always had and still have the greatest admiration and respect as a representative of labour and as an exponent, so far as
his understanding goes, of the proper aims, and ambitions, and contentions of labour, -took the initiative in dealing with the situation, as was quite proper that he should do. He had instituted a board of investigation under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and appointed to it Mayor Ling, of New Waterford, one of the delegation of Nova Scotia mayors now in Ottawa, to whom my hon. friend from East Calgary ha's referred. On the declination by the company to name a representative my predecessor also appointed a Mr. Thompson of Halifax. So I came into office as his successor to find the board formed thus far and waiting for the appointment of a chairman. It was my first appointment of a chairman of a board of investigation, and I have no regrets to express or apologies to offer for my choice of chairman. Indeed, if I had it to do again I would make the same choice.
In the light of certain suggestions that have been made during the past few days by the deputation from Nova Scotia and by certain hon. members, the belief might be indicated that the board should have been instructed to go on the ground and investigate at first hand all the facts and circumstances in connection with the everyday life of these miners, and of the organization of the British Empire Steel Cor. poration.
But the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act contemplates giving some latitude, to a reasonable board of investigation appointed to inquire into a matter of this kind. As I understand it, it has not been considered altogether proper for the Minister of Labour to suggest to any such board just how or in what manner or where they should conduct their investigation with a view to arriving at a proper decision. The board, as has been stated, was formed, and while it was in session I presumed to send to Nova Scotia a very capable officer of the department in order that he might go on the ground in the mining towns of Cape Breton and ascertain what the actual conditions were. At that particular time much publicity was given in the press to the statement that riots had broken out, that stores of the Dominion Coal Company had been robbed, and that, on the whole, a very serious situation had arisen. It was intimated that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be sent down there to assist in bringing order out of chaos. But so far as I was concerned I felt that nothing of the kind should be done, I did believe that as Minister of Labour I was entitled to

Nova Scotia Miners

have from a trusted employee of the department a first-hand statement as to the actual conditions prevailing in the mining villages of Nova Scotia. I am sorry to say that I must have been too presumptuous in sending a federal employee to that district and in that capacity, because when he got to Halifax he was given to understand, in substance, that he had better mind his own business and get back to Ottawa. I wired him, however, to proceed forthwith, and to furnish a report with regard to the conditions in the various mining towns.
The first result of the investigation was that Mayor Ling, one of the deputation of Nova Scotia mayors now in our city and representative of the miners on the board could not agree with the other two members, Mr. U. E. Gillen, of Toronto, chairman, and Mr. Thompson, representative of the British Empire Steel Corporation. It seemed to have been impossible to arrive at a unanimous understanding, consequently a majority and a minority award were filed with the department. The majority award was very voluminous indeed. It is about half an inch thick, comprising typewritten matter, and covers the entire situation as the chairman and the representative of the company saw it. The report of the majority was accepted by the General Manager of the British Empire Steel Corporation. The representatives of the employees declared that they would submit the matter to the men, which was very proper. I wish now to take you through a few of the stages in connection with the handling of the matter since that time, in order that you may see whether this Government; whether this department; whether this youthful, and, in a parliamentary way, inexperienced Minister of Labour,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Murdock: Admitted, before you
applauded. I want you to see whether we have stood ready, in season and out of season, day and night, to do anything constitutionally possible to secure for these men in Nova Scotia a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I hope that no hon. member of this House, that no individual throughout the length and breadth of Canada, has any doubt as to where my sympathies are in the matter of securing for the labouring man a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. But I am not ready to concede now, nor shall I be in the months and years to come, that if-


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


James Murdock: The Toronto Telegram, you know, said that the Murdock voice could reach to the farthest corner of any hall. I would not like to have anybody come to me after the House rises and intimate that he had been unable to hear me.
I am not ready to concede now, nor shall I be in the months and years to come, that the belief on the part of some employees or their representatives that a fair day's wage has not been given justifies their pretending to work for an employer at that particular wage while at the same time declaring to the world that they are going to cut the output and thus penalize the employer. I have never, in something like twenty-five or twenty-six years' experience as a labouring man and as a representative of labour, held that view, and I do not now, as Minister of Labour, intend to hold it or to follow any such policy.
Shortly after we were able to get the majority and minority awards in such shape that they could be given to the parties concerned, we received from Mr. Mc-Lacblan copy of a letter addressed to Mr. E. P. Merrill, general manager of the Dominion Coal Company, dated February 6, reading as follows:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your favour of the 4th inst., stating that your Company is prepared to accept the finding of the U. E. Gillen Conciliation Board with certain minor adjustments to preserve rate differentials not fully covered by the wording of the award.
Replying I wish to state that the question of accepting or rejecting the award shall be voted on by our people on the 10th instant. However, in order that they may know the attitude of your Company, I shall mail to-day to each local union a copy of your letter for their information. In the absence of the other members of the Executive Board and using my own best judgment I shall be unable to recommend to the local unions the acceptance of your offer as a settlement of this wage dispute.
I am,
Tours truly,
J. B. McLachlan.
As I see it, that letter is couched in absolutely proper and consistent language. I blame not at all Mr. McLachlan for coming out frankly, in man-fashion, and indicating to Mr. Merrill, the general manager, that he could not recommend the acceptance of the award to the miners. He had a perfect right to do that- Let us proceed to further developments.
Under date of February 17, Mr. McLachlan wrote another letter to Mr. E. P. Merrill as follows:
Replying further to your letter dated February 4, 1922, I wish to advise you that the members of [District No. 26, Ufriited Mine

Nova Scotia Miners
Workers of America voted on the award made by the Gillen Conciliation Board and the vote resulted as follows: for the Award, 468 ; against the Award, 10,305 ; all of which means that the proposition made in your letter of the 4th instant has been overwhelmingly rejected by the miners.
No doubt your Company must feel by this time that a great mistake was made in Montreal when your officers informed the representatives of the miners that the Company would now look after its own interest and refused to allow negotiations to proceed along the legitimate lines followed with fair success during recent wage contracts. The almost unanimous condemnation by the press, the pulpit and the public of the drastic action of your Company in slashing the miners' wages in the manner you did, and the complete alienation of the sympathies of some of your own most loyal officials must indicate that the day has gone forever when one-sided wage bargains can be made effective.
When men have made such mistakes as your Company has made, mistakes which have brought down on their heads wholesale condemnation, there is only one thing left open for them to do, pocket their pride, and retrace the fatal steps at the first opportunity and remove the cause of the condemnation.
The miners are having a convention in Truro on the 23rd instant, and I would suggest that the coal companies comprised in the British Empire Steel Corporation send representatives there for the purpose of negotiating a new wage agreement. Until a wage agreement is arrived at mutually I cannot see where your Company can reasonably hope to have any stability -in the coal industry of Nova Scotia.
Trusting that your representatives can be present at Truro on the 23rd instant, I am, Yours truly,
J. B. McLachlan,
Secretary, District No. 22, U.M.W. of A.
Once more I express the view that there is nothing wrong whatsoever in the statements made by Mr. McLachlan in that letter. Had I been in his position under the existing circumstances, I might have written more insistently even than he did.
Then, under date of February 22, the Minister of Labour, new on the job, was interested in trying to see if something could not be done, and so he wired Mr. J. B. McLachlan, who was to be at Truro with the other representatives of District No- 26 the following day, as follows:
Your letter seventeenth enclosing copy of communication same date forwarded to General Manager Dominion Coal Company not received until to-day. Terms of same noted, also fact that miners are holding convention at Truro, Thursday, twenty-third, and have invited British Empire Steel Corporation to send representatives for purpose of negotiating new wage agreement. Minister will be pleased to have word from you at your earliest convenience as to outcome of any efforts in direction indicated.
To that the reply was as follows, under date of February 23:
Telegram received. No coal operators present here. Wo'uld be pleased to have Department use good offices looking towards settlements. Convention may continue until Saturday.
At once I instructed the deputy minister to send the following telegram, dated February 23:
D. H. McDougall, Vice President, British Empire Steel Corporation, Montreal.
Minister asks me to bring to your attention communications exchanged between J. B. McLachlan, Secretary District 26 United Mine Workers of America, Glace Bay, and the undersigned. Mr. McLachlan forwarded under date 17th instant copy of letter mailed same date to Mr. E. P. Merrill, General Manager Dominion Coal Company, Sydney, N. S., notifying Mr. Merrill that miners were having convention in Truro on 23rd instant and suggested that "coal companies comprising the British Empire Steel Corporation send representatives there for the purpose of negotiating a new wage agreement.'' On receipt yesterday of Mr. McLachlan's letter following wire was by Minister's instructions addressed by undersigned to Mr. McLachlan: "Your letter seventeenth enclosing copy of communication same date forwarded to General Manager, Dominion Coal, not received until to-day. Terms of same noted, also fact that miners are holding convention at Truro, Thursday, twenty-third, and have invited British Empire Steel Coroporation to send representatives for purpose of negotiating new wage agreement.
"Minister will be pleased to have word from you at your earliest convenience as to outcome of any efforts in direction indicated."
To-day undersigned is in receipt of message from McLachlan as follows:
"Telegram received. No coal operators present here. Would be pleased to have Department use good offices looking towards settlement. Convention may continue until Saturday." Minister observes Mr. McLachlan's statement that, "no coal operators present here" and asks if you do not think would be desirable Company should take steps immediately to be represented at miners' convention, accepting workmen's invitation, and thus doing its part in endeavouring to negotiate a wage settlement. Minister will be pleased to have word from you.
To that Mr. D. H. McDougall replied by wire as follows:
Montreal, February 25, 1922. In reply to your telegram yesterday would state we mailed Department 10th instant copy of our letter fourth offering to negotiate contract with our mine workers on basis Award of Gillen Conciliation Board appointed by Minister at request of mine workers, and also copy of J. B. McLachlan's reply. This reply, together with McLachlan's letter to our General Manager Merrill, under date seventeenth, inviting us to send representatives to mine workers' convention at Truro (being a further reply to our letter fourth) we regard as being merely expression McLachlan's personal opinions and not as authorized official communications from District 26.	.
Said communications have been written by McLachlan in absence of President Baxter and other responsible executive officials in attendance on Indianapolis convention.

Nova Scotia Miners
Truro convention is being held for purpose of considering offer made in our letter of fourth, and we understand is confined to officials and delegates of union. We anticipate that when matter has been discussed in convention a further official communication may be addressed to ug outlining the attitude the executive officials of the union are empowered to take in regard to further negotiations with the coal companies.
In the meantime, as notified you by letter from our general manager under date twenty-first instant, we have put into effect the Gillen award with some necessary adjustments that have substantially modified the award in favour of the mine workers and are making retroactive payment to January first of difference in rates of wages betwen our schedule of January first, and the schedule as modified by Gillen award.
D. H. McDougall.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with some of the later phases of this condition. On the same date, February 25, we received a telegram from Mr. E. H. Armstrong, Minister of Public Works and Mines of Nova Scotia, as follows:
Personal. Truro convention to consider action miners re Gillen award. Requested further conference with officials Besco Monday next but am advised no answer. Have just wired McDougall and Wolvin urging favourable and prompt consideration. Believe under all circumstances this course advisable and will bring about more satisfactory solution. Appreciate any co-operation you can reasonably suggest.
E. H. Armstrong.
Minister of Public Works and Mines.
At once we took the matter up with a view to getting a representative of the Labour Department to see if a further conference could not be brought about. The later developments were that the representatives of the miners came from Truro to Montreal to meet the officials of the British Empire Steel Corporation, and I want to read to you a report made to the Deputy Minister of Labour by the gentleman representing the Labour Department who was present at that meeting. It is as follows: Montreal, March 2, 1922.
F. A. Acland, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Acland,-I enclose for record, text of the agreement reached between the United Mine Workers of Nova Scotia, through Robert Baxter, president, and committee, and the British Empire Steel Corporation and constituent companies, represented by Mr. D. H. McDougall.
The agreement was negotiated in Montreal by a conference extending over a period of three days, i.e., Feb. 27th and 28th, and March 1st.
The department representative, E. McG. Quirk, was present at the conferences and assisted in an intermediary capacity.
Mr. J. P. White, of the International, was present in an advisory capacity, rendering very material assistance.
The sense of the agreement will be submitted to the lgcals for ratification. When ratified the 
company will be prepared to resume operations on an increased scale.
Yours truly,
E. McG. Quirk.
The text of the agreement which is referred to in that communication is as follows:
Montreal, 1st March, 1922. The members of district executive board of District 26, U.M.W. of A., having been authorized by a district conference held in Truro, February 23 to 25 to interview the management of the British Empire Steel Corporation and ascertain the best terms the management could offer as a basis for a settlement of the outstanding wage questions, the following was finally mutually agreed to:
First.-The management has already accepted and put into effect-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Do I understand that
Mr. McLachlan was present at this conference in Montreal?


James Murdock: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And did he concur in
the agreement you are about to read?


James Murdock: I may say to my hon. friend from Marquette that the agreement is signed, on behalf of District No. 26 by Robert Baxter, who, I understand, is president. My understanding further is that Mr. McLachlan and other members of the executive committee were present, and I think that point will be proven a little later. To continue with the reading of the agreement :
-the rates recommended under the Gillen award, and, in addition thereto, has voluntarily made an adjustment of the datal rates between the minimum rate of $2.85 per day and certain other slightly higher rates, and agrees to increase the minimum datal rate to $3 per day.
2.	The companies will not object to inclusion in this wage agreement of employees in the general machine shops and shot-firers employed at the collieries.
A committee equally composed of representatives of the coal companies and the men to decide on what others of the employees, excluded on January 1st, should be included in the scope of the agreement.
3.	The conditions of the Montreal agreement to remain in force in all particulars except as regards the rates of wages and as herein modified.
The terms above written to become effective between the 1st January, 1922, and 30 th November, 1922, when ratified by members of District 26, both sides to agree to meet twenty days before the expiration of the agreement, for the purpose of arranging a new understanding.
On behalf of District No. 26, U.M.W. of America,
Robert Baxter.
Dominion Coal Company, Limited,
R. M. Wolvin, President.
Nova Scotia Steel & Coal Company. Limited, D. H. McDougall, President.
Acadia Coal Company, Limited,
D. H. McDougall, Vice-President. Dated at Montreal, 1st March, 1922.

Nova Scotia Miners


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know what the fact is, but one would rather gather that the men's representatives at that meeting numbered seven and that four of them were in favour of the offer which the minister has read, but that three, including Mr. McLachlan, were against it.


James Murdock: My understanding is that at that particular meeting there were not seven; I think only three or four of the district officers came up for the purposes of this meeting, although my hon. friend is probably correct in understanding that there are eight officers of the district committee. Recently these eight officers took official action in connection with Mr. McLachlan's proposal to cut the output or *"loaf on the job," the result being that three of the committee went with Mr. McLachlan and three against him. The papers indicate that some of them have since resigned. Mr. Baxter, who occupied the chair as president, did not vote. We can therefore reasonably and properly assume that the mine workers' executive committee of eight was evenly divided, four against four, on the propositfon to cut the output or "loaf on the job." It seems that the agreement, which was tenatively entered into at Montreal as between representatives of the miners and representatives of the coal companies, was carried back to secure the votes of the individual miners, as to acceptance or rejection. I find no fault with the manner in which certain organizations or committees representing workmen undertake to deal with such questions, but, fortunately or unfortunately, my experience has been, in the representation of labour, that when an agreement was entered into and determined upon as satisfactory by the representatives of workmen, it should not be held as a football, to be kicked here and there, and decided out in the open by various individuals, even although some of my good friends and others will tell you they had a perfect right to do that. The point is that here was an agreement which, on the first day of March, in the city of Montreal, in the opinion of those directly representing the Miners' Association, was something better than had been conceded by the Gillen award, and something that could reasonably offer a basis of settlement. You and I know that, when that committee representing the workers went back to the miners of Nova Scotia, they were divided in their recommendations to these workmen and their families as to whether that
award should be accepted or not. I am not criticizing that, but I regard it as indeed a distinct misfortune that it should have been found possible and consistent to make an agreement in Montreal on the first day of March that could not have been made by the board of arbitration sitting in Halifax some two weeks earlier. I do not know why it was that the direct representatives of these coal companies met in Montreal on the first day of March and offered more favourable conditions, some slight increases in compensation over and above what, evidently, their representatives on the board of investigation had been prepared and disposed to give when the matter was being dealt with in Halifax. It is one of the unfortunate circumstances in connection with this situation that it was possible to do that, and it is one of the phases of the situation that has given much ground and opportunity for alleging that boards of investigation, under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, are weak and useless in dealing with matters of thi3 kind. It is a misfortune it was done at that particular time. I would like to deal with a few of the references
5 p.m. made by my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) in regard to this situation. In his opening remarks as I understood him, he told this House-and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong-that the wages of the miners of Nova Scotia were 70 per cent lower than the wages for similar work in the mines of British Columbia and Alberta.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Seventeen per cent, I think.


James Murdock: I understood 70 per cent.


William Irvine: It was 71.


James Murdock: We were both wrong.


William Irvine: I said the cost of living was 17 per cent higher in Nova Scotia, and the wages 71 per cent lower.


James Murdock: I am obliged for the correction. I am quite sure that the hon. gentleman had not the slightest intention of presenting an inaccurate conception of facts to this House, but what are the facts? As my hon. friend from East Calgary know, the facts in regard to the mines in District 18, British Columbia and Alberta, are that notification has been given by the operators in that territory
Nova Scotia Miners

that wages will be brought down very materially, effective on Saturday morning next, April 1. So that my hon. friend's statement, which would indicate that the wages of miners in Alberta and British Columbia are 71 per cent higher than in Nova Scotia, is far-fetched indeed. I am sure he will concede that as a matter of fact.


William Irvine: Can the hon. minister tell me if the proposed reduction in wages has been accepted by the miners of Alberta?


James Murdock: The answer to my hon. friend's question is, no, but according to the proposals of the operators in District 18, effective on Saturady morning next, wage cuts of materially lower standards than those that, have, under war time and post-war conditions existed in that territory are, it is said, to go into effect. What is the comparison of those wages that have been posted as going into effect on Saturday morning with the wages we are discussing for datal men in Nova Scotia? In British Columbia and Alberta the wage for datal men is proposed at $3.25 for the lower standards of pay, as against the wage rate agreed to in Montreal on March 1, between the representatives of United Mine Workers and the officials of Nova Scotia companies. I do not hold for one moment that $3 or $3.25 is a living wage under certain conditions, and do not let any hon. gentleman in this House, or any gentleman outside of this House, understand that I am contending anything of the kind. I take the position that it is hardly fair for us to undertake to influence hon. gentlemen in this House, or the public at large, and to create the belief that there is such a wide margin of difference as between Nova Scotia and Alberta and British Columbia.


William Irvine: Is it not perfectly fair for us to take into consideration in this comparison the actual wages that are being paid now in Nova Scotia with the actual wages that are being paid in Alberta? If that is not the proper way to consider it, what other method can we adopt?


James Murdock: I will leave the question of the equity or the fairness of that method of presenting the question to be determined in the minds of hon. members of this House. The hon. gentleman from Calgary, as he spoke for to-day and tomorrow, was substantially, and, so far as I know, absolutely correct in his comparison of percentages as to wages. He may

have been entirely correct for to-day and to-morrow, but I hope it will not be regarded as altogether improper for me to present, at least, the other point of view. Then my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Irvine) laid stress upon the minority report which was filed in this investigation held in Halifax. Personally I should have been happy indeed had it been possible, and consistent with due regard to the rights of employer, employed and, above all, the general public, to have suggested that the minority report as handed in to the department on this question by Mayor Ling, of New Waterford, should be adopted. But my hon. friend surely knows that the only authority that this Government has in dealing with such matters is to be found in the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. We had no option then, and surely have no option now, being bound by that law, to compel the findings of one man directly representing the employees to be made effective. And then my hon. friend said, if I quote his exact words, as I think I do: "The men naturally struck on the job." In all reverence I say, Heaven forbid that the time should ever come when it should be regarded as necessary by labouring men, accepting a wage of any kind, to strike on a job. Again I repeat, red-blooded Canadian citizens will never do any such thing; and anyone who undertakes to countenance any such suggestion is only looking to the ruin of the constitutional rights and liberties of the citizenship of this country. I myself regard it as a misfortune that anyone should stand in the councils of the nation, and, even by inference or suggestion, convey the view that there is anything fair, honourable or decent in striking on the job. One of the greatest misfortunes that have existed in years gone by, and one that is with us at this moment in Canada, is the theorist who has cures for all the ills of labour, some of .which contemplate being as indecent and unfair as may be necessary to win your point with the employer, while at the same time accepting the full demonstration of charity and decent treatment for yourself. Forget it, I say, to the labouring man or his representative who advocates such a policy. Even if any such policy might be desired by this Government or by the people of the country, I have more respect for my own conscience than to participate, even as a Minister of the Crown, in promulgating, or forwarding, or countenancing any such claim on the part of Labour directly or through anybody pre-

Nova Scotia Miners
suming' to represent Labour. Labour has got to be fair and decent, and in case someone might form an improper opinion on the matter, let me say this: In the sixteen years or so that I was an officer of a labour organization, I personally gave sanction to more strikes than any other officer the organization had, and I have no apologies to offer for having done so; nor should I lose my nerve, either, if I were back at the job. But I believe there is decency and equity in all things; and it was not, nor is it now, decent for us to 'be dallying with the 'suggestion that the men "naturally struck on the job," while accepting, or pretending to work for, a wage rate, be it ever so small. I do not argue that it is sufficient. Personally, I regard it as a misfortune indeed that the British Empire Steel Corporation, out of the sum of $3,000,000 paid to them from the demobilization funds, by the party in power on the 25th of November last, could not have utilized a portion and given a little more decent consideration to these mine workers in Nova Scotia. But they have not done so. I assume that that $3,000,000 has gone to do what my hon. friend1 from Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) so well suggested, namely, to pay dividends on watered stock. I do not subscribe to any such thing, and so long as I may remain a member of this House or of the Government, my voice will be lifted and my effort directed against the continuation of such practices.
My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Irvine) suggested to this House the name of a gentleman of Montreal, a Mr. Howard Ross, as eminently qualified to investigate this whole matter. It is rather peculiar that the gentleman who called me by telephone to advise me that this matter was coming up this afternoon also suggested the name of Mr. Howard Ross. I have not the honour of the acquaintance of Mr. Ross; he may be of the highest standing and the most responsible character in Canada; but, as a general proposition, I am not disposed, as Minister of Labour, to accept such recommendations coming in such a manner, because I have found by some experience that sometimes those who are sympathetic to labour make recommendations which are really favourable and consistent only from their own point of view. The representations made on behalf of Mr. Howard Ross, whoever the gentleman is, would unfortunately have made me suspicious of considering his appointment as possibly biased toward one side unduly, if
anything of the kind had been contemplated.
My hon. friend referred to something about a fair day's work for a day's pay. I think that that is the entire question. It is true that a deputation from Nova Scotia mining towns came to this city and made representations to my honoured leader and other members of the Cabinet that a royal commission should be appointed. But I do not think that I am giving away any secrets when I say that those gentlemen, individually and collectively, advised us that they were speaking only for the citizens of their respective towns, who were not actually employed	as	miners,	and
that they could give no guarantee that even if a royal commission were appointed it would be accepted. Is that a fair view of the entire situation? In other words-and I do not want in any way to disparage the position of my hon. friend from East Calgary or those for whom he is speaking-is it fair for us to have suggested to us the appointment of a royal commission especially for the other citizens in these mining villages in face of the frank statement that maybe after the royal commission had thoroughly investigated the situation and made its recommendations the miners might not accept them? No, no, surely nothing so onesided as that could be thought of for a minute.
My hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) referred to the opportunities for these miners to get the necessary cooperation and, I hope, some assistance from the provincial authorities if the proper steps were taken. Last night there was given to the press a statement of the position of the Government,-not a statement of the position of the Minister of Labour, please, although I whole-heartedly subscribe to every statement contained herein. For the sake of accuracy I want to include this statement in Hansard. It is as follows:
Ottawa, March 29th, 1922.
Yesterday a deputation, consisting1 of D. W. Morrison, Mayor of Glace Bay, J. M. McLean, Mayor of Dominion, N. S., James Ling, Mayor of New Waterford, N. S., and Mayor Wilson of Spring Hill, Cumberland County, N. S., accompanied by Messrs. Carroll, Macdonald, Kyte, Chisholm and Logan, Members of Parliament for the various coal-mining constituencies of Nova Scotia, waited upon the Prime Minister, who was accompanied by the Hon. W. S. Fielding, Hon D. D. McKenzie and Hon. James Murdock. The deputation placed before the Government a memorial dealing with the alleged very serious situation existing in the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia,
Nova Scotia Miners

and suggested the appointment of a Royal Commission to go on the ground and thoroughly Investigate the entire question affecting the coal mining industry and the alleged attitude of the British Empire Steel Corporation in dealing with its employees.
Careful consideration was promised and given to the representations made by the deputation who were advised that the decision of the Government would be stated as early as possible.	.
Under all circumstances the Government has deemed it inadvisable to appoint a Royal Commission. It should be understood that in its decision the Government has been influenced by the attitude of Mr. McLachlan, Secretary of the United Mine Workers of America, who has indicated his intent to insist on the employees in the coal-mining industry cutting the output and doing as little work as possible for the wages being paid. To grant a commission in view of the declarations and attitude of Mr. McLachlan would in the opinion of the Government be placing a premium on the advocacy of the methods most prejudicial to the public interest and unfair as respects relations between employer and employees. Press reports also indicate that the miners have repudiated advice as to reasonable and consistent loyalty to the employer from other representatives of the employees and have proposed that Mr. McLachlan should be regarded as the dictator of the miners' policy, which policy as outlined by Mr. McLachlan cannot in any measure be countenanced by the Government. The Government regrets exceedingly the alleged existing conditions in Nova Scotia, but cannot be a party to countenancing the position taken by Mr. McLachlan and others who are following his instructions.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with every word contained in this statment. I think that labour, both in Nova Scotia and elsewhere, would be well advised to follow the principle, not merely to-day but all the time, of giving a fair day's work ungrudgingly for the wage accepted or that it is pretended to work for. I will countenance no other principle on the part of labour so-called so far as my responsibility or authority goes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the hon. Minister permit me a question? Apparently, according to the press reports, the information of the Government was that a number of the regular officers of the men had resigned. I should like to find out from my hon. friend what officers resigned and to whom they handed their resignations, so that we might have some idea of how the matter now stands.


James Murdock: I am unable to give that information except as I have received it from press reports. When I made some reference to the resignation of certain members of the miners' executive committees a short time ago the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) shook his head

at me, and therefore I assumed that he had some direct information showing that the press reports were not correct. I should like to ask him if he has any knowledge of whether any members of the executive committee of district No. 26 have resigned.


William F. Carroll: No, Mr. Speaker. 1 had a communication this morning from the town of Glace Bay to the effect that up to date none of them has resigned.


James Murdock: We have had a rather extended discussion of this matter, which I have no doubt will not be entirely finished when I shall take my seat, but it seems to me an opportune time to give to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) certain information very closely connected with this matter as to which he made inquiries in the House yesterday, I think. My hon. friend wanted to know on Friday next- nothing like taking time by the forelock and getting into position as early as possible-
When the Minister of Labour purported to give to the press written communications received by him from J. B. McLachlan of the United Mine Workers did he give such communications in full?
The answer is "Yes." The next question is:
If not, why; and what is the text of the part omitted?
That is answered by the answer to the first question. But, for the information of the hon. member and because certain newspaper reporters appear to have thought it necessary to shield somewhat the Minister of Labour, I am going to read into Hansard the complete text of all these telegrams which I was not aware were not completely quoted in the press to-day. The House has the right to the complete context, and while of course I thank the gentlemen representing the press for being so considerate of me, I would say: Let the people have all the telegrams in full. The first telegram to Mr, McLachlan is dated the 18th inst.
J. B. MoLachlan,-
Secretary, District 26,
United Mine Workers of America, Glace Bay, N.S.
My attention has been called to a despatch appearing in to-day's Ottawa Journal dated from Sydney, and reading in part as follows: "The war is on, class war. In those words of a manifesto issued to-night, J. B. McLachlan, secretary of District 26, United Mine Workers, calls on the twelve thousand miners of Nova Scotia to join him in a policy of cutting the output as the most effective method of waging a labour war against the British Empire Steel

Nova Scotia Miners
Corporation." I have thought it well to bring the above statement to your attention, and should be obliged if you would let me have word immediately if any such document as is here outlined has been issued with your approval. I trust the published statement may prove to be without foundation, and take this opportunity, in any event, of expressing the hope that yourself and other officers and members of your organization will cast your influence definitely against any such policy as is indicated in the statement above quoted. You will, I think, on reflection agree with me that any strength which organized labour possesses at the present time is the result, not of the underhanded and dishonest methods of undercutting, or, as it is sometimes called, sabotage, but of straight and honest dealings, each worker giving the best that is in him for the wages agreed upon. Any union or trade practice which is not in absolute agreement with this principle will inevitably bring disaster, and workmen who unwisely allow themselves to be misled into the adoption of such methods will ultimately repudiate the leadership of those who have betrayed them. I trust I may receive from you an assurance that you are in sympathy with the view expressed in this message, and, since the despatch from which I have quoted and which has credited you with action on contrary lines has received much publicity I shall gladly do my best to see that any reply received from you by way of disavowal or otherwise receives equal prominence. I am handing this message to the press.
James Murdock,
Minister of Labour.
And here is the full answer received, which my friend from Leeds (Mr. Stewart) wants to hear in its entirety:
Glace Bat, N.S.,
March 20, 1922.
Hon. James Murdock,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
Replying to your lengthy telegram of Saturday, wish to state that in manifesto issued by me on the 16th instant, neither the thing known as sabotage nor the word itself were mentioned. Once, however, I did in that document strongly advise the miners to cut down production to a point where all profits for the British Empire Steel Corporation would vanish. This tactic as a method of retaliation for a highly unjust encroachment of the employers on the wages of their workmen and an invasion on an already all too slender living I have proclaimed openly and in the face of day and there is nothing dishonest about it, you to the contrary notwithstanding. I have preached this with the blessing of my friends and amid the curses of my enemies. I have preached it to individuals, to tens, to hundreds and to thousands. I have done it on land and on sea, in miners' halls and in churches, on the hillsides of Nova Scotia and on her busy streets, and Mr. Minister, what are you going to do about it? I shall do it again this week, knowing that a miner has a perfect right to work with his coat on if he wants to. But what kind of innocent or hypocrite are you? Did you not one year ago call a strike of the trainmen employed at the Sydney steel works, owned by the British Empire Steel Corporation, and did you not circularize the trainmen on the Sydney end of 33
the Government railway to institute a blockade on all steel company products, and tell the trainmen to leave the cars with steel company goods in the sidings in the woods where there were no telegraph offices, and you made no exception to perishable goods? That was sabotage from top to bottom, from start to finish. Our method of fighting this unjust wage imposition is effective and within the law, and the prime reason why the stock gamblers of Montreal got you to wire a lecture to me is this: Listen-Caledonia Mine for the week ending December 16 hoisted 8,561 tons of coal at a labour cost of 82.02 per ton. That was before the cut in wages was made. Since the first of the year wages have been cut 32 per cent. For the week ending January 13 the labour cost per ton was $1.62; and then the miners refused to strip themselves naked to the waist, to give the best that is in them, as you put it, instead cut down production and for the week ending January 27 produced 2,322 tons at a labour cost of $2.25 per ton. Add on the other overhead charges on that miserable 2,000 tons of coal and you may be able to guess why the (Hallelujah Chorus is ringing in the soul of the miners who are actively fighting an unjust wage, and why the stock gamblers at Montreal are reduced to seek the assistance of an innocent like you. There is no wage agreement of any kind here. The British Empire Steel Corporation is seeking to impose a rate as low as $2.85 per day and refuses to give men with that small wage anything like six days per week. They are imposing these miserable wages to enable them to pay dividends on huge blocks of watered stock and on acres of idle junk that they call_ steel works. We shall continue to fight the imposition of this iniquitous wage reduction, if we have to rock the ramshackle institution known as the British Empire Steel Corporation from its rotten silfi to its bending and shaking rafters.
J. B. McLachlan.
That is the telegram in full that the hon. member for Leeds desired.


Mr. HANSON:: May I ask the hon. minister if he paid for that telegram? Was it sent "collect"?


James Murdock: Yes, it came "collect." Now then, Mr. Speaker, I replied as follows, on March 21-


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Did you send your reply "collect" also?


James Murdock: "Charge to Labour Department-sundries."
J. B. McLachlan,
Secretary, District No. 26,
United Mine Workers of America,
Glace Bay, Nova Scotia.
Your telegram received and handed to the press. The written and actual record of the action authorized by the undersigned and others in connection with the strike of train and engine men in the steel works at Sydney in 1920 speaks for itself, and cannot be changed by any interpretation you may care to place on such action. Have no doubt whatever you have preached, as you say, so-called passive strike methods for some time, and still continue so to do. In my judgment it is un-British, un-

Nova Scotia Miners

Canadian and cowardly to pretend to be working for a wage rate in effect while declaring to the world that only partial grudging service will be given. My experience has been that men quit like men and walk off the job when unwilling to work for wage rates or conditions offered, but the advice you give would place you and those who accept such advice surely in some other class. Be assured that the undersigned has no brief for or personal sympathy with certain methods adopted by the British Empire Steel Corporation, and I regard it now, as during the recent general election campaign, as one of Canada's tragedies that any corporation should appear to be able to undertake to dictate Government policy or to shape the course of public events to its own purposes. Two wrongs, however, do not make one right and red-blooded Canadian citizens will not, in my judgment, follow your advice in the pretense of loyally staying on the job for the purpose of penalizing the employer.
James Murdock,
Minister of Labour.
May I in conclusion say this. I, as Minister of Labour, would have been very glad indeed to do anything I could consistent with what I believe to be federal rights in such matters to assist in bringing order out of chaos and in securing a further consideration of this situation. The deputation of mayors which waited on us the day before yesterday suggested that the board of investigation should have visited all of the mines in Nova Scotia, and held their investigation on the ground. I have no doubt that that would have been very much the better way hut Mr. Ling, the Mayor of New Waterford, and a member of that hoard, never by inference or otherwise conveyed such a desire or suggestion to the Labour Department. Had he done so, I would have undertaken as best I could to see to it that the board did go on the ground and there give that full consideration to the actual circumstances that he now contends should have been given. But there were no such representations whatever made to me at the time. I, of course, do not criticise Mr. Ling or other gentlemen for these after-thoughts which now occur to them.
Furthermore, if Mr. Ling and these other gentlemen had represented that the matter had not been fully and properly investigated, that there was ample reason for a further investigation of all the facts and circumstances of the situation in Cape Breton and elsewhere, I should have been only too glad to have undertaken, to convene again the board of investigation and insist on them going on the ground, as I understand the law permits the Minister of Labour to do and making a full and further investigation. But

no suggestion of that kind comes to the Labour Department or to myself as minister. We simply observe in the morning press of March 18 that Mr. J. B. McLachlan, who, I understand, is a gentleman of broad sympathies-in this House and elsewhere I understand he has been referred to as a long-time friend of mine, but to my knowledge I never met the gentleman in my life -in substance declares to the world that he has adopted a really new policy, I hope so far as Canada is concerned of dealing with questions affecting the welfare and the rights of labour-the policy of "cut down production, loaf on the job, work with your coat on, be sure that you do not give anything more than you have to for what we call the small pittance you receive as compensation." That, Mr. Speaker, I describe as un-Canadian. I have heard in years gone by, while representing labour, of the I.W.W. under war-time conditions advocating that policy and nothing else. I now charge that the gentlemen who are advocating this policy are in heart and sympathy equal, no more and no less, with the I.W.W. in their every aim and ambition. I contend that they dare not come out into the light of our Canadian day and advocate that same-policy under the standard of the I.W.W. They may be fooling themselves, and undertaking to fool someone else, but they are not fooling me with any pretence that that is anything like the policy of organized labour, red-blooded,virile and ready to do its share at all times. I challenge it now as I.W.W. propaganda, nothing more and nothing less; and as Minister of Labour, or back in the common ranks of labour again if that should occur, I will fight it, because it is wrong. So I say to hon. gentlemen opposite and to hon. gentlemen to their left and to my colleagues in the Government and its supporters, we cannot afford, as I understand the aims and ambitions and contentions of labour, to dally with or countenance for one moment any such propaganda or proposals as we have had confronting us in this Nova Scotia situation. I believe that I am as fully informed individually as any one of the urgent necessity that some means should be taken to alleviate some of the conditions existing in Nova Scotia; and I hope that even out of this discussion, and the notoriety that will ensue from it steps will be taken, by McLachlan and others with their I.W.W. theories, when reason has dawned upon them to discard and abandon any such policy. I hope that even then something may be done to assist the other workmen and the workers in the

Nova Scotia Miners
mines in Nova Scotia who hold no such views and to assist their wives and families as well. You would have no respect for a Government-let alone an inexperienced, in a parliamentary way, Minister of Labour- who would show the white feather and knuckle down to challenges such as we have had from J. B. McLachlan and others. You cannot-I give this advice as the result of some years experience-countenance for one moment the tactics of the reds; you must meet it and fight it man-fashion wherever it is found. While I have the most profound sympathy for some of the contentions that have been advanced yet it is a fact that despite the actual first-hand knowledge of some of us respecting the proper aims, ambitions, and conditions of labour, there are theorists who come to us from time to time and advise us from a theoretical standpoint how to deal with labour questions. Well, we are not going to deal with these questions on any such basis. So long as I can exercise my voice and my vote I say that the tactics of the red element-for that is what it really is-and the I.W.W. propaganda that has been used, and used during a period of dire distress in Canada and the United States, shall not prevail. They are the same tactics that have been used in the forests of Washington, of Oregon and of British Columbia-I refer to the suggestions now being scattered broadcast in Nova Scotia by J. B. McLachlan. None of it for me. i have been fighting that propaganda too long to start now to countenance any such thing as Minister of Labour, and I do not believe that hon. members will for one moment do anything more in this matter than uphold and commend the judgment of this Government in deciding that under the circumstances that have been explained to you no royal commission will ibe appointed at the behest and at the dictation of these gentlemen in Nova Scotia, these men who are advocating such an un-Canadian policy as we have been hearing of during the past few days.
Mr. HENRY E. SPENCER (Battle River) : Mr. Speaker, I would like, for a moment, to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to the fact that although labour owes a duty to capital there is also a duty on the part of capital toward labour. As one who is an employer of labour I feei particularly keen on that point, and think I am in a position to speak with some definiteness concerning it. There are three reasons why, in my opinion, this must he regarded as a serious question and one
33j
demanding instant action on the part of the Government. The first reason is this: I understand that when two years ago this same British Empire Steel Corporation applied to the federal Parliament for a- charter and an act of incorporation its request was refused. That refusal must have been based on some very good foundation. The second reason is that we are told this corporation has been allowed to water its stock to the extent of $19,000,000. Such a statement should not be allowed to pass without some effort made to prove its truth or falsity. It is a very serious charge, and if true I maintain that the employers of this Nova Scotia mine must consider their duty towards their men-they must consider whether it is right at the present moment to pay the miners practically a starvation wage and at the same time endeavour to pay a dividend on $19,000,000 of watered stock. Furthermore, the Government of Canada, I understand, has made a grant of some millions to this same corporation. If this be true, surely the federal Government should have something to say in a dispute of this character. It has been urged from the Government side that this is not a federal matter. I want to point out to hon. members that when you have men congregated in large numbers- such as they are in mining camps and in factories-and they are put on a low scale of wages, and hundreds and thousands of them are out of work, you have a responsibility towards those men. You can drive poverty in the country a good deal nearer the bread line, than you can drive poverty in the cities; and when a man gets down to a certain level, when he gets to the stage that wages are so low he has not the means of maintaining himself and his family, then neither a military law nor a civil law will restrain him: The only law he thinks of obeying is the law of selfpreservation. That is one of the truths we cannot ignore. Even if this were not a federal matter, it may speedily be made so if the dispute continues, and the Government does not take a stand. Because if these men are pushed nearer and nearer the bread line and mob rule begins to manifest itself in Nova Scotia, what will you see? You will see the mounted police sent down to the mines and military rule will be invoked. Does not the matter then become one of federal concern? I would like to urge upon the Government: Is it not better to take hold of the situation now and prevent its going any further than to

Nova Scotia Miners
contemplate what possibly may develop into dire results in the future.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: A great many of us were inclined to take it for granted that, when a labour man was appointed to the position of Minister of Labour, the Liberal party was showing its sympathy with the great labour movement across the country. It seems to me most regrettable that there should not have been revealed, in the speech to which we have listened, any real sympathy or intelligent understanding of some of the fundamental problems as they affect labour. I sincerely trust that it has been the heat of the debate that has carried the minister further than is his real position in regard to this matter. It would seem almost as if he had resented the action of Mr. J. D. McLachlan as a personal affront I am not concerned-and I do not think the country at large is concerned-with the attitude of the Minister of Labour towards j. D. McLachlan. There is something more fundamental altogether for us to discuss here, and I can hardly conceive that constructive action should be delayed on account of anything of this character. The Minister of Labour spent a good deal of time making a very lengthy defence of the action which has been taken during the past weeks in this matter. I would ^ like t0 say -and I am quite sure the Minister of Labour omitted the matter unintentionally-that perhaps it would be fair to read the last telegram of the series. If I remember aright the minister read the first three, but did not read the last telegram from Mr. McLachlan. This is dated March 22nd, 1922, addressed to Hon. James Murdock, Minister of Labour, Ottawa, and reads:
Your telegram of yesterday to hand, and note that you state it as one of Canada's tragedies that the British Empire Steel Corporation should undertake to dictate government policy and shape the course of public events to its own purposes. X agree with you_ as to the corrupt influences of this corporation on the public life of the country, and desire to state that, to its other sins, it has added since January 1st that of a starvation wage for ten thousand workers. Your Government is young and surely yet uncorrupted by this corporation which you call one of Canada's tragedies. The starvation of ten thousand mine workers in Nova Scotia gives your Government right now ample justification to appoint a
commission at once which shall tear wide open the rotten heart of this corrupter of public life and starver of the workers of Nova Scotia, if you and your young Government have the courage of your convictions, you shall appoint a commission now and give it this man's job of cleaning up this corrupt tragedy.
J. D. McLachlan.
I submit there is nothing widely extravagant about that last telegram of J. D. McLachlan. It is rather a reasonable request to prefer to the Government of this country, and I take it that the Government assumes a great responsibility, indeed, if it refuses to accede to as reasonable a request as has been made by Mr. McLachlan, and by the delegation which has just waited upon it. The minister had a great deal to say about the I.W.W. methods and had a good deal of denunciation for those whom he termed the Reds. I think that is rather a curious thing, since the minister himself, on'two or three distinct occasions, made use of the phrase 11 red blooded Canadian citizens .
I take it that all this is a matter of the connotation of words. One party means one thing by red, and another party means something entirely different. The Minister of	Labour believes in red	bloodedcitizens. A good many of the Labour party use the term " red " not in so	very different a sense,	because
they instruct one another, that just as there is red blood in all of us, and the same red blood runs through all the human race, they should emphasize the universal human note in dealing with matters of importance in their public policy. With the ordinary labour man, I can assure this House, that "red" does not connote anything of bloodshed, but that "red" as used by them is rather the emphasis of human brotherhood. It is in that sense that they use it. I can quite understand that the minister may try to discount it by using it in another sense altogether, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we ought, in this House, to get away from the idea of trying to settle problems by calling names. I wondered almost if we should hear the other term which has been so prevalent during the last few years, "pro-German". I thought that was the next word to come. I take it that we are not going to get further by calling one another red, or by retorting that somebody else is yellow. We are in a position where we ought to consider these questions on their merits, and this is one question which is worthy of discussion.

Nova Scotia Miners
I cannot pass over some of the points on which the Minister of Labour dwelt, because they involve some things that are fundamental to an understanding of the labour position and, although I have not the privilege of an intimate knowledge of the situation in Glace Bay, I know that some of the matters that have been put forth here to-day deal with fundamental labour conceptions and labour positions. Those of us who represent labour here are bound to try to put forth the labour point of view with regard to them.
We have heard a good deal about loafing on the job. The Minister of Labour called upon high heaven to witness that he would always denounce that kind of a policy. Now, it is not the place to say whether or not that policy is expedient, but the ground was taken-a deeper ground than that-that it was utterly wrong. I do not know that I want to discuss a purely abstract ethical question, but I want to say that when we talk about loafing on the job, and when we sometimes make use of the French word "sabotage", or the Scotch expression "ca'canny" we are indicating a method of industrial warfare, which, perhaps, we could more accurately express as curtailment of output.
Now, I submit, that, leaving aside for the moment the ethical aspect of this question, curtailment of output is a natural, recognized mode of procedure in the business world to-day. There are factories all over Canada which, so soon as their managers think that profits are not sufficiently high to warrant further operation, curtail their production, or, sometimes, stop work altogether. Since the minister has put the question on high ethical grounds, if it is wrong for labour men to curtail production when they cannot earn even ia living for themselve's and their families, then it is a much greater wrong for any manager of a factory or corporation to stop work simply because he cannot obtain the profits he would like. I shall have to go a little further and mention an incident which I trust my farmer friends will apreciate rather than resent. I had a talk with the president of the farmers' organization of Alberta a year or two ago, when oats were selling, if I remember rightly, at about 16 or 20 cents a bushel. That gentleman informed me then that he was going to advise the farmers to stop planting oats and other kinds of grain until prices were somewhat higher, because, as he said, the farmers could not
produce at the then current prices. Well, that also, I submit, is a curtailment of production, and the farmer feels abundantly justified in the matter because he says he cannot produce at a loss. Neither he can; that is obvious. I remember saying at the time to the president of the association that what he proposed to do would be rather hard' on the people who lived in the cities. "Well," he said, "I don't see any other way in which we can bring the railroads and other large institutions to time." That is the selfsame 'step, apparently, which is being taken by the miners down in Glace Bay and in Nova Scotia generally. I do not say these things simply for the sake of talking, because I realize that we have an exceedingly difficult problem to cope with, an ethical problem if you will. We have been given one side of it by the Minister of Labour, and 'a great many of Us have failed to realize that there is distinctly another side to the question. Sometimes the worker is driven to do some things he does not like to do. May I be permitted to give an illustration from my own experience during the time I was engaged as a manual worker on the waterfront? I used to have a theoretical knowledge of some of these questions, and I discovered that that knowledge had to be somewhat thrown to the winds in the face of practical experience. Men were unloading ship's, and the day was supposed to be an eight hour day; but if the task was finished before the close of the day the workers were dismissed. The result was that when the pay envelope came they were short perhaps two or three hours of their day's work. Now, they needed every cent of the wages they were receiving in order to keep their families, or even to exist. They went to work at eight o'clock in the morning in the full belief that they would be able to work an eight hour day, but perhaps about two or three o'clock word would come that the cargo was almost through loading or unloading, as the case might be, and some times the suggestion would be made: "We must go slow and do not finish before the regular closing hour." And the men proceeded to adopt the policy ca'canny, of loafing on the job. No doubt it will be said, from a high ethical standpoint, that such a practice is reprehensible. However, let me say, on the other side, that there was no organization of labour on the waterfront at Vancouver as there has been, to a certain extent, at the docks at Liverpool and elsewhere; but a much larger pool of labour was kept for cases of emergency
Nova Scotia Miners

than was ordinarily needed. Had there been a common sense arrangement between the various companies concerned, it could have been readily arranged that each man could work his eight hours, neither more nor less, and be guaranteed sufficient for a living. But under the maladjustments inherent in our present system he was unable, through no fault of his own, to obtain a full day's work; and under the circumstances about the only thing he saw he could do was to go slower if he wanted to obtain sufficient food for himself and bis family. I can remember some of these men discussing the situation. They called attention to the fact, for example, that the Dollar Steamship Company was making millions out of the war trade which it had at that time, and they could see no reason why the steamship company could make its millions and yet not afford them a living wage. There you have the same situation as now exists in Nova Scotia, and I suggest that there are two sides to a question of this kind. I am not going to discuss here the larger question, upon which a great many of us feel very strongly, namely, that industry has increased to such a large extent that it ought no longer to be left in private hands. The group which I represent in this House has it as a part of its policy, the plank that the large fundamental industries of the country should be handled by the country in the interests of the country at large. I was glad to see a year or two ago that the Farmers' party adopted the principle of the nationalization of coal mines. They did it because they thought that a supply of coal was essential to the welfare of the country, and that from the standpoint of the consumer it was necessary to nationalize large public industries. Here we have another aspect of the question; because of control by an autocratic company, it becomes necessary in the interests of the men to see that they have fair play. This is a large question into which I will not go to-night, but let me say this: If private ownership is going to function and supply us with all the goods we need, and if it is going to secure us democracy and industrial freedom then let us continue private ownership. But I claim that private ownership is failing to do these very things. To-day we have 200,000 unemployed in Canada; we have factories closed down and men all over the country who say they have not the rights of free men. This is the challenge that comes from the labour world to-day.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) used a number of expressions which I have no doubt would win applause from a regular lecture platform audience. And they are true. But the use of them sometimes makes them only half truths, and a half truth is on occasion more false in its effect than a lie. The minister said that two wrongs do not make one right. Of course, we all applaud that. I may say, in passing, that I was very much interested to note that a good deal of the applause while the minister spoke came from the benches opposite rather than those immediately behind him. But let me ask: Is not this action which the minister himself is advocating-a policy of waiting, a refusal to deal with the one and the more fundamental wrong? I am not advocating strikes, I am not advocating slowing down on the job, I am not advocating violence or anything of the kind, but I do say that we have on the other hand, as has been stated by various hon. members, a company that is organized with millions upon millions of watered stock, and that conducts its affairs in the most arbitrary fashion according to the minister's own statement. Let me read it again:
Be assured that the undersigned has no brief for or personal sympathy with certain methods adopted by the British Empire Steel Corporation, and I regard it now as during the recent general election campaign as one of Canada's tragedies that any corporation should appear to be able to undertake to dictate government policy or to shape the course of public events to its own purposes.
I think we are justified in asking what steps the minister is taking to change that state of affairs. That is the prior wrong and the greater wrong of the two.
What about the advice to walk off the job? I suppose that is the action that would be taken by a "red-blooded Canadian." It is all very well if you can walk off the job, but, Mr. Speaker, I submit that a great many of these men cannot quit work even for a single day without involving hardship on their wives and children. That is the other side of the question. I noticed in some of our campaign literature a phrase to this effect: Your job is your living. The working men would be willing to go a little bit further and say: A man's job is his very life. Can such a man quit work when his family is on the verge of starvation, and would starve if he quit for a few days? You may talk about individual freedom, but such a man who is 'bound down in that way

Nova Scotia Miners
has no chance of enjoying individual freedom.
I am not sure whether the phrase was used. "Sacredness of contracts," hut the idea was there, that under no circumstances must a man break his contract. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to advocate, nor to justify the breaking of contracts, hut I do say that frequently to-day men are placed in such a position that it is absolutely impossible for them to carry through their contracts and fulfill their duties to others dependent on them. I am not going into questions of casuistry; they do not get us any distance at all; but I submit that even in law duress is recognized. If I point a revolver at a man's head and say to him, "You sign that document or I will shoot you," that contract, as the House is aware, would not be recognized as valid in any court of law. And yet that is precisely what it is in the employer's power to do when a man is at his wit's end, when he is at his extremity, when he has no food with which to feed his wife and children. Under the conditions the employer is in the position to point a gun, as it were, at the employee's head and say, "Take this job or starve." I hope to live to see the time when that kind of contract will by the laws of the land be declared invalid.
But we come back to the big question which we are apt to overlook: What else are the men to do? I am not justifying this course, let me say that again and again, but I do ask: What other course is pointed out to the men? We are told that there may be some danger of interfering with the provincial rights of Nova Scotia. I am informed by members of the delegation who are here from the East that again and again the miners sent delegates to the Nova Scotia Government to ask for some redress or some help, and that those delegates were told again and again that the provincial government had no power 'to act. There is the situation that we find. The federal government say: We cannot act. The provincial government say: We cannot act. In the meantime the men and their families are suffering.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll), if I understood him aright, admitted that there was considerable watered stock in the capitalization of this corporation. But he asked: Why should the federal government interfere with a company chartered by the provincial government? Mr. Speaker, let me put the matter as the common men of Canada are beginning to put it. It is a crime if a man
should put water in milk, and he can be tried under the criminal law and punished. I should like to ask: Why is it less a crime that a man should put water in stock? And I hope to see the Government during this very session introduce legislation that will make it criminal for anybody to water stock. Has the Dominion government no right to act? I submit that again and again, the Dominion government has interfered or taken action with regard to all sorts of industrial disputes from one coast to the other. Is there any reason why at this particular juncture action should not be taken in what seems a most serious situation?-a situation which has gradually been growing more and more serious for some months, and with respect to which the provincial authorities seem to have taken no action whatever. As some hon. member has already said, if there should break out any violent disorder he assumed that the Dominion government would be asked to send in the mounted police or the military to restore order. Have we not arrived at a stage in our civilization when we will refuse to adopt the policy of waiting till something serious happens,-something which we already see is likely to happen?
If I remember rightly, I was in the galleries of this House in 1913 when there was a strike in progress at Nanaimo. I think the Liberal party then in power-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no; the Tory party.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Was it 1909? I remember quite distinctly that some members of the Liberal party pleaded that action should be taken in connection with that dispute. I am not going into this phase of the question with the idea of stirring up party recriminations, but I would say that in the past action has been taken by the federal authorities at various 'times. The trouble in Winnipeg in 1919 is, I take it, fresh in the minds of a great many of us. Week after week that trouble went on. The municipality seemed almost helpless; the province seemed almost helpless. The federal Government took no action for quite a time; then at last they did take action, with a club. But for a long time nothing was done, though anyone could see that things would grow more and more serious. Surely we have come to the time in the history of civilization when we ought to be able to prevent some of these disputes eventuating in violence.
Nova Scotia Miners

With the development of our large-scale industry, we have reached the point where it becomes necessary for the Government to take an active part in the management of big industrial enterprises. In a book published by Mr. Woodrow Wilson, containing some of the election speeches made by him during the campaign in which he was elected, he called attention to the fact that the old watchword of "individual liberty" with regard 'to carrying on one's business affairs was no longer applicable in our complicated industrial life of to-day. He used a very fine illustration to bring home his point. He said that in many cities of the United States the owners of tenement blocks were still taking the position that an Englishman's house was his castle and were refusing to allow the municipal authorities to enter those tenement houses for the purpose of inspecting the sanitary arrangements, and so on. He pointed out that even in England and Scotland-I think he referred particularly to the city of Glasgow, where this old doctrine that an Englishman's house was his castle had long prevailed-they had had common sense enough to recognize the changed conditions. They had said that it was only an accident that fifty families became herded together under one roof of a huge tenement; that in that case each particular suite was a private house, but the tenement itself was essentially a public highway; therefore its corridors ought to be policed and sanitary arrangements provided for it. Mr. Wilson said the time had come when all these large public corporations ought to be recognized as public in their character and ought to have the full light of publicity thrown upon every detail of their management and operation. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we must accept the necessity of regulating, of absolutely controlling, these big public enterprises, or go one step further and have the public, the Government itself, take them over and manage them in the interests of the people.
I .take it that there is no dispute with regard to the fundamental facts of the situation which have been brought before us. First of all, the men are not obtaining in Nova Scotia a living wage. I believe that the minimum wage of some 8,500 out of the 12,000 men affected is $2.85 a day. A great many of us who draw our salaries by the week or by the month are not familiar with the way in which the workingman must count his income. In Nova Scotia very few of the miners, I am informed by the delegation here, are obtain-

ing more than four days work in the week *-and that through no fault of their own. Four days' work in the week at $2.85 means $11.40 a week. Now, I want to turn for a moment to the Labour Gazette, one of the valuable publications issued by the Department of Labour itself. According to the Labour Gazette for February, $21.52 was the cost of a weekly budget for a family of five. That included twenty-nine staple articles of food; wood, coal, light, etc. But the miners of Nova Scotia are receiving $11.40 a week, only half the amount which, according to the Department of Labour, is the minimum on which a family can subsist. Either the figures of the department are grossly misleading, or there is something wrong with the wage paid to the miners of Nova Scotia. And I may say, Mr. Speaker, that this figure of $21.52 makes no provision for medical service, for union dues, for church expenses, for newspapers, for books, for insurance, for any of the cultural needs that most of us believe to be necessary if men are to live according to Canadian standards. That is the situation which we must frankly face in this connection.
Not only are the men not receiving a living wage, according to these figures, but their wives and children are suffering. We are told that children are being kept home from school because they have not sufficient clothing. We are told that the school boards have notified parents to send their children to school and have been unable to enforce that order because of the conditions of poverty prevailing in the homes.
Now, that is one outstanding fact: the men are not receiving a living wage. The second outstanding fact in the situation is that the corporation apparently has got the province by the throat. I do not need to read again the statement made by the Minister of Labour himself.
The third great outstanding feature of the situation is that men, women and little children are suffering. Surely we ought not to underestimate that fact. And I hope the minister did not intend to say that no action could be taken because Mr. J. B. McLachlan had not shown sufficient deference to the Minister of Labour. I do not care anything about that. I do not care anything about whether or not Mr. McLachlan has taken just the right attitude. There is a bigger question than that. It is the welfare of the men, and the women, and the children living down there in Nova Scotia. The delegation thai

Nova \Scotia, Miners
came here from those towns has made a most just and reasonable request. They are not proposing to take the law into their own hands, but having gone repeatedly to the provincial house and obtained no redress; having been told that the province was incapable of doing anything, they have come to the federal House and have said:
" Can you not do something for us?" Are we going to turn them empty away?
Two or three years ago, shortly after the war, we heard a great deal about the necessity for reconstruction, but it has turned out that reconstruction has simply meant in many cases construction along the old lines. I submit that the people of Canada, the ordinary people of Canada, the labouring men, the business men and the farmers, are looking for a new lead. They are tired of the old way of doing things and are * looking for a new lead.	This new Government is to-day on its trial. Either this new Government must give a new lead or it will not be very long before some other government will have to come that will lead. I often think as we sit here dealing with our papers and talking back and forth about one thing and another, and then going to our offices and reading statistics, and that kind of thing, that we. are failing to realize the real thought and the real aspiration's of the people of Canada. The common people of Canada believe that every man in this country ought to have a chance, and they are not very much concerned with the questions of procedure or with delicate questions as to provincial or inter-provincial rights. They send their representatives here to this House, and they say there must be some way out of the situation. It is not for us on this side to devise ways and means; we cannot suggest very much. But it is for us to urge upon the Government in power that action, and if necessary, radical action, of a constructive nature should be taken, and iso far as 'some of us -are concerned we can pledge the Government that if that kind of action is taken, it will receive the fullest support from representatives who are here primarily not for partisan purposes but in an effort to bring a better way of life to the common people of this country.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) :: Mr. Speaker, my excuse for entering this debate must be that I represent a constituency which is to a large extent a labouring one. A large proportion of my constituents work for wages, and a still larger proportion are workers in the very broadest sense of the
word. We have very few drones in the Coimox-Alberni district.
I do not wish to enter into the merits of the arguments in this case. Before I would venture to pass an opinion, I would have to have a very much clearer definition of -the two sides of the question than have been presented this afternoon. But apart from that, as I live such a distance from the scene of thi's trouble, it would be presumptuous for fne to pass an opinion upon it. I would rather leave that to the members who represent the districts concerned or those in the immediate neighbourhood.
I just want to express one argument for the consideration of the Government. We, have heard a good deal about Bolshevism and the Reds. Bolshevism is the word I shall use, because I do not know what the noun of Red -is, whether it is Redness or Redism; so let us call it Bolshevism. Bolshevism, like co-ordination, is a very much over-worked word. It used to mean only a majority-not a term of reproach under the constitutional conditions of this country. Then it drifted on to mean those principles, if we can call them so, or practices, promulgated and put into force by Lenine, Trotsky and their associates. The word went further in the last election and -became a general term of villiflcation for every one who had the audacity and temerity to oppose the candidates of the Government of the day. I think hon. members to my -left will be fully aware of that fact. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie), in speaking the other day, said that he had some four thousand Reds in his district, adjoining mine, and that I had -some thousands also. Well, he can speak for himself. They may be called Reds in the Nanaimo district, but in my district we call them intelligent voters. I am not a-t all ashamed, and I have no anticipation of being -ashamed in the future, of the so-called Reds who gave me their confidence in the last election.
Coming now to the fourth meaning of the word, Bolshevism may now fairly be applied to a spirit of Radicalism almost revolutionary in its desires, and also rather vague. I think that might honestly be described as the meaning of the word to-day in ordinary conversation. Now why do we find these men so? If we examine into the conditions and industrial surroundings of these men that they are called Reds we can perhaps find out what makes them red. We have all had some experience with this class of men. Do we find that the man who
Nova Scotia Miners

is well fed, well clothed, with a steady job and owning- his little home, where his family grows up around him, with a wage sufficient to keep him in decent comfort and allow him to save a little for his old age, which is the standard we should aspire to, and often with a little leisure to read and inform himself, because ignorance has a good deal to do with Bolshevism - do we find that man becoming a Red? Never. It is never that class of men. The men of that class are always inclined to take a sober and, in the dictionary sense of the word, a conservative view of things. It is the man who lives with his wife and family under conditions of poverty, misery and above all, with a rankling sense of injustice that you find becoming a Red. I have even heard men in good positions, well educated men, say in conversation regarding some incident, "It is enough to make me turn Bolshevik." That indicates the idea that it is a rankling sense of injustice against social and industrial conditions that turns a man or a woman to talk Bolshevism and Redism. It does not matter if it is a civil servant who after years and years of service in anticipation of being promoted to a higher position sees some political has-been promoted over his head, it does not matter if it is a lumberjack or a miner who has been done out of his wages for months by some quirk of law invoked by some unscrupulous employer, the principle is the same; they have a rankling sense of injustice in the conditions immediately surrounding them.
Then if you admit, for the sake of my argument, that Bolshevism is caused, or tends to be produced, by injustice in our industrial and economic surroundings, you must also admit the next proposition I submit, that the spread of that sentiment i's undesirable in Canada from every point of view. Then would it not be wise, granting those two postulates, so to speak, for the Government in the instance before us to seek in any and every way possible to remove any possible cause of injustice there may be in connection with these men's alleged [DOT]-and I use that word because I do not know the actual circumstances-grievances. If that were done, the cost of half-a-dozen royal commissions would be Well repaid.
It is true you can station Northwest Mounted Police at every street corner, and to a certain extent check free speech. I was surprised the other day to see my colleagues from British Columbia hasten to repudiate the 'suggestion I made that the Northwest Mounted Police were

no longer needed in British Columbia. Sir, I have never said a word in depreciation of the Northwest Mounted Police. They are a fine body of men. I only said they were not needed. One hon. member, I think, claimed they had done great work for us in British Columbia during the war. I beg to remind you, Sir, and the hon. member in question that the Northwest Mounted Police were not in British Columbia during the war. Apart from that I can say that you may station mounted police on every street corner of the country and you will to a certain extent check the exercise of free speech. But a worse thing than that may happen. The dark thought in a man's mind rankles and he broods over it to a far worse extent if speech is repressed than if he were allowed to give expression to it. It is like trying to sweep back a stream with a broom-you cannot do it. But if you go to the source of the stream when it is only a trickle, a little drip, you can easily divert it there. It is the same with the spirit of Bolshevism. You may try to put your hand on unrest and say it is not there like putting your hand on a pool of water but it will exist and spread to a far greater extent by repression than if you had taken wise action at the beginning. The best way to deal with the problems arising in connection with our social and industrial relations is to enact wise legislation for the elimination of injustices; then Bolshevism will die a natural, and for that very reason, a permanent death.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine), and I congratulate him on having brought this matter to the attention of the Government. I cannot say that I admire in any way whatever the remarks of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) this afternoon. I am quite sure that labour will not be overjoyed to find such a type of minister at the head of this important department; and I am quite sure that all Canada and its press will be critical of the minister's remarks this afternoon. I would ask hon. members what they would do if to-day they were in the situation of these miners in Nova Scotia? The Minister of Labour this afternoon rose to the most extraordinary and perfervid heights of tragic-comedy when he endeavoured to demonstrate to the House the awful and terrible character of the doctrines that, he said, were being promul-

Nova Scotia Miners
gated by Mr. McLachlan. However, I ask the Minister of Labour what he would do if he were himself in such a position? All that was asked of this Government was the inception of such a constructive policy as would meet the situation in the province of Nova Scotia. I wonder what hon. members of this House would do if they were face to face with hunger? I think they would look at this whole question to-day and with more sympathy than they perhaps now feel. These coal miners, as I view the situation, are confronted with this situation: Their union has not the means to carry on the strike; therefore, they are not in a position to go out on strike. They are not in a position to do what the Minister of Labour suggested this afternoon he would probably have done had he been in their place. The men are not merely faced with hunger themselves-if that were the case doubtless many of them would meet the situation bravely-but their wives and children are threatened with hunger. Now if hon. members were placed in that position I think they would do exactly what the delegation has done. I think they would send a delegation to this House to ask it to devise a solution of the problem. The Minister of Labour said a good deal during the election, and also since then, about the desirability of bringing employer and employee together to act in co-operation. Now I should think, Mr. Speaker, that as the head of the Labour Department he has the opportunity to evolve some plan that will bring employers and employees together. I think there is not an hon. member here but will admit that the most difficult thing in the world to-day is to bring face to face employer and employees who are fighting each other. They will not in the natural course of events, I think, come together of their own accord. The two parties should be brought together by somebody sympathetic towards both and animated with a desire to solve the problem which if left unsolved may develop into a heavy burden on the State. I ask the Government, or the Department of Labour, if they have no constructive policy calculated to meet this situation. I ask, are they going to meet it? Are they going to meet this delegation, talk to them fairly and squarely and then sit down and consider, and introduce as quickly as possible, the solution of the problem which the circumstances call for? That is all the Government is asked to do and I believe it is its duty to carry out the request. It is the duty of this
Government, in my opinion, to meet a situation of this kind as quickly as possible.
Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland) : Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency in which there is a large number of miners and in which one of the properties of the Dominion Coal Company is situated.
I believe we are having too much camouflage at the present time in reference to this question. We do not desire to deceive the miners of Nova Scotia and I claim that if we appoint a royal commission at the present time such action would be tantamount to deception. Because we have no power here to implement the recommendations of that royal commission as far as those mines and miners are concerned, and probably in two, three or four months time the same condition that now prevails would be found still existing only perhaps in a more aggravated form. No one in this House can have a more sympathetic feeling for the miners of Nova Scotia than we who know these miners well. No man can have more sympathy with the miners of Cumberland than we who know and appreciate their difficulties, and I would not to-night support any government or any party if I thought the action it was taking would betray the interests of these men. I desire to speak out plainly and to say that I believe the appointment of a royal commission would only postpone this matter and result in a more aggravated state of affairs than now prevails.
Let me briefly recite the facts. There was a dispute between the men and the company. The former applied for a board of conciliation and nominated as their representative Mayor Ling of Waterford in Cape Breton. Afterwards the government of the day appointed Colonel Thompson of Halifax representing the company. These two men not being able to agree upon a third member of the board the present Minister of Labour appointed Mr. Gillen of Toronto as the chairman. The members of the board proceeded to Halifax. Under the Industrial Disputes Act they could call witnesses from the four corners of Canada to testify and the witnesses would be paid out of the public exchequer. They did call a number of witnesses and an extended investigation was held. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been better had the members of that board gone to the mines. They should have gone to Springhill in the county of Cumberland and to Glace Bay and other mining towns in Cape Breton. However, they did not see fit to do so, but they did hold an investi-
Nova jScotia Miners

gation, and heard all the evidence presented by both sides. Then why appoint a royal commission to take the same evidence over again and then find ourselves in the position of having no power to enforce the recommendations of the commission?
My hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) said that the proper place for investigation was not here, but in the province of Nova Scotia. I endorse that statement, because in that province they have power to enforce the recommendation of any royal commission which they may appoint in that province. The decision in reference to the Board of Commerce shows how limited our power is in the federal arena to make any enforcement. The British Empire Steel Company is a Nova Scotia concern. It is incorporated under the laws of Nova Scotia. The mines of Nova Scotia are owned by the province of Nova Scotia, by the government of Nova Scotia if you like, representing the people of their province. It is the duty of the government of that province, I humbly submit, to appoint a royal commission to investigate the workings and operation of their own property, the coal mines of that province.


Arthur Meighen: Would you explain what you meant by saying that the province of Nova Scotia, under the legislation in force in that province, has power to enforce the finding of a tribunal? Do you mean that they have the power, in case the tribunal makes the decision as to wages, to compel the men to work? What is the full extent of the implication, when you say they have power to enforce their findings?


Mr. LOGAN:: Under chapter 21 Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia, as read by the hon. member from Cape Breton South, they would have the power-


An hon. MEMBER:: To make the men work.


Hance James Logan: No, you! can never do that. You cannot force any man to work, if he doe's not desire to do so. There is no doubt about that. But Nova Scotia, owning the property, being the lessor of the coal areas to the companies, has the whip hand over the companies, who are only lessees from the government. Under the lease which it gives, the government has very large powers, and it has the power, I believe, as was decided in the case of the Board of Commerce, to enforce the findings affecting the miners of Nova Scotia. But that is a power which we lack. It is a

matter of property and civil rights, and within the provincial powers.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. gentleman from Calgary (Mr. Irvine). If I felt that we could be of any service in the matter, I would support him, but it would be simply useless for us to appoint a royal commission to investigate this matter within the province of Nova Scotia without the power to enforce the findings and it would only deceive the miners.


Mr. MARTELL:: Is not the whole trouble, as regards this particular unfortunate position in Nova Scotia, due to the fact that the British Empire Steel people are trying to make the coal industry of Cape Breton pay dividends for the stock of other corporations which are non-productive, which corporations they have taken into the amalgamation?


Hance James Logan: As to the accuracy of the
statement, permit me to say that the proper place to investigate that is before a royal commission appointed by the province of Nova Scotia, to investigate the position of the company. That province incorporated this company and gave it a large capitalization, and this company is answerable, I submit, to the province of Nova Scotia, and not answerable to this parliament or to the federal authorities.
Suppose the intention of the hon. member for Calgary were carried out, what would happen? A royal commission would be appointed by this government. That would take some time. Then this commission would proceed down to Halifax. Probably weeks would (elapse. They then would proceed to Cape Breton county, and Inverness, and down into Cumberland. More weeks go by, the children are still in want, the men are not working the mines, and there is trouble all over the province. What we do now should be done in the quickest manner possible, and the best thing for us to do is to say to the Legislature of Nova Scotia, "You have incorporated this company, and it is your duty to investigate the charges that have been made".
We have heard a great many statements made with reference to the watered stock of the British Empire Steel Corporation, but we do not know. Not a man in this House knows whether dividends are being paid on watered stock, or how much the stock is watered. It is all very well to make the statement. It should be investigated, before a commission which has power to investigate these matters.

Nova i Scotia Miners
If we appoint a royal commission, it would take them weeks to get the evidence together, and make findings. And then what could a royal commission do? It would be utterly powerless. A commission appointed here could make any findings they pleased, hut could not enforce them. The men would then find themselves exactly where they are to-day, with that much lost time and that much more trouble in the province.
We do not concur in the recommendation of Mr. McLaehlan that men should lie down upon the job. Cumberland men will not lie down upon any job-no mistake about that. We ought to recognize the fact that Mr. Baxter, the President of the U.M.W., is not in sympathy with Mr. McLaehlan on this occasion. I suppose that Mr. Baxter has, at least in the past, had the confidence of the people of that province, and the confidence of the miners. He does not concur in the movement of Mr. McLaehlan.
Therefore, I say, Mr. Speaker, do not deceive the men by giving them a commission from Ottawa. Such a commission could bring all the witnesses together", go to great expense, employ all the lawyers they wanted to prove the case, and at the end of the time we would find we were powerless and could do nothing to enforce the recommendations of the commission. Let us send this matter directly to the province of Nova Scotia where they have power to enforce the recommendations of their tribunal. It is within the purview of their legislative capacity to appoint a commission at the present time to investigate this unfortunate difficulty in the province of Nova Scotia.
Mr. T. H. McCONICA, (Battleford) : Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to become involved in this debate and, under other circumstances, I should certainly have preferred to listen, but some things have developed in the discussion, even amongst my own friends, with which I am not in full accord. What is the controversy before us to-night? It appears that a corporation organized under the laws of Nova Scotia, engaged in mining in that province, has upon its hands a controversy with the citizens of that province, touching a question of wages. Some investigations have been made, and there was an attempt, I understand, by the Department of Labour to adjust the difference. That attempt failed. Now, what has occurred? A grievous situation exists there, no doubt. It is said that there is a corporation on one side in which the stock
is very much watered-a deplorable thing, but something that did not come about by virtue of any action of the federal Parliament. The labour is organized, a very proper thing; but it was not organized by virtue of the laws passed by this Parliament. A controversy has arisen, not because of anything for which we in this Parliament are responsible, or over which we have jurisdiction. The controversy has arisen between the citizens of Nova Scotia and a corporation in that province. Under those circumstances, some gentlemen come to the Government and make representations. Are they parties to the controversy? Not at all. Do they bear any credentials from the miners or employees? None whatever. Are they here in a representative capacity? I do not so understand; they are here in their private capacity, when there is a remedy in the province itself, a remedy the efficiency and integrity of which have not been questioned by any gentlemen on this floor, and which has been pointed out to them, as was clearly set forth this afternoon by an hon. gentleman from the province in which the difficulty exists. Now, an hon. member from away west of us asks this Government to appoint a royal commission.


William Irvine: Do you mean to say that
I asked for the appointment of a royal commission?


Mr. McCONICA:: I am not so sure that I have correctly stated your position, but you have brought a motion before the House and consumed one-half day of mighty valuable time-to do what? I do not know, Sir, what he does want us to do, but the suggestion is that a royal commission should be appointed. Would such a commission have any authority to enforce its findings? Is it asked for by either the miner or the operator? Have we any intimation from either side that the findings of such a commission would be accepted? Not one suggestion of the kind. The suggestion comes from my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Irvine), and the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg , (Mr. Woodsworth). Now, I admire the sentiment expressed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), when he said that a man should render an honest day's work for a day's wages; and I resent the idea that there is a parallel between the man who shirks his task and the farmer who finds that he cannot raise an abundant crop. The farmer did not put in his crop for some other man; it was his own crop,
Nova Scotia Miners

and it -was his own failure if he did not reap the harvest he expected. He did not accept any ifian's wages for which he was expected to raise a full crop, and then only try to raise half a crop. The difference is a very material one, in my estimation. What would be the effect of appointing a royal commission? What would it do? It would find out precisely what we all know, and nothing more. It would develop facts concerning which we are fully advised. And what would we do about it? We do not know. What could we do? Not a thing, so far as I have been advised by all the gentlemen that have discussed the question. We might just find out what we know already, but we could ascertain nothing more. It seems to me that we have had enough of this sort of business.
I deplore the fact that the miners of Nova Scotia are suffering. I deplore the fact that their employers are not able to pay them wages sufficient to maintain them. I do not know whose fault it is; the hon. gentleman does not know whose fault it is. If he were paying the wages he would probably be in a very different frame of mind. I know something about paying wages, and I have never had one hour's or one minute's controversy with any man I have ever employed. I have never had a labourer leave me that was not fully satisfied. But I do not like to hire a man and have him filled with the idea that he has to get even with me, for some fancied wrong, by neglecting that for which I am paying him. I do not like that doctrine, I am not here to endorse it, and I am sorry to hear it favourably expounded by gentlemen on this side.
Now, there is some talk about the Red business. We have nothing of that kind in the country I live in. I have heard some talk that the farmers of the West were not particularly loyal, that they were disposed to tear down government, and I remember a few years ago there was a great controversy in the city of Winnipeg. There seemed to be a concerted effort on the part of an element gathered in that cosmopolitan city for the purpose of sweeping a conflagration of anarchy over the western part of this great Dominion; and I heard it suggested that the farmers were organized and were ready to take up the fiery torch and cross and bear it through the West. I lived out in that country at that time, and I want to tell hon. gentlemen present that there was not, in my opinion, a man living on any farm in western Canada who would not have put his foot down with all
[Hr. McConlca.]
the vigour necessary to stamp out any attempt of that kind. No such sentiment has ever existed there. The western farmer is a loyal Canadian citizen. Why is he in the West? Did he go to that wild country bent upon plunder when there was no one he could rob? He went to engage in a legitimate, an honourable, a respectable and a useful calling,-a calling that imposes hardship, demands labour, and requires long hours of toil in a rigorous climate. What did he come to Canada for? Was he unfriendly to the institutions of the country? If he had been, why did he choose that rigorous climate? He came because Canadian institutions appealed to him, and because the flag that was to float over him represented his idea of liberty. He came to establish the one foundation iiistitution upon which all our liberties rest, he came for the purpose of building there that to which we all look as the great corner-stone of our civilization-he came to build a home. And is that man a dangerous citizen? No, indeed, he is not. He is there to engage in a useful and proper and arduous occupation; he is the busiest man in Canada; he is not asking for short hours; he is not asking for protection; he is there to render an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. And you can rely upon this, Mr. Speaker, that the torch of anarchy will never be kindled at the forge of industry.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson) :: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to differ with my hon. friend from the West who has just spoken (Mr. McConica). He entertains a view of provincial or state independence that seems rather strange to a Canadian habit of thinking. Coming to this country from the South, he seems to have brought with him amongst his settler's effects that idea of state independence which prevails there, and which has not taken very deep root in this country, where we believe in a large measure of federal control. I do not concur in his view of the futility of a royal commission appointed by this Parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Thomas William Bird: I have the consciousness that I am speaking rather loud-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No. you are not.


Thomas William Bird: but by and by I shall be habituated to the conditions under which I am speaking. I fail to agree with the view that a royal commission appointed by this House would be futile, because there is another kind of force besides physical

Nova Scotia Miners
force. I do not think anyone supposes that this Government would send down the Royal Northwest Mounted Police to enforce the findings of such a commission upon the British Empire Company. I do not think that for a moment. But there is such a thing as moral force which can be generated in the minds of the people, in other words, public opinion, which would be more effective than any physical force the Government could bring to bear. So for that reason I think the plea which has been put forward to-day is very sensible and reasonable, and it does not seem to me that our time is being wasted in its discussion. On the contrary, I think the time is well spent, for we are dealing with a big human question. Some of us are not very well prepared to speak on them, but these human questions are very alluring, and we cannot keep quiet while we listen to the pleas that are being made.
My own position is somewhat neutral, for I have no obligation in a political sense to Labour, none whatever; the only obligation I have is that which any rightthinking man must own towards the great mass of his little brothers-and I confess that I have a feeling that as opportunity arises I must put myself on the side of the bottom dog. I believe that sentiment is characteristically British. I believe in deference to hon. members opposite who represent another race, that it is also Galician. The word "sabotage" which has been interlarded in this debate considerably, had an honourable origin in the history of the race that is represented opposite, and arose out of conditions similar to those we are now considering.
I cannot speak for my group, and therefore I should like my words to be treated as purely the expression of my personal views, but it seems to me that the sentiments of the Progressive party and the sentiments of Labour are very near together at the root. The reason for this Progressive group being here is because of the widespread discontent, of which this labour trouble in Nova Scotia is a manifestation; it is the same root. Now, the immediate conditions which react upon the farmer are vastly different from those which react upon the labourer, but the ultimate conditions are the same! The difference is geographical, as some one has said of protection, that is all, but the root is the same; down beneath the ground there is a connection between the farmer and the labourer. And when we heard the talk about watered stock our hearts began to
kindle, because we of the Farmer group have felt for a long time that we too have been suffering from watered stock. When the charge of sedition was imputed to our Labour friends on the corner bench to my left, our hearts began to warm again, because that epithet has also been applied to us. In our efforts to get just conditions for ourselves we have had to suffer obloquy in the same way. So there is a real kindred feeling betwen Labour and Progressives.
But this is where I come near to the sentiments of my hon. friend from Battle-ford. I do not believe the average farmer has much use for sabotage. The farmer in the West-and I am speaking now of the class that I know-on the average usually employs either a man or a boy for at least some part of the year, and it would be repugnant to him at any time to find that man or boy loafing on his job, not because his moral sense is more highly developed than any one else's-I do not think that on the average the farmer's moral sense is any more discriminating than that of any other class-but because his sense of self-interest has developed just a little further than that of any other class in the country.
Now, moral fervour, as a certain class of philosophers have alleged, has its main root in self-interest. I believe there is a measure of truth in that theory, but I rather fight off the thought that the moral fervour, the righteous indignation, manifested by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) was a reflection of self-interest as it applied to the industrial affairs of this country. I do not think it was, because it seemed to me that the note of sincerity was clear enough in his speech, and his past record would confirm that.
But I think he made a signal mistake; he has put his Government in a very compromising position so far as a large class of the working men of this country are concerned. Mark you, a large section of the workingmen, and a large number of the farmers, too, are not Red,-they repulse the very thought-and they will not read the minister's speech with any kindly feeling. I am even afraid that some of that feeling will be reflected upon the Government which he represents.
Now, I think the Minister of Labour was inflamed a little too much by that word "sabotage"-a word which is all right for ornamental purposes and which looks impressive in a big headline, but which has no relation whatever to the facts of this
Nova 'Scotia Miners

case and has been very much misused. He could have safely taken that word for what it meant, and in reply to Mr. McLachlan he could, I think, have used more temperate language. He could well have afforded to overlook the gibes and sneers of that wily Scotchman; for I infer that he is a Scotchman,-not by his name, but by the fact that he sent that telegram collect. The minister occupies a position which enables him to overlook things of that kind, and I do think that the note of personal vindication entered a little too much into his discussion of the matter. I am sorry he is not in the chamber at the moment, because these remarks have been made for his benefit.
Now, I believe that the appointment of a royal commission by the Government to investigate this matter would have a very wholesome effect upon public opinion. It would have a very wholesome effect upon the Government themselves; it would make it easy for a good many of us from now on to give them that whole-hearted support that we have it in mind to give them so long as they array themselves with the forces in this country that are making for righteousness.


Arthur Meighen: That this subject is of sufficient consequence to have warranted the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Irvine) in moving the adjournment for the purpose of a discussion, no one can doubt. The solution of the difficulty that confronts Canada in the province of Nova Scotia goes to the very root of industrial and social life in that province, and has to do with the well-being and the happiness.- possibly even with the existence-of many of our fellow citizens there. An area of Canada of very considerable size, one of the oldest settled areas of this Dominion, is affected to a degree perhaps unknown hitherto as respects any other part of the country. I want to examine as carefully as I may the circumstances that have brought us to the position we are in and to suggest a course, if it is in my power to do so, that may help. I am not sure that I agree with any who have addressed the House upon the subject, and I am still more doubtful whether I shall find any with me after I am through my address to-night.
We all know that an order went out some time last fall putting into effect a wage reduction of enormous extent-371 per cent, on the average-applicable to some 12,000 miners in the Cape Breton district, employees of the British Empire Steel Corporation, distributed among its various
component companies. That reduction completely wiped away the increases that had previously been given by what is known as the Montreal (agreement-the first Montreal agreement-and, as has been stated to the Government in a document a copy of which I have been favoured with, represented as well a twenty-five per cent reduction in the wages that had prevailed before that agreement. This reduction the miners resisted, and the proper steps were taken toward the establishment of a board of conciliation. The company refused to name its representative on the board

why, has not been made clear; the reason they could have had I do not know. Their representative, then, in accordance with the law, was named by the Minister of Labour, as was also-the two representatives failing to agree on the point-the third member, who was named by the present minister. Of any of the choices made I have no criticism to offer at the present time. That board sat in the city of Halifax, heard evidence, and announced its decision. The decision was the decision of the majority, and a minority decision by Mayor Ling, representing the men, followed. The decision of the majority changed the reduction from 371 per cent to 321 per cent, and in bringing that reduction into effect there were certain amendments as well, applicable to the lower paid men, with the result that men below a certain wage were not to be reduced beyond 121 per cent; to those above this wage the general reduction would apply. This award was, one might say, unanimously rejected by the men. It appears that in that award there were certain anomalies which indicated that the board had not exercised the care one might expect of it in arriving at its decision. For example, the award made the pay of some men who had previously been receiving a higher wage than others, less than those others were now to receive. Other anomalies also were embodied in the award; but no doubt the resistance of the men to the award arose not so much from the anomalies as from the fact that so little scaling was done and that a very substantial reduction was made from the wages that had before obtained. Whether or not such a reduction was justified, this Parliament is not in a position to say; I am not in a position to say. It does strike one, though, that it was a very substantial reduction indeed to take place all at one time.
The result of the resistance of the men to the award was that representatives of

Nova Scotia Miners
the men again met representatives of the company and some slight modifications were made, not affecting in any way the main body of the findings; not affecting in any way the 32& per cent reduction, but correcting certain of the anomalies that were found in the first report. It appears that some of the representatives of the men favoured the acceptance of the suggestion-which, of course, had no effect at all until accepted-and that others did not. At all events, the men declined to accept, and by a vote of about seven to one declared they would not be parties to such an agreement.
Consequently, the men were in this position, that all steps had been taken which they could take under the law of Canada. Whether there was a law of the province they might have resorted to or not that had any effect, I could not say. One has been referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) to-night, but under the law that comes under our purview here the men had taken all the steps they could take, the company had done the same, and still the clash existed. Now, having pursued the remedies provided for by the act in proper order, the fact remains that there is a class war on in the province of Nova Scotia. The fact remains that twelve thousand men are in a state of hostility against their employers, the British Empire Steel Corporation. In that condition of affairs one of their leaders, who appears, I judge, from press reports, to have behind him a vast majority of the men whether he ought to have or not, advises those men, and they accept his advice, to adopt a certain course, namely, to decline to work a full day's work at this reduced wage which now is in effect, but to give rather a partial day's work which they believe represents the full wage they receive, and which prevents the company making profits or piling coal as a reserve, which reserve the men believe would put the company in a position to fight effectually any further resistance on their part.
Now that this condition is a serious one, and a very serious one, none of us can dispute. Though there may be wrong on the part of Mr. McLachlan and on the part of the men who follow him-and I will discuss that later-though there may be wrong on the part of the operators, neither of these wrongs removes the fact that a serious condition of affairs exists in the province of Nova Scotia. Then the
question comes:	Is there anything this
Parliament can do, is there anything this Government has failed to do or to-day can do, to improve the situation in the province of Nova Scotia? I hold in my hand what was given to me as a copy, and I have no doubt it is, of the memorial presented to the Administration by the mayors of the towns or cities in the bodies of this area affected so seriously by the present situation. These mayors do not come in their personal capacity. Surely it is not correct to say that they do. I have met only one, but we cannot ignore the fact that they are mayors elected by their people, representing all the people, doubtless, of the towns and cities of which they are officers, and they come here to make their representations because of the general concern of the whole community in a happy outcome of the present unfortunate condition of affairs. Those are men who ought to know what is really the trouble; they ought to be able to measure pretty well what the dangers are, what is to be avoided, and they ought to be able to judge fairly well what might be done. I read from their memorial in order to give their view of how serious, if not desperate, the situation is. They say:
In this connection the delegation wish to quote a paragraph from a letter received since their arrival in Ottawa. This letter refers to conditions in the coal fields of Cape Breton and says:
" The doctors here declare that there is more sickness among young children than they ever met with before. There are more children staying away from school than ever in the history of the mining towns of this district."
The delegation goes on to say:
This sickness among young children has resulted from nothing more nor less than malnutrition. The children are kept home from school because their parents cannot provide them with sufficient clothing. The Supervisor of Schools in Glace Bay is authority for th& statement that young boys are being kept away from school in order that they may earn something to help provide for the families; and any one who cares to investigate will find that children are actually going hungry in the mining districts and are falling ill because it is impossible to provide them with sufficient nourishing food and sufficient clothing.
We have in Nova Scotia laws requiring the attendance of children at school; but when notices are sent out to parents of supposed delinquents it transpires that the children cannot attend because they are not sufficiently clothed.
. This is an attempt to briefly sketch conditions as they exist; but no one who has not seen these conditions for himself can be expected to understand what they mean in the lives of tens of thousands of human beings-

Nova Scotia Miners

Because, be it remembered, while twelve thousand represents the number of miners, probably sixty thousand would more nearly represent the numbers in the families of those affected.
-and this is, we may say, the chief reason why we are here to-day asking the Government to Investigate. We feel that the situation will never be understood until a commission of sympathetic, just and competent investigators have gone into the mining districts of Nova Seotia and seen things for themselves, until they have seen with their own eyes the conditions under which these people are expected to live and bring up healthy families. For we can assure the Government that this dispute that is threatening the industrial stability of the province of Nova Scotia has had rise in these conditions. It is useless to expect peace and harmony and contentment in a community, the citizens of which are forced to exist in this way. If men cannot earn enough to feed and clothe themselves and their families, to live in some degree of comfort, and provide means of even a common school education for their children, not to mention some provision for the years in which miners become too old to earn, then, we feel, we may well despair of the future.
The memorial goes on with reasonings and assertions of what they say are facts much of a character similar to that I have read and some of it, indeed, even more alarming. The House recalls as well the words of the hon. member who represents at least part of the district affected, the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and it was only too plain from what he said that a situation far more perilous than appears now may well follow unless by some means or another alleviation is brought.
In the body of the memorial I have read it appears to be their opinion that only by examining the condition of the families on the ground can the problem be understood or a fair solution offered. It is most unfortunate that the board that already has acted saw fit to confine its geography , to the city of Halifax and was content to listen to what you might call inanimate evidence, instead of going right on the ground to the seat of the trouble, among the miners themselves, and seeing the actual conditions with their own eyes. All who have taken part in the debate, including the Minister of Labour, have clearly given the House the impression that the award could never have been expected to do what an award ought to do because of the failure of the board of arbitration in that regard. This delegation asked for a royal commission of men of sympathy and understanding and fairness of judgment to be selected to go down and, as it were,

re-try the case, and re-try it under conditions that unfortunately were not brought to bear when the former board or arbitration met. That is their suggestion. There may be a better. I do not argue whether that is best or not.
The question I am going to approach is this: Whether or not this Government is justified in simply standing aside and saying:	"We have had that board of
arbitration. It did not do its whole duty by any means but all the same we have had it and here we have discovered a statute of the province of Nova Scotia. We are going to kick the whole thing out of Parliament and beyond our sight and push it over to the province of Nova Scotia for treatment." The Minister of Labour comes to Parliament, makes a speech of much passion and vehemence, declares against a certain line of conduct, and in an hour's oration and peroration denounces the suggestion with all the force of his personality. But really I think if he had given more careful consideration to an analysis of the facts before coming to the decision that he has announced here he would have better served the purpose of a Minister of Labour.
What is his position? He says: "I will have nothing to do with this thing at all. No royal commission for me. No action on my part. No dallying with the course of action on the part of Mr. McLachlan and his followers which is morally wrong and from which I turn my eyes in disgust." Were Mr. McLachlan assumed to be morally wrong, were all those following him wrong, were they indulging in something that is against the law-would even that be sufficient to justify the Government of the day in saying "Things can go right on until they step out of that line of conduct and comply with the law"? Let me give an illustration. Supposing Mr. McLachlan and his followers had declined to come under the Lemieux Act at all, that is under the Industrial Disputes Act? Suppose they had never negotiated with the British Empire Steel Company? Suppose they had never asked for a board of arbitration, following the failure of 'such a negotiation, tout had simply gone on strike? They would be violaters of the law of this land, they would be violating the provisions of the Lemieux Act, but would that be sufficient cause for the Department of Labour to refuse its offices in every way, to decline to help them altogether or help the board; would it be a justification for the Minister of Labour

Nova Scotia Miners
to say "Oh you did not ask for a board of arbitration, you never tried to negotiate, you did not obey the law of the Dominion of Canada, things can go on just as they like and men can starve. Whatever dispute arises I will not have anything to do with it because to do so would be to countenance and to encourage what is against the law of the land." Well, the Department of Labour has not taken that course in years gone by; the Department of Labour has stood always ready to help even though parties to the dispute might have been at the time acting in violation of the law.
Now let us inquire whether this case is worse than that? Are there reasons here for standing aloof in cold indifference that would not exist were the parties striking and acting in violation of law? What are these parties doing? Are they acting in violation of law? Are they in as bad a position as strikers would be who will not strike without asking for a board of arbitration? Well, I submit that they are not. I am not one who in the past has been noted for countenancing violation of the law. I have taken some risks, politically and otherwise, in order that the law of this land might be upheld; and I have no sympathy whatever with the conduct tof men who seek to gain their end by violation of a law of any kind, whether it is the Criminal Code or any other statute. And there is another class with whom I would have no sympathy at all: I would have no sympathy with a man, or a body of men, who, accepting a wage schedule and contracting to work under it, would go to work and seek to give only a partial day's work for a day's pay although they accept it as a day's pay. I do not think that would be particularly a violation of the law but it would be, morally at least, a violation of contract. To pretend to be doing a day's work ami not be doing it, that is what I would call loafing on the job, that is what I would call dishonesty-it is pretending to do what you are not doing.
Are these men even in that position? If they were I do not think it would be a violation of the law; but are they in that position? They may be but if so I have not understood the facts as adduced in this House. What have these men done? They have been requested, we will put it, to accept a wage reduction of 32! per cent. They have declined to do it. They say "No, it is not a living wage; we cannot support our families, we cannot send our children to school. We do not want to go on strike
34!
or go out." Why? The reason they give is that they have exhausted their funds in mutual help already and that they would have great difficulty in supporting a strike. They say: "Here, you are giving us two-thirds of a day's pay and we will give you two-thirds of a day's work and only that: we won't pretend to give you any more." That is what I understand to be their position.
Now aside from the fact, aside from whether it can be criticized or not, is it any false pretence on their part? Really I cannot see that it is. Mr. McLachlan announced this position publicly and we take the men as announcing the same thing because we must assume that each man went to his employer and said: "You pay us so much a day and we will give you so much work." I am speaking now of the men known as the datal men who asked for so much a day, I will speak of the others in a moment. Very well, it is within the province of the employer to say "We will not accept that; we will not pay you for that two-thirds of a day's work;" and I cannot see how anyone could very well complain when the men go openly to the employer and openly announce "We will do so much work a day and will not do any more." That is the stand the men have taken. If hon. gentlemen see offence in that well at least you can measure the extent of that offence, and I ask the House is the extent of that offence so terrible that the Department of Labour of Canada must fold its arms and cease to function altogether, that they must say "Oh, until you stop that, until you cease to do that anti-British or non-British, non-Canadian cowardly act you can expect no more help from the Department of Labour; we will leave the community to its fate until you cease to tell your employers that you will only do so much work for the wage they have offered you."
As regards the piece-work men respecting whom I ventured to interrupt the member for Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), really I do not see how any complaint can be made against them at all-let me say that very frankly. A man who is taking coal out of a mine at so much a ton is offered so much a ton. Perhaps a day's work is twenty tons-I do not know what it is- but he says "I will only produce fifteen tons." Well that man will only get paid for fifteen tons; consequently, how any complaint could be levelled against him -and I am told he represents thirty-five

Nova Scotia Miners
or forty per cent of the whole number- is beyond my power to imagine.


William F. Carroll: And he is anxious to work.


Arthur Meighen: No. I understand that the piece-work men were parties to this arrangement to only do a partial amount of work.


William F. Carroll: My instructions are that ninety-five per cent of the men who have been dismissed by the coal company up to date are datal men who cannot lose whether they work or not. The great bulk of the men who are paid by the amount of their production are willing to produce all they can but they cannot get the coal out because the datal men refuse to carry it for them.


Arthur Meighen: My information is that the piece-work men and the datal men are all parties to this method of seeking a settlement of this dispute. That is my information at all events. Now what I am saying is this-


William F. Carroll: I notice that the president of Local Dominion No. 1 has resigned and refused to carry out the instructions given by Mr. McLaeblan; so that they are probably divided.


Arthur Meighen: I am informed that one man has resigned, but that is a very insignificant number compared with the size of the organization. Generally speaking, all have concurred in taking this course, but, really, it is not at all relevant to the argument I am making. I am arguing that, with respect to these workmen, if they choose to take this course, it is difficult for any one to criticize their action.


Mr. McMASTER:: Would it be fair to the employer to have his machinery simply used at three-quarters capacity?


Arthur Meighen: He has the option of letting them all out. If a man comes frankly to hits employer and says, "At that rate of wages I will produce so much, and the reason I am doing this is that if I produce more it places me at your mercy later on," the employer has the option of keeping him on or letting him go.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is a new arrangement.


Arthur Meighen: we are not in possession of the concrete facts of the case; and after all we can speak on this matter only from a human standpoint. We do know something about this British Empire Steel Corporation. We know, for instance, that it is not a provincial corporation, in that its shareholders do not live in the province of Nova Scotia. We know that it is not even a national but an international concern. We guess, too, that the statement that there is $19,000,000 of water in the stock is quite true, and that the company is endeavouring to get dividends on this watered stock out of the labourers whose wages they have reduced so drastically.
I am aware, you know, that sitting here quite comfortably and well fed, it does not seem such a bad thing to have your wages reduced 371 per cent. But if anyone got up to-night and moved that the indemnity, starting with the Prime Minister and coming down, should be reduced 371 per cent, I think it would be generally felt that this was quite a reduction. And that is the only viewpoint in this matter after all; just that. It may be that there is a provincial law, or a national law, in the way. But do you know what I thought before I came to this House? I thought that laws were made for people, but I know now that that is not true; people are made for iaws. And surely if there is something in the constitution that is in the way it can be removed so that justice may be meted out to those people, who seem to form a large part of the population of Nova Scotia. I believe that the mayors who came here did not come to represent labour at all. They did not come to represent the miners. They came to represent the people of the towns in which they live, who are not miners. Those people see the injustice of the thing and they feel that somebody must do something to remedy the situation. One of the mayors said that in his town there were 7,000 people, including children, of whom 1,600 were miners, and that he was not sent here to represent those 1,600 but the 5,400 who were not miners, because they want law and order in their land and realise that permanent law and order can come only through prosperity and happiness.
Now, I have here a copy of the notices sent to the parents of the children telling them that their children had not been to school and that under the law they were punishable by fine not exceeding $20, or in default one month's imprisonment. It strikes one that there could be but one ob-

ject in sending them to prison; they would be fed during that month, because the county council of Cape Breton allows 40 cents a day for the food of prisoners, while the British Empire Steel Corporation pays 19 cents per head per day to men who have on an average five of a family to support. From that standpoint, therefore, it appears that it would be better for them to go to jail for the month at least. I do not in the least feel that I am competent to enter upon a full discussion of the case, but there is sitting in this House a gentleman who is a recognized authority on such things, and who has written a very learned book, and I shall be glad to quote therefrom for the benefit of hon. members:
Of methods of industrial remuneration which are calculated to beget a sense of freedom in effort, and which therefore are specially adapted to promote efficiency, it is certain that experience has revealed no single method possessing a monopoly of advantage. On the contrary, methods wholly different have disclosed much of individual merit. The practice which in the long run is apt to do most by way of promoting efficiency, through harmonizing the interests of labour, capital, management, and the community, is pretty certain to be in the nature of a combination of features broader than any possessed by a single method.
What labour is really concerned about as regards remuneration, is adequate reward of the effort put forth. What capital and management are really concerned about is adequate reward for their investments and services. What the community is really concerned about is adequate value in services and commodities for purchasing power. The method of remuneration of labour which helps most to secure adequacy of returns all round is the method which is likely to prove the most productive of efficiency, and, in the long run, the most advantageous to labour.
What is earned, rather than what is received, or paid, is the fundamental consideration. Men should get what they earn, and should earn what they get. The amount of product must be looked to as the determining factor. The thing paid for is the result, not the time spent on obtaining it.
Where remuneration is the incentive to effort, if effort is to be adequate, remuneration must be adequate. The real interest of the parties to industry lies in the incentive being adequate to call forth the best that is in the worker in energy and skill in other words, the utmost of his will and capacity. If the best is to be expected of a man, he must be given the fullest opportunity to make the best of himself.
Wages, like hours, may be excessive or deficient. They are too high when they lead to laziness and indifference, and too low when they are insufficient to stimulate effort. Adequate wages are beneficial alike to labour, capital, management, and the community, in that they lead to a maximum of effort and a minimum of waste.
It is seldom possible to determine readily what are adequate wages. Much depends on the class of work to be performed and the

Nova Scotia Miners
amount of energy and skill required on the character and temperament, and even on the heredity of the worker.
Much depends, too, on circumstances and conditions such as the available supply and demand of labour, the hours to be worked, the quality of materials supplied, the efficiency of the plant and equipment, and other indeterminable factors. With remuneration, as with all else in industrial relations, to secure efficiency is a matter of proper adjustments. Account must be taken of human as well as economic considerations. The incentive must be adjusted to the individual. "The ideal condition economically", says Dr. Arthur Shadwell, "would be an automatic mechanism which would exactly adjust the incentive to the individual, or the wages to the work, thereby eliciting the best of which each is capable. This would be equally advantageous to the wage-taker and the wage-giver, and to the community to which both belong, because there would be no waste. Its perfect realization in industry is no more practicable than any other sort of perfection, but some methods of remuneration come nearer to it than others, and their comparative bearing on efficiency can be gauged accordingly."
Proceeding to estimate the various methods of remunerating Labour, by reference to the economic principle of " adjusted incentive " or " the differential treatment of varying capacity," this eminent authority finds that, of all methods, the farthest removed from the ideal is that of Time-wages at a uniform rate, in that it presupposes an equality which has no existence, and is therefore based on a false principle. Piece-work, on the other hand, he regards as obviously based on the sound economic principle that workers should be paid according to the value of their work. Where Time-work is adjusted to individual capacity, the principle is the same as that underlying payment by the piece.
That Dr. Shadwell in his analysis is right, must be apparent to all who, like him, have had a wide range of observation and experience. How is it, then, that Labour, which is primarily interested in the method of remuneration best calculated to assure it amplest returns, is so averse to payment on a piece-work basis, and inclines so strongly to payment of a standard wage on a time basis? To attribute this to sheer laziness, or to a desire to degrade all workers to the level of the least capable or industrious is as untrue to the facts as it is unfair to human nature. Workers in industry are just as inclined to put forth effort for the sake of reward, just as ambitious, just as eager for individual recognition, as individuals from any other class in soSiety. Nor are the leaders different from others in these respects. If in appreciable numbers the workers fail in these qualities, it is because the path of bitter experience has bred feelings of fatality concerning the circumstances of their lot, and because, in the immensity of the struggle in which they are involved, they see little hope of gaining a reward which they consider adequate, little opportunity of rising to a higher level, and little scope for individual initiative or individual attainment.
As a matter of fact, it is not the desire to ignore talent, but a belief that in some manner beyond their control special skill or exertion will be ignored, or, what is worse, exploited, that provokes among working men a reaction against piece-work payment, and a desire for payment on a time basis. As Dr. Shadwell has pointed out, the minimum time-wage, on which
Labour insists, is itself a sort of tacit and unconscious protest against a uniform rate, since a minimum implies possible variations which are not to fall beneath a certain point but may rise above it. Likewise, the real meaning of the " living-wage," he finds to lie in the fact that wages are the incentive to work, and must be adequate to produce it. Where men are forced by necessity to work below a standard which constitutes a living wage, labour, while apparently cheap, is really dear, because " sweated " Labour is either unwilling or without capacity.
If payment on a piece-work rather than on a uniform time basis is to be maintained in industry, it can be so only through affording grounds sufficient to lead to the substitution of faith for fear as respects the consequences involved. Foremost must come the certainty that if a man increases his output by working harder, he will continue to reap an advantage by so doing. This means that employers must refrain from cutting down the piece-price in order to reap, at labour's expense, the benefit of increased exertions on the part of labour. Such practice vitiates the whole principle of piece-work payment by destroying the capable worker's incentive. Since it inevitably results in a lessening of productivity, it deals a fatal blow at efficiency, leads to a consequent increase in the cost of production, and justifies the prejudice on the part of labour against this method of remuneration.
Piece-work, moreover, must not be rendered illusory in practice through employers providing bad material or machinery. The temptation to "speed up" machinery, thereby overtaxing energies of the worker, is something which must also be guarded against, though it is not likely to be a source of danger where the rate of speed is controlled by the worker himself. The fear that jealousy between workers may be excited through competition is less an evil than the danger that incentive may so vanish as to leave little room for competition. The example of the more capable and industrious should prove a stimulus rather than an irritant to less efficient workers where certainty of enhanced rewards is rendered apparent.
Once confidence is established in the piecework basis of remuneration through the assured maintenance of the principle on which it is founded that, namely, of workers being rewarded according to the value of their work, the stimulus of ordinary piece-work may be increased in various ways by additional rewards based on evidence of different individual capacity. In technical language, this is the principle of the "intensive differential rate." Referring to intensive piece-work, Dr. Shadwell says: "It takes different forms, but generally consists in paying each worker a higher price (i.e., a differential rate) for each piece or job in proportion to the rapidity and quality of his workmanship. This automatically adjusts the incentive to the individual who has the choice of earning more or less according to capacity and industry. The employer is able to pay higher wages for quicker work because he gets a larger output for the same machine cost. He divides with the worker the advantage accruing from the difference."
Organized labour, in some trades, has protested against this method on the ground that it resembles the task system of wage payment and creates jealousy and ill-feeling. It is clear that a rare impartiality must be exercised in any attempt to apply the principle of the

Nova Scotia Miners
"intensive differential rate," and that a just discrimination is difficult. Unless, in practice, suspicion of favoritism or of undue pressure can be avoided, this method may well serve to arouse rather than allay unrest.
Similar in (purpose to payment by the piece is the premium or premium bonus plan. It consists in offering additional pay for more output in a given time, or for less time expended on a given piece, or for economies effected with respect to power, supplies or materials used in production. The premium may be differently calculated according to the nature of the work. It may be on a time basis, so much by the day or week with additional pay for curtailment of the time required for a given result, or on a piece basis with a bonus for the less time expended on a given piece. Or it may be on a basis of inverse ratio to quantities of power or materials consumed. The method is open to the same kind of dangers as payment on a piece-work basis, and prejudice against it can be overcome only by the same regard for the maintenance of standard rates irrespective of the premiums or bonuses allowed.
In the remuneration of labour, the fears of capital, management, and the community are just as important a consideration as those of labour. If productivity, in which all share, is to be increased through improved relations, capital, management and the community, as well as labour, must have their faith increased through the elimination of their fears. All payment based on the principle of " the adjusted incentive " and " the differential treatment of varying capacity," tends in this direction.
Labour cost is only one element in the total production cost. There are in addition the cost of premises and equipment, including plant, power, tools, and machinery the cost of maintenance, raw materials, and supplies; the expenses of management, including superintendence and direction of processes; and there are the risks of various kinds to/property and person which become chargeable upon industry. It is quite conceivable that "the differential incentive," whilst it elicits the best efforts of each man by paying him according to value of output, offers no incentive to him to promote th,e interests of the whole by care of machinery, by economy of power or raw material. It may, through the effort to increase his own output, lead the worker to be extravagant of many things. If cost of production is to be kept down, something more is required which will give the wage-earner a direct interest in the success of the undertaking as a whole, Such an interest limits the tendency toward extravagance in the use of the property of others, and has the advantage of reducing the need and the expense of supervision. A direct interest in the success of an undertaking as a whole is the prevention of waste in production what a knowledge of industrial processes as a whole is to intelligent and sustained effort.
" A thoroughly effective method of remuneration," says Dr. Shadwell, " includes both principles, (1) the differential incentive, which acts on the individual as such; and (2) profit-sharing, which acts on him in his collective capacity, as a member of a body bound together by common interests and working for a common end. By increasing the efficiency of labour, they diminish its cost, and so increase profits though wages rise."
I thought it possible, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the Government had forgotten
that he wrote this book. If he does remember, I am quite sure that some of his followers, judging by the sentiments they expressed this afternoon, are not in sympathy with it; and Hansard to-morrow morning may make good reading for them. This is the thing, however, that as a House of Commons which is supposed to represent the people of Canada, we should remember: the only thing worth while in industry, no matter What that industry is, is humanity. If the Government can, by appointing either a royal commission or a commission that is not royal, go to the ground and look it over-I think the Minister of Labour admitted this afternoon that the investigators in this case had gone to Halifax rather than to Glace Bay and Cumberland and the places where the miners worked and lived-if the Government can do anything by this means, they should do it. I felt that as the only woman member of the House-although I would rather be known as the member for Southeast Grey than as the woman member of the House- I would not be fair to myself or to the women and children in Nova Scotia who are to-day really suffering for the lack of food and clothing, if I too, did not raise my voice in protest against conditions that are made possible by the special privilege and great power that have been granted to the British Empire Steel Corporation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my hon. friend who has just taken her seat (Miss Macphail) will not be surprised when I say, that I agree whole-heartedly with the greater part, if not all, of what she has said. As to the conditions existing in the mining regions of Nova Scotia and the unfortunate and deplorable state of affairs which has arisen out of a particular industrial .controversy, I am very much in accord with what has been said this afternoon. The question that we are called upon to consider, however, is not these conditions but how they can best be met.
The discussion to-day has arisen out of the Government's attitude toward a request which was made yesterday by a deputation that a royal commission be appointed tc consider mining conditions in Nova Scotia. In order that the House may understand the significance of the Government's action, may I make perfectly clear just what powers a royal commission has and what powers exist under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, which has already been applied to deal with this dispute and the

Nova Scotia Miners
provisions of which are still available should it be thought advisable to have further use made of them. To show the relationship, perhaps I might go back a little and trace the steps which led to the passing of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
One of the hon. members who addressed the House this afternoon pointed out that the old Liberal government had appointed royal commissions to deal with industrial disputes. That is perfectly true, but the reason why it did, was that at the time there was no other agency for conducting investigations under oath where the matters involved were in the nature of industrial disputes. The first legislation of this Parliament with special relation to industrial controversies was enacted in 1900, when a Conciliation Act was passed, based upon similar legislation in force in Great Britain. That act empowered the Government to appoint at the time of an industrial dispute, a conciliator who might go into the district affected and endeavour to bring the parties together, his powers were voluntary and failing adjustment of the controversy by voluntary effort, he was limited to making a report which might influence public opinion sufficiently to assist in ending the controversy. For a number of years that was the only legislation we had to deal with industrial disputes. Under it there were many interventions, but experience went to show that the act was insufficient in that it gave to the Government conciliator no power to get at the truth in the event of the facts being, disputed as between the parties. He was unable to summon witnesses; he was unable, except with the consent of the parties, to investigate premises; his power was, in large measure, simply one of persuasion.
One or two very serious disputes arose, one, in particular, in western Canada which involved the interests not merely of the two contending parties but also of the general public, who in no way were responsible for the controversy and had no voice in its settlement. I have reference to the strike which took place in southern Alberta, I think it was in 1907. Because of a dispute in the coal fields there, many of the settlers in our western provinces found themselves at the beginning of the winter season without coal or fuel and threatened with the possibility of freezing to death. After that situation had been brought to the attention of Parliament the
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act was passed with a view of providing machinery which might more adequately deal with these disputes and which would give to all parties concerned the power of investigation. There was always this objection to a royal commission: that the Government might be accused of including in its personnel an appointee or appointees of their own who would be persona non grata with one or other or both of the parties to the dispute. It is seldom that a government can satisfy all parties to a dispute in the selection of the personnel of a royal commission. It was thought, therefore, that if a method could be found which, while protecting the rights of the parties, would at the same time give to each an opportunity to investigate through an appointee of its own, some one in whom it had confidence, that would be the wisest course the Government could take. That is the theoretical basis of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. It recognizes first of all that Labour as a party to an industrial controversy has the right to have its own investigator participate in the investigation; that capital also as a party to an industrial controversy has the right to have an investigator in whom it has confidence participate in the investigation. Then there is the third party, the public, which is vitally interested in most industrial disputes.
I must confess that except for a chance remark or two we have heard1 little said this afternoon or in the course of this debate as to the public interest in the matter, and it is in that regard that I wish particularly to say a word or two a's to the Government's attitude in this matter. The public are interested in a just settlement and particularly in the prevention of industrial disputes. This fact the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act takes cognizance of by permitting the two parties to the dispute to agree, if they can, on a chairman, but failing agreement by the parties, giving to a minister of the Government, representing the people of the country, the right to appoint the chairman of a board; also if either of the parties to the dispute fails to appoint a representative then giving the minister as representing the public the right to appoint such member of a board. Once a board of investigation has been established under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, that board has all the powers of a royal commission. It can sumlmon before it witnesses, it can compel the production of Aoeu-
Nova Scotia Miners

merits, it 'has the right to take evidence under oath, it can go on to the premises concerned and investigate matters there; it has all the powers that a court has.
Now, notice this, and it is an important point for hon. members to have in their minds: The Government might appoint a royal commission, place on it very honourable and estimable persons, but would it be possible for the Government to place on a board, representatives who were likely to share to the same degree the confidence of the parties concerned as representatives selected by the parties themselves?-and that is the right the parties have under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. When this dispute took place in Nova Scotia the parties to it were asked to name their members on the board1. The miners named a member, and their member had all the rights and powers of a royal commissioner. He had the right to call before him any member of the company concerned, he had the right to demand the production of the books of the company concerned. I repeat he had all the powers and rights that any royal commissioner would have The other members of the board had similar rights.
Now, when those rights have already been given, when a board has already acted with that full power and authority, does it seem a wise course for the Government immediately afterwards, because the award that has been given has not been satisfactory to the parties concerned, and simply, because asked to appoint a royal commission, to go on and investigate the matter further ? No one in this country has greater faith in the power of publicity to remedy certain wrongs than I have. I believe there are evils which publicity can cure that no penalty on earth would ever cure, particularly that class of evils which are of the nature of an injustice, or of meanness, arbitrary behaviour and the like. Things of this kind, which are more or less common to all industrial controversies, will not stand the light of publicity. I believe firmly and strongly in the wisdom of the widest publicity as the best agency for helping to solve industrial wrongs, but there comes a time when one has to decide just how many agencies of publicity must be set to work and in what particular circumstances they must be set to work.
I hope I have made it clear, as regards this dispute, that every member of the board appointed, including the representative chosen by the miners themselves, had
[Mr. Mackenzie King.)
thiis right of investigation and all the powers that go with it-powers equivalent to those of a royal commission. One of the members of the delegation which appeared before some of my colleagues and' myself yesterday to ask for a royal commission was a member of that board. He mentioned that the board did not visit the different parts of the mining area affected, and he was asked the question by one of my colleagues whether any communication had been sent to the minister at Ottawa to request the board to visit these districts. He intimated that there had been none, but that he had spoken to his colleagues and they had preferred to sit in Halifax and1 have the investigation carried on there. Can the Government be held responsible for the board having failed to travel to different parts of Nova Scotia to make its inquiry when no member of the board brought that 'suggestion to the Government's attention? My colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) would have been the very first to have directed the board of investigation to go wherever any member of it wished to go, and I venture to say that if any useful purpose can be served by a further investigation, and it is desired to -have the board re-convened, visit these different districts and take evidence, my colleague the Minister of Labour will be the first to try and bring about that effective means of investigation.
One thing I should like to point out, however, and it is this: The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has read to the House this evening oart of a memorial which was presented to the Government yesterday. I think hon. members who heard it will recall that what he read had to do very largely with the condition of the children attending the schools, that they were not attending as they should because they were not properly clothed, had not sufficient food, and the like. Well, I ask hon. members of this House, is the question of the attendance of children at school primarily a question for investigation by this Government or by the government of the province concerned? If there is any truth in this memorial, and I am not calling it in question one way or the other, the matters that are brought to the attention of the Government in that memorial would appear to be matters primarily of concern to the province of Nova Scotia.
Let me direct the attention of hon. members to this further fact. The province of Nova Scotia has offered to appoint a



SO, 1922

[Stage Direction]
Nova Scotia Miners
royal commission. Neither of the parties to the controversy in Nova Scotia is being denied a royal commission. The government of Nova Scotia, the province concerned, and this dispute relates only to that province, have offered to appoint a royal commission. True, they have attached a certain condition to its appointment. They have said that pending the time of the inquiry by the commission they will expect the miners to drop this policy of ca'canny, or sabotage, or loafing on the job, curtailment of output, or whatever you wish to call it. This policy is not, as my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition tried to make out, one of simply offering to do so much work for so much money. It is a method of industrial warfare which has worked all kinds of havoc in the Old World, and which we do not wish to see reproduced in this country. Let me tell my right hon. friend that his time might be better employed than in trying to defend such a course which is a species of industrial warfare, and one of the worst kinds of industrial warfare known to the world.
Arthur Meighen: I did not state that it
was not industrial warfare; nothing of the kind. I would like the hon. gentleman to tell me wherein what I stated was wrong. If I misstated the facts, will he please state where and what the real facts are?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that whenever I hit the nail on the head my right hon. friend jumps at once to his feet. I think hon. members of the House will be the first to appreciate whether I have given their true significance to the words of my right hon. friend. What I want to make plain is that so far as the purpose of this Government is concerned, we do not propose to take any action which can be construed as countenancing that kind of industrial warfare. It has not made any headway in Canada at the present time, and for this Government-after an attempt has been made to introduce such methods into an industrial controversy- to appoint, or to concede in the interests of those responsible a commission under such circumstances would be to countenance that kind of warfare and to encourage it in this country. The Minister of Labour made that very plain this afternoon and in doing so he stated unequivocally the position of the Government.


William Irvine: In what way would an
attempt by this Government to settle the
trouble in Nova Scotia be countenancing sabotage?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I said- and I hope I have not failed to make my meaning clear to every member-was this: There are times and seasons for all things. There is a proper time for the Government to grant a commission; there is a proper time for a Government to withhold a commission. There has been an investigation of this industrial trouble. A finding has been made by the Board of Investigators. Since that finding has been made a certain policy has been announced by one of the parties to the controversy, a policy which we think is not in the public interest. What we say is this: When those who are carrying out that policy or others on their behalf come to the Government and ask us to do something at the public expense, we expect them first of all to consider the public interest; and when they are prepared to do that we will be prepared to consider any further request they may have to make; in taking that stand our position is exactly the same as that of the province of Nova Scotia at the present time.


William Irvine: I would ask the Prime
Minister this question:	Have there not
been statements made by the two parties in this difficulty? Has not the corporation itself made the very definite statement that it will refuse to pay any more than so much wages? In that case why should not the Government consider that just as much sabotage as it does the contention of the men? To put my question more clearly: If it is sabotage for the men to say "We will give so much work for so much money, is it not sabotage for the company to say "We will give so much money for so much work"? What is the difference?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There may
be no difference whatever but the point I wish to bring out is this: In my opinion the most cruel act a government can perform in its dealings with labour is to raise the hopes of labour as regards any possible future improvement with the certainty of those hopes being disappointed in the course of a very short time. For this Government to tell the miners in Nova Scotia to-day that it will appoint a royal commission, with the miners being led to believe that the appointment of such a commission would mean the raising of their wages-when what my hon. friend has just said may be true, that the company concerned does not intend to alter its scale
Nova Scotia Miners

of wages one way or the other-would be to raise false hopes in the minds of many. There are certain things that a government can do and there are other things that no government can do; and I think a government has to be very careful before announcing any policy, to view the end from the beginning, and not to raise hopes in the minds of men and women unless they see a possibility of those hopes being realized.


William Irvine: I do not wish to interrupt the Prime Minister too much, and I promise not to do so again for- the present, but what about the killing of hope? If any promise of a royal commission by this Government will raise false hopes, will not the refraining from appointing that commission kill all hope? Which of the two is the worse?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point out to my hon. friend-because I think he and I have the same motive at heart- in this matter; I think we are each equally concerned in the welfare of the men and women involved in this dispute-the province of Nova Scotia has promised a royal commission. If there is efficacy in a royal commission, if further investigation is going to help the situation, there is the chance. True, the province of Nova Scotia has stipulated that pending the period of the investigation the employees of the company shall carry out their work in accordance with the terms of the existing contract. Now does my hon. friend not think-I do-that if there is virtue in publicity, if there is virtue in a royal commission dealing with this subject, that the miners would be well advised just for that period to carry out the terms of the contract and meanwhile discontinue this policy of loafing on the job? May I say further that when I spoke yesterday with the deputation I asked this question of its members: If the Government of Canada will undertake to appoint a royal commission at the public expense and to give them the power of investigating this whole question, do you think the parties to the dispute will agree to accept the findings of that commission? They intimated that they did not think they would. Under such circumstances is the Government to appoint commissions simply because and whenever it is requested to appoint them? The Government is obliged to take account of many considerations in all its actions. If it appoints a commission in Nova Scotia because of an industrial dispute there after

an investigation under the Industrial Disputes Act has taken place, to-morrow it may be called upon to appoint a commission for like reasons in the province of British Columbia, and next day for similar reasons in the province of Ontario. There has to be some policy followed consistently, and the policy which the Government is prepared to follow is that of seeing that in so far as these industrial disputes can be fully investigated they shall be fully investigated, and that in so far as each dispute can be investigated by a board possessing a personnel in which the different parties concerned will have confidence, the effort of the Government will be to secure that personnel. In regard to the request of the deputation that waited upon it, all that the Government has said is-to quote from the words of the letter which I sent yesterday and which my hon. friend (Mr. Irvine) has read:
-that having had the matter under consideration the Government is of the opinion that the situation is not one which in the public interest can be satisfactorily dealt with under the existing circumstances by a Royal Commission.
"Under the existing circumstances!" And that has reference to the policy which we think is not in the public interest but which is being followed by one of the parties to the dispute at the present time. We are prepared to consider the interests of labour, we are prepared to consider the interests of Capital, but we have also to consider, and to consider primarily, the interests of the public; and I contend, Mr. Speaker, that it is not in the public interest for the Government to issue a royal commission upon request of parties who are taking a course of action which cannot be defended in this Parliament.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Marci'l, Bonaventure) :: It is the right of the hon. member for East Calgary to close the debate. If any other hon. member desires to speak he should do so now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are a lot of things evidently as to which we are all agreed. But apparently there is a situation in Nova Scotia which is an unfortunate one and something ought to be done to relieve it; but seemingly we cannot agree as to what ought to be done or, indeed, as to whether anything can be done. I do not for one minute question the stand taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) in many of the aspects of the case. But the fact remains that we have this serious trouble, and that we are doing

Nova Scotia Miners
absolutely nothing to remedy it. Suppose we test this case on any of the grounds put forward by the hon. gentleman. Suppose we take the ground of public necessity. Here is a great big public interest involved, not only in connection with the men and wages, but also in connection with the mining of our coal. There is a public interest with respect to the coal, which we urgently require. It is not only Nova Scotia that is interested, but the whole of Canada, up to the city of Montreal is vitally interested in the question of the production of Nova Scotia's coal.
The case is absolutely parallel to the case my hon. friend refers to, where he justified the royal commission of 1907. My difficulty is to find out just exactly why we cannot do something. Only two nights ago, when the estimates for the Labour Department were under consideration, an hon. member, speaking from this side of the House, asked the Minister of Labour whether, in his opinion, labour disputes could not be better settled by men of strong common sense, who knew human character, and how to deal with men rather than by men of scientific attainments, and I understood there was a very cheerful assent given to that proposition by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). But there is no such man on the job. He has today given us two reasons why this request is refused. The first reason, is that the request was made by representatives, not of the men, but of the people down there, that they were not in a position to say that the men were to be bound by anything that was done, that they did not know the companies would be bound by anything that was done, and because these people came here, not representing the men, a royal commission could not be granted. That was his first point. Later on, as the theme developed the real reason apparently was that, upon a very vital question, in the minister's mind, a question of policy in connection with the railway matter, the attitude of the men as represented by Mr. McLachlan, was such that he would not give them any commission. I do not know which was the real reason for refusal, but I know the grounds were absolutely inconsistent, one with the other.
The Premier gives illustrations, and makes an argument, for example, as to the peculiar position of this company, the peculiar complaint, and the peculiar interest the province has in connection with it He refers particularly to the school question, but there was much more than
the school question. It is quite true my hon. friend did refer to the school question, but the memorandum refers to lots of things that are very largely in the hands of this Parliament. The memorandum says for example-
We feel that, unless prompt and effective action is taken by the Government, matters too long drifting may break out into open hostilities to the lasting injury of the entire province.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is something which at least concerns, and very closely concerns, the Dominion authorities. But we are not driven to that one particular thing; there are many grounds that could be raised. What is the idea of a Labour Department? That is what we are concerned with. Is it to say that, because one party to the controversy is utterly and entirely unreasonable, no attempt shall be made to bring him to his senses? Is it because the issue is grave and difficult that the department is rendered absolutely impotent to take action? That apparently is the attitude. Nothing is to be done because one of the parties to this issue is entirely wrong. Well, to the extent of the wrong, I should have thought there was all the more work for the Department of Labour to do, if that department is to properly function. Here is a very serious labour dispute, and we have not a single suggestion made by the Minister of Labour as to how that dispute is to be settled, except that somebody else is to take up the job, and that he iis not worrying about it. He will not go into it, the thing is too serious and the department will not deal with it, because these men are going to such absurd lengths that the department will not have anything to do with it.
How are you ever going to get people into a reasonable and proper frame of mind, assuming they are all wrong, unless you apply some of the excellent principles to be found so splendidly set out in the firsi part of the Prime Minister's book. He says in that book that the first underlying prim ciple in the settlement of industrial dis putes is that of the open conference which, he points out, cannot be applied unless you first bring the parties together, and at least try to make an honest attempt to settle across the table all differences. It is admitted here that this board of conciliation did not go upon the ground, or at least did not familiarize itself with the local situation. I do not know that the Government is to blame for that. I would not blame it for that at all. The Prime Minister in his argument to-day, asked,"How is the Govern-
Nova Scotia Miners

ment to blame for that?" The Government was not to blame for it. Absolutely not at all. There is no question of blaming anybody, but what we are finding fault with is the lack of action. The Government was not to blame one way or the other for what that commission did or did not do, and that commission may be absolutely all right, but the point is that the people there do not think it is all right. You have a deadlock. You have a Labour Department appointed for the purpose of breaking deadlocks, and I would have thought the more serious that deadlock, the more suffering entailed by it, the more necessary direct and urgent action on the part of that department.
I think the House is entitled to at least some statement from the Minister of Labour as to how this condition is to be properly handled, and to whom he has on the job, if he has anybody there. Apparently he has nobody there, and why? Because it is a mess, because it is a difficult proposition, the people ought to be left absolutely and entirely to their own resources. It is said that Nova Scotia can look after itself. You might say that about any labour trouble in any province in this country, but why have we a Labour Department? We are maintaining a Labour Department to settle these matters.
The saime argument might be made as to the Alberta trouble. The Labour Department took action in that case and brought peace and production to the coal fields there. They did not do that by saying "We have no jurisdiction." They did it by going on the ground, and getting the parties together.


Hance James Logan: Does the hon. gentleman
not know that the mines of Alberta are the property of the federal government while the mines of Nova Scotia are the property of the provincial government?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon.
gentleman is right in part of his statement. Some of the mines are and some are not entirely outside of the Government's jurisdiction. But in any event I do not think it would make very much difference to any government determined to see that no stone was left unturned in order that the differences might be settled. All wfe ask is an expression of opinion from the Government as to what they propose to do. More than that, there is that large public interest to which my hon. friend the Prime Minister refers. What is going to be done for the protection of that public interest? Because some man has gone too far here

or there is surely no reason why public interest ought to be overlooked.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: At this late hour I do not propose to detain the House for any great length of time in discussing this question. That it is a question of very serious moment is quite evident from the information disclosed in the debate to-day, and it seems to me, with the present temper of the situation in Nova Scotia, there is a condition of affairs there that might easily and readily become more serious even than it is at the present time. That is a question which neither the government of Nova Scotia nor the Government of Canada can afford lightly to pass over. (I am not going to enter into a discussion of the question of paying dividends on watered stock of the British Empire Steel Corporation. The question of watered stock in corporations is, in my judgment, a question that might well engage the attention of this House, because I think that a very great deal of the industrial trouble we have had in this country is due to the fact that the management of corporations are inclined to earn returns on stock that is very greatly inflated. I do not wish, however, to discuss that aspect of the matter to-night.
I rise mainly for the purpose of offering a suggestion to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Government,, and it is one which under the circumstances might very well be accepted. As to the attitude they have taken in regard to the appointing of a royal commission, it appears to me that there is considerable force in the arguments advanced by the Prime Minister. There was a Conciliation board appointed several months ago to inquire into this whole matter. It seems pretty generally admitted by all parties to the dispute, and the public as well, that the board of conciliation did not discharge its duties as fully as possible in the way of seeking information from the miners themselves, and from a study of the question in the precise areas affected, as it might have done. I am quite sure that the man whom the miners appointed as their representative on that board is one in whom they had confidence. The atmosphere in which the board of conciliation approached this work several months ago is totally different from the atmosphere that exists at the present time, and I would offer a suggestion to the Government. It was hinted at by the Prime Minister, and I trust it will be acted upon.

Nova Scotia Miners
The hoard of conciliation might very well be reconstituted now and asked to inquire into the whole question in the light of the present situation as it exists in Nova Scotia in the areas concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that the Minister of Labour has indicated that if any one of the members of the board asks to have it reconvened to inquire into the matters in dispute, he will take steps to have this done. If I am not correct in that statement, I do not hesitate to say that the Government will be glad to act on the suggestion of my hon. friend, if a request comes from any member of the board.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am glad to hear that
from the lips of the Prime Minister. I am not quite familiar enough with the law to know whether or not it would lie in the initiative of the Government to take that step. If it does, then I submit that the Prime Minister would be' well advised in taking it. After all, the great force of public opinion is perhaps the strongest force that operates in the settlement of these disputes, and I have not seen, either to-day or yesterday, or even before, although it may have escaped my observation, that this way has again been tried in the consideration of this matter. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, a board of conciliation has all the powers of inquiry that a royal commission has, and if that board is reconvened-and I presume it is still in existence-and takes up its work again, making an inquiry in the light of the situation as it exists, you may find the temper on both sides of the dispute at such a point that the parties could find a common ground on which to arrive at a settlement. People have to quarrel sometimes for a certain length of time1 before they can reach common ground, and after a dispute has been accentuated and the atmosphere has become tense, people, not only the parties to the dispute but the great force of public opinion outside, have impressed upon their minds the gravity of the matter, and you have a situation that makes a solution possible. I do hope that the Government will take this step. I think it is their duty to do so, and if, as I understand, it lies within their initiative to do it, it can be properly said, I think, that they have discharged their duty fully in the matter. Then, if in the full light of what takes place, a settlement is not reached, at any rate the Government and Parliament will have the satisfaction of knowing that
everything was done that could possibly have been done.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not indulge the hope that I shall be able to add a single new thought to the discussion, but I should like to concentrate the attention of the House upon what I believe to be the really vital point of the whole matter; and what I have to say is very much in line with what my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has said. Most of my knowledge of this matter came from my presence at the interview with the gentlemen who waited upon the Government yesterday, the four mayors from Spring'hill and the three towns in Cape Breton. I had a general knowledge before, but the precise information that I have on the subject I have derived from these gentlemen.
Now, listening to the discussion in the early part of the debate, one would have thought that there had been no machinery for dealing with matters of this kind. My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Irvine) pictured the scene of the miners coming to the Dominion Government and finding (that nothing could be done, and going to the local government and meeting with the same experience. He then asked what in the world was there for the miners to do but something which he did not suggest but left us to guess at. Is that a fair statement of the case? That would imply that we had no machinery whatever for dealing with such a situation, and if that were the case it would be deplorable indeed. But that is not a fair statement of the matter. We have machinery for dealing with these things, and too little attention has been given to the fact that such machinery has been employed. As a matter of fact it has been set in motion.
Let us see what was done. Under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act the miners named as their representative a Mr. Ling, a very intelligent, earnest and respected member of the mining community, who has the honour to occupy the position of mayor of his town. The British Empire Steel Corporation, for reasons of their own, did not nominate a man. The late government, exercising the power they had, nominated a gentleman in Halifax, Colonel Thompson. I have the pleasure of knowing Colonel Thompson, who is a most respected citizen, and who, I am perfectly sure, approached his duties with a sincere desire to act fairly to every one. The parties not being able to agree, the present
Nova Scotia Miners

Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) appointed a Mr. Gillen, from Toronto. I do not know Mr. Gillen, but I understand that he is a man of large experience and is much respected all round. I spoke to Mr. Ling yesterday, who was a member of the board and one of the four mayors that came to see us. I said: " The burden of your difficulty appears to be that the tribunal met at Halifax and did not meet at Cape Breton or Springhill?" He answered, "Yes." "Well," I said, "you were a member of the board. Did you move that it should go to Cape Breton?" " No," he said, " I asked the question and I was told that it would sit at Halifax." I have no doubt he meant well, but it would seem that, had he attached much importance to a meeting at Cape Breton, he would have done more than merely ask a question as to whether the board would meet there. He would have appealed to the Minister of Labour. I turned to the Minister of Labour sitting-next to me and said, " Were you ever asked to direct the commission as to where they would meet?" "No," he said; "had I been asked I would have gladly given such direction."
The picture they presented of the situation with regard to the schools and the children, and the general condition in those towns, is so deplorable that it has moved all of us to sympathy. But I do not think the right steps were taken, and I think Mr. Ling would admit now that he should have requested a meeting of the commission at Sydney. He did not do so. I suggested to him, "Would not that be now the best way? I am not sure," I said, "speaking from memory, whether the Minister of Labour would have power to revive the commission, but if that could be done would it meet the case?" Well, he was not prepared to answer for other people, he was not representing the labour men; as has been said, he was representing the community generally. I said, "Won't you admit, Mr. Ling, that if the commission could be revived and go down to Cape Breton and discuss the question on the ground, it might lead to satisfactory results?" He answered, "Perhaps it would." "I do not understand," I said, "that you are questioning either the integrity or the competency of the commission?" "No," he answered. I then put this further question to him, "You think Mr. Gillen was trying to do right?" "Yes," he replied. Then I added, "You have confidence in Mr. Gillen, and Colonel Thompson has the confidence of everybody. Why in the world cannot you

get together and have the matter adjusted in that way?"
That is exactly what my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has suggested. I think that can be done. Let us get the commission together again, if the machinery of the law will permit, and let them see with their own eyes the unhappy conditions which prevail-let them as good citizens and honoured members of that tribunal make an effort to bring about a settlement of this unfortunate misunderstanding. But I think the workmen and the company ought to be both asked: If we give you this investigation by the tribunal, and you bring before them all the evidence you wish, will you give us an assurance that you will accept whatever decision may be then reached?


Arthur Meighen: Do I understand that this suggestion which my hon. friend made, and which still stands, that the old tribunal be reconstituted and go down to Cape Breton and make an investigation on the ground, is wholly irrespective of the order issued by Mr. McLachlan, or conditional on that order being revoked?


William Stevens Fielding: I made no condition
about Mr. McLachlan at all, in fact I had not given that phase of the question much thought, but I think if we have legal power 

and the Minister of Labour holds that we have-to revive the commission-I do not like the term "revive"; I think the commission is still alive-they should be asked to resume the inquiry, go to Cape Breton and acquaint themselves sympathetically with conditions on the ground. I have every hope that if that is done you will have a satisfactory conclusion of the difficulty.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, after what seems to be a very happy termination of this discussion-


Charles Marcil: I have to inform the House that once the hon. member for East Calgary has spoken the debate is closed.


William Irvine: After the very happy spirit which has developed, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to prolong the debate. The good spirit began to develop after the brilliant presentation of the case by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) who concluded by saying, "It is not yet too late to do something"; then the Prime Minister followed and exhibited a spirit of sympathetic interest in the great problems of the nation which I think was

Penitentiary Act
helpful to all who listened to him; and, finally, the leader of the Progressives made a concrete suggestion, which was endorsed by the hon. Minister of Finance and accepted by the Prime Minister. I do not know if the course suggested will result in a solution, as a matter of fact I do not contend that any government can find an absolute solution for any problem, but I am very glad to see that so much interest has been created in this particular case.
In summing up the debate I wish to make it quite clear that I did not suggest the appointment of a royal commission. I have just as little faith in royal commissions as have hon. members on this side of the House. I never suggested that. But I have to a very great extent got all that I was trying to secure in the suggestion which has been made. It seems to me however, that it was not fair on the part of the hon. Minister of Labour to claim that the Government has the right to make a stipulation to the miners that it does not make to the other side concerned in this row. The hon. Minister of Finance suggested, if I heard him correctly, that they had the right to exact from both parties a promise to accept the finding of the commission. I think that is reasonable; but to expect that the men alone shall make that promise does not seem to me at all fair.
I am delighted that throughout this prolonged debate there has been no incursion into party politics, but that the question before the House and the country has been discussed in such an excellent spirit and with such excellent results.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member's object having been attained, will he consent to withdraw the motion?


William Irvine: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I consent.
Motion (Mr. Irvine) withdrawn.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Friday, March 31, 1922