1925-02-24

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. G. COOTE ((Maeleod) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 9 to amend the Indian Act.
He said: This bill, Mr. Speaker, is intended to amend subsection 3 of section 90 of the Indian Act, which gives power to the Superintendent to lease Indian lands without the consent of the band.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) asked' leave under rule 39 to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, to call attention of the House and the government to the acute distress existing among the coal miners and steel workers of Nova Scotia, many of whom are actually on the verge of starvation.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Before I put the motion to the House I may say that I have some doubts as to the regularity of the proceeding. I ask myself if this is not a matter which is more provincial in its character than federal. However, I am quite willing to give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and leave the matter to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to make his motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried'.


Hewitt Bostock: The rule is very clear and states that twenty members must rise in their seats before leave may be granted.
The Clerk Assistant having stated that more than twenty members had risen:


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I move that the House do now adjourn. I had hoped to be able to discuss the situation in Nova Scotia in connection with the motion now on the order paper, but within the last few weeks, and especially within the last few d'ays, the situation there has become so acute that it seems only right to take the first opportunity of bringing the serious condition to the attention of the House. I trust that to-day we will not look at this matter from a partisan standpoint-indeed I cannot see why partisanship should enter into it at all-but rather that we should look at the matter from the standpoint of the welfare of our citizenship at large, and emphasize more particularly the humanitarian side of the question. My decision to bring this question before the House was precipitated by a telegram that I had a day or so ago from the relief committee of one of the local unions of Sydney Mines which reads as follows:
Distress very acute at Sydney Mines; ask immediate relief from the government; people destitute; reply at once.
How should I reply to such a telegram as that? I might very readily escape responsibility by simply saying that it was not the policy of the government to give relief. I might even go further and say that that policy was based on a certain interpretation of the British North America Act, but I am quite confident that an answer of that kind would give no satisfaction to men who are half desperate at the present time, and I fear that I myself, occupying as a member of this House a position of some influence, have no right to take the easy course and to shelve responsibility in that way. I am well aware of the fact that negotiations are now in progress. According to the press, the provincial government has offered some new proposal of which we have not yet the details. I know

Miniers and Steel Workers
it has been suggested that Nova Scotia might possibly take action in the direction of appointing a royal commission. I know it is generally held that the municipalities or the provinces ought to have first responsibility in caring for the people, and yet it seems to me that when an appeal comes from people who are in dire straits, we ought to give them, at least a hearing.
As regards the provincial situation, the men themselves are very doubtful whether the existing provincial government can be expected to do anything that will afford them any great measure of relief. I do not say whether they are right or wrong, but I know a large number of the men have lost their faith in the possibility of the government, as it now exists in Nova Scotia, helping them very much. Many of them are firmly convinced that that government is altogether too closely associated with the company in whose employ they work to be in a position to afford them any large measure of relief.
Had I replied to that telegram as I felt half inclined to do, I would almost have had to say: You men in Nova Scotia will have to do something desperate in order that you may, in some dramatic way, bring your case before the public at large. I do not want to have to say that, so I decided to make an appeal to this House and to the government that they would not force the men to resort to other means of trying to bring some relief to themselves and their families. The federal government has, relative to the peace, order and good government of Canada, certain powers that make it possible, nay, obligatory, that in circumstances of this kind action should be taken.
I would point out that need of a serious character knows no boundaries, provincial or even national. When an earthquake occurred in Japan a few months ago, expressions of sympathy and material relief came from all parts of this country. When there was an explosion at Halifax some years ago, we all know that from every side there came help. We, in the west, have known years when, owing to very bad crops, there was dire distress, and the government came to the assistance of the people and certain settlers were afforded relief. If there is the need that we are told there is, it seems to me that the government ought not to hesitate.
It is not my privilege to suggest in any detail what might be done. I would, however, urge action along two lines: First, that some immediate relief should be given to these miners and steel workers. Their wives and children ought not to be allowed to starve or to suffer extreme privations. Further than

that, this government ought not to delay longer in instituting a very definite, impartial and full inquiry into the whole circumstances as they exist to-day in Nova Scotia. This is not a new question; we have had! it up year after year. I think it is three years ago that, on representations from the mayors in some of the towns in Nova Scotia, my colleague (Mr. Irvine) moved the adjournment of the House in order that we might urge the necessity of the appointment of a royal commission.
A great deal has happened during those three years. Every year we have had industrial troubles. Every year we have had either a commission or a court of inquiry. Things seem to be worse now than they ever were before. It is quite true that there is no strike at present in existence and it is hoped that there will be no strike. It is quite true that there is no definitely declared lockout. The situation is that the agreement with the men has run out; that it has been impossible to effect a working arrangement, and that whether or not working arrangement is arrived at, there has not been for a long time sufficient work for the men. Many of the steel workers at Sydney Mines have been out of work for the past six months; many of the coal miners have been -working short time for the past six months and their reserves are sadly depleted.
Let me give a few facts in this matter, because it is, after all, upon the facts of the case that we must form a judgment. A few days ago I called attention to statements made by Premier Armstrong when he was here heading a deputation from the Maritime provinces. According to press despatches, he is reported as having made this statement:
That at the Sydney Mines in one of the coal towns, so acute is the situation that people were suffering from hunger and some were actually living on mushrooms picked in the woods. Such a situation, he said, required action by the government. There were 23,000 people unemployed and more than 100,000 dependents affected.
I do not know that that statement published broadcast through the press has ever been challenged. Personally, I am not in a position to say whether or not those figures are correct, but that is the information which has gone on record. I have had some personal knowledge of the situation within the last few months. Shortly after the new year I visited most of the mining camps in Nova Scotia, especially in Cape Breton. I lived for a week or ten days in the miners' homes. I talked with scores of the men. I learned something of their stories. I learned something of the struggles that they were having in trying to make a living for their families.

Mirters and Steel Workers
I talked with some of the women and learned how they were trying to feed and clothe their children. I am not surprised, after what I heard a few weeks ago, that the situation should have become well nigh desperate at this time. We have confirmation of that from several quarters just within the last few days. Let me read a report, from the last issue to arrive here of the Sydney Post- February 20. Under the heading "Industrial life of Sydney and mining towns in south is rapidly disintegrating," we have the following:
The presbytery of Sydney in common with other public bodies viewed with the gravest concern the present conditions prevailing in the industrial life of this community and believes that some immediate action is necessary if business and social life is not to disintegrate entirely.
An unprecedented situation has developed where many of our industrial workers are in direct want and compelled to accept charity in order to subsist; some 300 families in Sydney alone receiving aid from the relief association, while living conditions among the miners as evidenced by a statement published by the committee at Dominion No. 6 reveals a similar or worse state of affairs. The steel plant has been practically idle for the last six months, notwithstanding a drastic wage cut taken by the employees, and, though we are credibly informed that there are sufficient orders on the books to warrant its operation at the present time, it is still practically shut down. We therefore submit:
(1)	That a royal commission of competent and disinterested men with full powers, be appointed at once to investigate thoroughly the organization, financial methods, and operations of Besco, including wage conditions and cost of living among the workers.
(2)	That while suspending judgment on the question of the wage which the Besco is able to pay its miners, we believe that the 1924 rate should be continued until such time as the royal commission shall have reported.
(3) That the steel plant should begin operations immediately since we are convinced that there is no justification whatever for further using the idle steel workers as pawns in the game of industrial strategy.
There are just two observations in that article to which I should like to call attention. In the first place, there is the statement on the part of this clergyman in the district that immediate action is necessary if business and social life is not to disintegrate entirely. That, I think, is a most serious statement, sufficient in itself to warrant my bringing the matter to the attention of the House. And there is the second statement, that there is no justification whatever for further using the idle steel workers as pawns in the game of industrial strategy. It seems to me that whatever else we do we must bear in mind the human values, and I take it that the highest task which this House could set itself would be to defend the rights of the workers under these circumstances.
Let me read further from the Labour Herald, the organ of the labour men of Glace Bay:
One of the largest meetings ever held in Glace Bay took place last Sunday in the Savoy Theatre. The
meeting was called by the idle miners of Nos. 2, 4 and 6 mines, for the purpose of laying the terrible conditions of want and starvation being endured by the workers at these collieries before the public, and to protest against the action of Besco in keeping these mines idle. The hall was packed to the roof with some 1,500 people when Mayor Morrison took the chair. Many of the doctors and clergy of the town took part in the meeting, telling of the terrible conditions found by them in their daily visits to the homes of the workers.
The miners employed in the above named mines have worked less than half time since January, 1923, and since the 15th of November last year have only got in 15 days' work. One clergyman, who evidently had given some consideration to the amounts that the miners were forced to live on, pointed out that families in his district for the year 1924 had actually lived on four cents a meal. He told of families where the children were clothed in discarded flour bags and where the only bed clothes were old feed bags.
In another column I find an account of a recent meeting of one of the locals of the miners. I quote the following:
The terrible distress existing in the Sydney Mines district was brought vividly before this meeting. The miners were feeling good, as they realized their strength in staying the greedy hand, when the door of the meeting place was pushed open and a little girl not more than ten years of age entered. She had a slip of paper in her hand which she gave to the president. It appeared that the father of the child could not leave home because his wife was sick and could not be moved or left alone, another child was dying and there was not a crust of bread in the house. The father had been idle two months. A committee was at once appointed to visit the family and give them relief.
The foregoing is from an account of a meeting of the local. I was informed two months ago that there were many cases of this character in this particular locality, but the gravest that I met with was at Sydney Mines among the steel workers.


Mr. FOURNIER:: What is the paper from which the hon. member is quoting?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Labour Herald of February 21. My eye catches another contribution in this same paper which I think perhaps I might well read on this occasion. It is a little poem, not by some leader who is supposed to be very "red" in his tendencies, not ithe work of a Bolshevist nor of any man commonly known as an anarchist, but one of the works of the English poet Shelley. Some of us read in our youthful days the ode To a Skylark, but possibly not so many of us read that other group of poems, The Masque of Anarchy, and others of a similar character which Shelley wrote. And I suppose that even when we read them we imagined that since Castlereagh had passed away, with the reactionaries of his period, the conditions depicted in this little poem could hardly be again found on

Miners and Steel Workers
English soil. Yet we have these miners resorting to the poems of Shelley, written at that time of great distress in the history of England one hundred years ago, in order that they may find in them some expression of the position in which they find themselves today:
WHAT IS SLAVERY?
' Tjs to work and have such pay As just keeps life from day to day In our limbs as in a cell,
For the tyrant's use to dwell.
1 Tis to be a slave in soul.
And to hold no strong control Over our own will, but be All that others make of ye.
So that ye for them are made,
Loom and plough and sword and spade,
With or without your own will, bent To their defense and nourishment.
' Tis to see our children weak With their mothers pine and peak.
When the winter's winds are bleak-
They are dying while I speak.
* Tis to hunger for such diet As the rich man in his riot Casts to the fat dogs that lie Surfeiting beneath his eye.
And at length when you complain,
With a murmur weak and vain,
'Tis to see the Tyrant's crew Ride over your wives and you.
Men of labour, heirs of glory,
Heroes of unwritten story,
Nurslings of one mighty mother,
Hopes of her and one another;
Rise like lions after slumber In unvanquishable number;
Shake your chains to earth like dew Which in sleep has fallen on you-
Ye are many-they are few.
As I have suggested, the reproduction of a poem of this character in the ordinary issue of a labour paper under these circumstances gives a sidelight into the pyschology of these coal miners and steel workers which we cannot very well disregard. If I wish to find further corroboration of the actual conditions that exist I might quote, not from any of these articles by clergymen or by workers themselves, but rather from a report presented to this government, the Winfield conciliation report. Although it may be true that the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may have rendered the action of that body practically of no avail, I suggest that their findings are worthy of consideration.
The board is unanimously of the opinion that, due to the unfortunate relations existing for many years between the operators and the employees, as set forth in the statement of the employees submitted to the minister, and further elaborated in the statement submitted to the board, no permanent improvement in industrial relations can be expected until complete confidence is established between the operators and the employees, which may possibly be brought about by a fair and impartial inquiry by a competent authority with a view to ascertaining the actual necessary cost of mining, transporting and selling coal, the ability of the companies to pay a rate 
of wage satisfactory to the employees to earn a fair return on the capital invested, and the bearing which the attitude and action of the employees have in relation to the efficient and profitable carrying on of the operations.
And again:
That under prevailing conditions many of the employees are unable to obtain more than meagre parttime employment in the winter season, entailing serious far-reaching hardships, and that this deplorable state of affairs can probably be remedied by the companies being able to secure remunerative outlets for their products when access to the markets in central Canada is cut off by the closing of navigation, prohibitive railroad freight rates and other causes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly well aware that the situation in Cape Breton is an extremely complicated one. I recognize that there are more factors to be considered' than could be dealt with under a motion of this character. I am not here to-day to censure any one particular group. I recognize some of the difficulties which this government might have in dealing with the matter. And yet it does seem to me that, whilst the government might give some immediate relief in the way of food and' clothing, it should go further and make a general inquiry into the underlying conditions that have so frequently provoked actual industrial strife and led to the expenditure of large sums of public money in attempts to keep the peace, a state of affairs which its own committee says can be remedied only by a very exhaustive inquiry, an inquiry not merely into the working conditions and wages, but also into the financial side of the company's organization. Perhaps I cannot do better than read part of a statement recently submitted by the men themselves as the reason why they would not appoint a representative on the conciliation board. The statement is carefully drawn and puts into a very few pages the entire situation as the men see it.


Mr. MARTELL:: Will my hon. friend permit a question there? The Industrial Disputes Act having been d'eclared ultra vires by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, what would be the use of the men appointing a representative on the conciliation board?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite agree that there was very little use in the men appointing a representative on the conciliation board. As a matter of fact they refused to do so before we knew the decision of the Privy Council with regard to the Lemieux Act. But my point in reading the statement of the men is that we may understand something of the underlying difficulties as they are seen by the men themselves. This is their statement:

Miners and Steel Workers
To the Chairman and Members of the Conciliation Board and to the Honourable, the Minister of Labour for Canada.
Sirs,-We have been asked by the British Empire Steel Corporation to accept a cut in the wages of the employees in and about the corporation's coal mines, for the following reasons:
(1)	The steel trade is so depressed that the Sydney steel plant cannot operate at a profit.
(2)	The coal trade has become unsatisfactory, owing to the ability of United States producers to undersell our coal in the Canadian markets.
The Steel Trade
We cannot permit the condition of the steel trade to control the rates of wages for employment in the mines of the corporation, for the following reasons:
(1)	The various coal companies are operating under charters of their own. The condition of the steel company is as foreign to the present wage dispute as is the state of affairs existing at the Halifax ship-yards, except in so far as the wealth and resources of the coal companies may have been diverted out of their proper channels to sustain the steel company and other stricken units of the corporation, to the detriment of the coal companies and their employees.
(2)	During the war, when the steel company made profits, these profits were not sufficiently employed in rejuvenating the plant and bringing its constituent units up to date. Too much was paid out in dividends on common stock, and on unprofitable projects. The result to-day is that the steel plant is in many of its essential departments far behind the rival plants in America and cannot successfully compete with them. The employees of the different coal companies are not responsible for this mal-administration, and yet it is proposed to cut our wages because of it.
(3)	During the period of normal operations, the steel plant carried a top-heavy staff of highly-paid officials, unjustified by its operations. Even yet, with its operations at a very low ebb for many months past, its over-staffing may be judged from the fact that it carries a general manager and general superintendent, with high salaries, as well as a vice-president of the merged companies, all in charge of operations which are not perceptible.
(4)	The steel plant for years has carried out a policy of low wages, long hours and non-unionization, that drives many efficient young men to seek employment outside Nova Scotia. Those that remain generally do so because their interests are so centered that they cannot get away. Annually, the employees of the steel works are skimmed of a high percentage of their best men, who go to foreign plants, and their places are taken by low-grade European immigrants. We believe that a profitable industry cannot be run without paying wages that will attract the most proficient men in the trades concerned.
(5)	We believe that the steel company has lost trade because it has marketed a lower grade (product than that called for, and that some potential customers will not deal with it for that reason.
(6)	The system of appointing foremen and the general treatment of employees on the steel plant is so defective that it has made the employees antagonistic to the welfare of the plant, and we believe that an industry cannot succeed in the face of the antagonism of its employees.
(7)	We believe that the sales department of the steel company is peculiarly inefficient and unsatisfactory.
(8)	We believe that large sums of money are injudiciously spent in the operation of this plant or its connections, in giving contracts of one kind or another to concerns in which directors of the corporation or their friends are interested.
(9)	We were not consulted when the steel plant, which was unprofitable and had been kept' alive for years before that time by government relief in the form of bounties and by tax exemptions was merged with the coal mines, which always were profitable. Since that time the profits or losses of the one as compared with the other have not been submitted to the public; but we believe that, with the exception of the years of var, the profit has been made by the coal mines, and i hat the steel plant has been carried on at a loss. It 1 as not been able to pay its way, and if would be iiteresting to know who paid its way, and under what authority. The employees of the coal companies believe that they contributed heavily for this purpose; and that the reduction of wages now-


Lewis Herbert Martell: If my hon. friend will
permit me? I am thoroughly in accord with what the men say in that regard: coal has paid for everything in Nova Scotia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I continue:
The employees of the coal companies believe that they contrijbuted heavily for thin purpose; and that the reduction of wages now proposed by the president is intended	to be used	for	the same	purpose.Figures have	been given which	show that	the	coal
companies made money last year, and we have been assured that any out in our wages will not reduce the selling price of coal. The reduction to be made in the miners' wages, therefore, will go to pay the debts of the lame-ducks of the corporation.
(10)	Since the amalgamation of the Dominion Coal
Company and Dominion Iron & Steel Company, the latter company has consumed annually between 500,000 and 1,000,000	tons of coal.	We	believe that	the	coalcompany has	been credited	with	a price for	this	coal
considerably under its contract value. Upon this item alone many millions of dollars have been taken from our wages for the benefit of the steel plant, and this improper practice still continues.
They pass on to consider the coal trade:
We are unable to consider costs in the coal trade as a ground for reducing our wages, because:
(1)	The company has supplied us with figures showing that the cost of labour in only 40 per cent of the average selling price of its coal.
(2)	We know of Dominion Coal Company coal sold in the province of Nova Scotia, in which the labour cost is nearer 20 per cent than 40 per cent.
(3)	Accepting the company's own figures for the sake of argument, we are not allowed any control of at least 60 per cent of the price of the coal.
(4)	Into this 60 per cent, which is controlled exclusively by the company, enter very many items which we know to be improper or inefficient.
(5)	Items similar to the payment to members of the Newfoundland government find their way into the cost of coal.
(6)	Heavy expenditures on construction and equipment augment the cost of coal though many of them are long overdue and are not entitled to appear in recent costs at all. If the money of the coal company had not been spent in other directions, there would be adequate funds for all the necessary requirements of the coal company at the right time, which would mean in itself a great reduction in the cost of producing and marketing the coal. For this condition we are not responsible.
They give an illustration of that, which I shall not read.
(7)	Men about Cape Breton draw money from the company's funds and return no perceptible value other than to influence legislative or public opinion in the company's favour, irrespective of merit.

Miners and Steel Workers
(8)	The coal sales department of fthe company appears far from satisfactory.
(9)	Offices at Montreal and London are carried at unjustifiable expense; and payments made thereat are a heavy burden on coal costs. Further, these offices tend to remove the supervision and control of the industries from Nova Scotia.
(10)	We come in contact daily with officials of the Dominion Coal Company receiving high salaries, who, to our own knowledge, contribute little or nothing towards the efficient and profitable production of coal.
(11)	If we should ask that all favours be withdrawn from members of the local legislature, and others of public standing, we would receive no satisfaction, or be told none were being given; while we have known some of the recipients by name.
(12)	We do not receive true and correct statements of cost from the Company; nor have they throughout our lifetime, which has betn spent in working in the coal mines, done other than continuously to attempt to deceive us regarding expenditures that are responsible for coal costs, and, in a similar fashion they have deceived the members of previous conciliation boards. That is their' settled policy.
Wages Our Only Consideration
We find ourselves, therefore, in the position where we are permitted by the company to deal with no item in regard to coal costs other than the wages of the members of our union. In looking over these, for instance for the past year, we find that an. appalling number of our members have drawn, in actual money, less than one-half of the wage necessary to maintain a decent standard of living as set out in the Labour Gazette.
We find that expensively equipped collieries have worked through the summer months in some instances only six or seven days a month. Other expensive ones are abandon d. The Scotia collieries and steel works have been largely dismantled. We have no confidence whatever in the ability of the president and directors successfully to manage or direct coal operations. We have come to consider the frequent watering of stock which has been going on in this corporation since 1892 as a financial operation that allows of stock market manipulations, but which is detrimental to the economical production of coal, and renders unstable the direction and administration of the industries, according as which group of stock market manipulators secures control. In fact, the financial aspect of the company has come not merely to overshadow, but actually to interfere with the technique of the industry it conducts. We are consulted only in regard to the wage cost and our stand in regard to it is that it is already too low to give our men a decent standard of living. It is now proposed to lower it further to pay for what we consider inefficient direction, unsound financing and poor management. If the corporation desires to indulge in extravagance, incompetence and stock market jobbery, we are apparently unable to prevent it. It does not appear fair, however, that the money wasted in that manner should be made a burden upon the already inadequate wages of our workers.
We have refused to take a out in our wages and a conciliation board has been applied for by the corporation to assist in bringing that out upon us. We do not doubt the sincerity or honesty of purpose of any such board, and we mean no discourtesy to it, but we have been through this experience frequently and the procedure is familiar to us. The board will be confronted with cost sheets and statements that are cither deliberately untrue or which are so misleading as to be valueless. They may even be presented by officials who believe them. The board will be told, and the statement supported by figures,

that we must take a cut or the coal mines cannot mine coal at a profit. We were told that about three times in one year, and each time in regard to a successively higher proposed wage rate, and each time equally untruthfully. And eventually we will be confronted w_ith the batons of the provincial police and the bayonets of the Canadian militia as the final reason for us to accept a cut, when we ask for no more than humane treatment for our workers and their women and children. Many children cannot attend school owing to lack of food and clothing, and whole families face starvation at the present moment.
All the talk about costs of coal, and their introduction for the purpose of lowering wages, presupposes that we are in some measure interested in them. Yet, as we have said, apart from the labour item, which is less than 40 per cent of total cost, we are not only not consulted upon the subject, but we are not given truthful figures in regard to it. "When this corporation so mends its ways and purifies its expenditures that it dare adopt a system of open accounting with us as has been done in parts of the Old Country, we shall meet it at least half-way. But, until that time, we can do no more than fight to maintain the all too miserable standard of living of our members and their families, and we have to conduct that fight in the face of the opposition of the press, the provincial and Dominion governments and the public at large, all of whom are forced to misjudge us by the false propaganda of this corporation.
One more paragraph relating to the corporation's propaganda standard of honesty:
About a year ago some officials of this company testified before a royal commission that no spy system was maintained by the company; while for several weeks, one of the weekly papers has been printing columns of the actual spy reports, with names and dates covering a period of several years, showing we are subject to espionage in our locals, at our work and in our homes. Yet whoever criticizes this corporation is termed " Red " and he must walk with great circumspection to avoid the jails of our country and the batons of provincial police; and false reports concerning our actions, the wages we receive, and the conditions of our employment are sent broadcast throughout the world without the slightest possibility of our ever overtaking these calumnies, or of our obtaining a fair hearing.
Mr. Speaker, it was an appeal of that kind that led me to decide to make this presentation in the House. I felt that I should do my utmost to give the men's side of the case to the public; and I felt also that if it was given a fair hearing we might at least hope that the government of this country would take some action in the way of setting on foot an inquiry which would finally determine whether there was any ground for such statements as the men are making, and, if not, what was the real reason for the continued industrial disturbance in this province. .
It seems as though there is little more to be said. I am not here to make a speech; I am here simply to present a case, and I have confined myself almost exclusively to reading these documents. Evidently the men feel that they are not understood, and are opposed' by almost all in authority. The latest report to the government was that there was no hope whatever of putting the

Miners and Steel Workers
industry in Nova Scotia on a proper basis until there was some sort of mutual understanding. I am sure that all members of the House will agree that individually these men are absolutely helpless. We are facing a situation which cannot be solved! by individuals; I am not quite sure whether it can be solved by the corporation itself. It does seem as if the highest legislative body in the land, this parliament, is the body that ought to consider a matter of this kind, and I urge that action be taken, first of all to see that no Canadian child suffers, and secondly that we know the facts in the case.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that I voice the sympathy and regret that every hon. member feels that it should! be possible in Canada for an hon. gentleman to arise in parliament and refer to the conditions existing at Sydney, Nova Scotia, which the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) has just recited. I have followed carefully all that he has said in regard to the conditions of distress existing among the mine workers at Sydney, Sydney Mines and other places in that vicinity. I do not believe that he has exaggerated in any particular the actual conditions of distress that have been in evidence in that locality during the past few months-yes, during altogether too many years. For more than twenty years there has been industrial unrest, never settled, in Cape Breton. There has been conflict between the employers and the United Mine Workers' organization, representative of the employees, and', before that came into existence, other organizations representing the employees; and still it seems as though it has never been possible to settle satisfactorily the conditions under which the men work in the mines and in the steel mills of Cape Breton.
The hon. gentleman referred to telegrams, as I understood, which he had received from Sydney Mines as to the distress existing there. I want to assure him that the Labour Department, as well as ministers of the present government, have received! recently, yes for the past two or three years, similar intimations of distress existing and similar requests for assistance. If it were possible, having regard to the trusteeship which members of this House owe to those who elected
4 p.m. them to sit in parliament, for this government and this parliament to deal in a consistent and proper way with the conditions to which my hon. friend refers, I would hope to be the loudest one in clamouring to assist him in dealing now, once and for all, with some of these conditions, and 30
in wiping them out of sight forever. But the facts are that there is another government having distinct and definite autonomy, having exclusive jurisdiction over certain conditions which are in evidence in Nova Scotia relative to the company and! the employees of the company which we are considering here to-day. Nova Scotia as a province owns the coal mines of that province; Nova Scotia as a province leases those coal mines; Nova Scotia as a province in the past several years has received in royalties on coal mined the following sums:
>918	$586,036	32>919	
557,456	021920, including royalty on salt .. .. 608,364	51>921	
556,385	121922	
490.318	261923	
671,233	27
I do not desire to cite these figures for the purpose of waving entirely to one side any dictates of humanity that might naturally come to us in a consideration of this matter, and to say that we should not give sympathetic, yes or other proper consideration to any claims made; but I do with all respect say that here is involved, and has been for many years past, a situation that the province of Nova Scotia, having exclusive authority to deal with it, should have dealt with or should1 now deal with, rather than that my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) should rise here in this parliament and ask us to go outside of our authority to take cognizance of it, and if necessary take drastic steps for the purpose of relieving a situation over which we have no direct or proper control. I would that it were otherwise, blit if we are to be consistent, I think we must recognize the actual facts.
Let me now go for a moment into what has been the habit down in Nova Scotia. I do not for a moment suggest that it is inspired, but it has been the habit just the same. The habit has been to always try and see what could be secured from the federal government.


Mr. HANSON:: Oh, oh.


James Murdock: My hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) laughs, but those are the facts, and the records will disclose that when the former government, which he supported, was in power the same condition existed. While we are talking about that habit, let us here and now intimate that another concern, a part of the same corporation, the steel part of it, has received in the years gone by ninety millions of dollars of money out of the federal treasury in one way or another. I think that pretty nearly constitutes a habit of assistance from the federal

Miners and Steel Workers

government. And during that time men, women and children were suffering under conditions of hardship which all too often they did not deserve under the British flag and in this Canada of ours.
That was just merely an aside, on account of the sarcastic laugh of my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson).
On December 5 last, we received a letter from the town clerk of Sydney Mines which stated:
At a meeting held in the council room, town of Sydney Mines, the town clerk was authorized by vote to make application to the federal and provincial governments for aid to assist the town to give relief to the poor and distressed cases. This meeting was presided over by the poor committee of this town. All the churches had by pulpit notices invited their people to be present at this meeting and to assist by sending in clothing and eatables. Some relief has already been given. The meeting asked that the amounts asked for would be as follows: Federal government, $5,000; Provincial government, $2,500; Town of Sydney Mines, $2,500.
The immediate poor and distressed are the dependents of men who have been out of employment for a long time.
Your favourable consideration is solicited.
More recently, or on the 17th day of this month, we received a telegram from Glace Bay reading:
Destitution here account of idle mines, 2,000 employees and their dependents on verge of starvation; mass meeting of citizens demanded to know why no work; McCann held out no hope to relieve distress unless the Canadian National Railways, largest consumers, gave orders to buy banked coal; citizens implore order to relieve present distress.
M. T. Sullivan, Chairman.
A. M. Macleod, Secretary.
This telegram was replied to in a letter of February 18 in part as follows:
As you know the province of Nova Scotia owns the coal mines and secures a royalty on every ton of coal mined while the province has exclusive jurisdiction over questions affecting property and civil rights within the province, and it would therefore appear that your representations should be made to your provincial government in so far as the relief of distress growing out of unemployment is concerned.
Noting your reference to the C.N.R. giving orders for and banking coal, would advise that while I shall be glad to transmit your message to the Minister of Railways, you, I am sure, must be awere that the Canadian National Railways are operated {independently of government interference in any way, and we could therefore use no more pressure on the Canadian National Railway in this matter than we would feel disposed to use in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
A number of telegrams and letters have come from time to time trying to impress upon the government or ministers of the government the necessity of compelling the Canadian National Railways to buy more coal than they say they need and to bank that coal for future use. The railways have taken the position that they do not desire to use banked coal in many cases, and that

it is not necessary to use banked coal which deteriorates, and as a matter of fact at some of the coal mines, at least two of them at Sydney Mines, my understanding is that the coal could not be banked in any case, and that the only time those mines can work is when there are orders for the product and it can be shipped directly to the buyer.
Now the reason that I am reciting these facts is to show that we have had this contention that my hon. friend has brought before us to-day, yesterday, and for many months past and even during the past two or three years; I do not think that it is any exaggeration to say that it has been to a greater or less extent before the federal government for the past twenty years.
Let us look for a moment at the figures of employment down there, which I want to assure my hon. friend do not appear to be very much worse right now, so far as the operation of the mines is concerned, than they have been during the past year. During the year past the mines have not worked anything like continuous time, and as a matter of fact the average time, according to my advice, that miners work in Nova Scotia is from 173 days a year to 202 days a year. If they can work 202 days a year, my advice is, they think they have had a fair amount of work, and they think they have been pretty well taken care of. Personally I do not believe many hon. members of this House would think they were in very good shape as workmen if they were permitted to work for only 173 or 202 days a year. But the working days have not been even that good during the past year. We find that the Dominion mines at Glace Bay, for the week ending February 14, worked 671 days. That is 6,117 employees in 12 mines worked 671 days for the week; that is almost full time-a little better than five days' work per week per man while over ait Sydney Mines two collieries with a working force of 2,106 employees only worked 51 days which would amount to less than three days' work per week per man; and in other mines the conditions have not at times been that good. When the miner's committee and the various coal companies decided on December 31 last that they could not reach an agreement on a new wage scale, they did agree that the present wage rate would continue until the board of investigation had investigated the then existing situation and had filed its report. The company on their part agreed to work all the mines for which they could get orders, and so far as the department is aware that has been done. The men have worked all the days when there were orders

Miners and Steel Workers
for the mines to fill, but that has not been sufficient to give full time either during the period that has elapsed since January 1 last, or for many months prior to that time. The conditions, so far as I know, are almost identically the same now as they have been for many months past. And so, Mr. Speaker, it is popular for certain individual labouring men, their wives and their families, not only in Nova Scotia but in Alberta, in British Columbia, and in other provinces, whenever they are in distress or want, whenever they think that something should be done and that something must be done to alleviate certain conditions of which they complain, to make a claim on the federal treasury, to make a demand that the federal government come to their assistance and provide the wherewithal with which to change their existing situation.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will the hon. gentleman
permit me a question? Had not the miners of Cape Breton, apart from the steel workers, the majority of whom are native-born Cape Bretoners, as much right to come to this government and demand that they be protected and that things be done for them as the people of the west have to demand that we give them the Crowsnest pass rates at the expense of the rest of the Dominion?


James Murdock: I think it has been said that every British subject has a right to approach the foot, of the throne, and they have hardly got there when they have come to this parliament. The point that is here involved is whether, having regard to the individual citizen or a body of citizens in any province of the Dominion,-whether they be farmers in destitution in some part of Alberta or Saskatchewan, or lumberjacks in hard luck in some part of British Columbia, or miners down in the Kootenay district or elsewhere in distress,-it is consistent and proper that this federal government should undertake to vote money in order to take care of the situation that may be complained of.
Before closing, I want to say just one word about the proposals for arbitration that were set forth by the Winfield board. As the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) has said, the miners indicated about January 1 that they would not have anything to do with a board of investigation; that they had no confidence in the company's request for a board, and that they had no confidence in the intention of the company after the award of the board had been filed. They have maintained that position very consistently and respectfully from that date to this. In my judgment they were justified in taking and 30i
maintaining that position, for the simple reason that their experience has been that investigations by boards supposed to make inquiries into questions affecting their conditions have never been what they should be, nor as definite, deep and searching as they should be to get at the truth and the facts involved. The Winfield board on 9th February arrived at what was a unanimous expression of opinion. And the House will please follow me by recalling that when this board was asked for, no decision had been rendered that the federal government had no right to appoint this board; that decision, which came later, on the 20th day of January, made the action that had been previously taken indefinite as to the final result. But we went ahead and the board agreed to function in order to see what could be done. Later, on February 9, it expressed the unanimous opinion indicating what, in its judgment, should be done in the matter of further investigation.


Lewis Herbert Martell: At the time that this
board was appointed and before it had begun to take evidence, a decision had been rendered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that the federal government had no jurisdiction in these matters. These men were then simply in the office of mediators. The miners were not represented and the native-born Nova Scotian who was a miner was absolutely right in not accepting the judgment of this board or any other board. Mr. Winfield is a corporation man in the province of Nova Scotia.


James Murdock: My hon. friend is correct in stating that when the board was finally constituted the decision of the Privy Council had been handed down. The fact remains that the Winfield board went ahead and expressed certain unanimous opinions as to the constitution of a real board of inquiry to go into all phases and causes of the now existing dispute and the disputes that have existed and occurred from time to time during the past many years. It must be remembered that the Winfield report was only being despatched from Halifax to the Labour Department on the 9th day of February; but a peculiar co-incidence is, that on the same date there started from Halifax to Sydney from the vice-president and general manager of the companies to the miners a considerably different proposal as to the formation of a board of inquiry to go into this controversy andi, (if possible, reach a settlement. As I think the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg placed on the record the report of the Winfield board, I want to place on record the proposals of the company of the 9th day of February. This was ad-
46S
Miners and Steel Workers

dressed to J. W. Macleod, president, and Alexander A. McKay, secretary-treasurer, district No. 26, United Mine Workers of America, Glace Bay, N.S. It reads:
In our letter of even date we have explained our objections to the propositions involved in the resolution therein referred to and why we think an attempt to work out your suggestion in any concrete form would not result in a satisfactory settlement.
We now submit the following proposition, namely:
That the company and the U. M. W. of A. enter forthwith into a contract to continue until the 30th of November, 1926, providing that,
(1)	An impartial committee of investigation be constituted by either one or two members being appointed by the representatives of the employees and the same number by the company. These representatives to appoint a chairman and if they fail to agree on such appointment such chairman to be appointed by either the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, of Canada, the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, or the Acting Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec, at the option of the representatives of the employees.
(2)	Such committee so constituted to have power to investigate:
(a)	All matters in respect to the company relevant to the question of what rates of wages the company can reasonably be expected to pay under existing conditions :
(b) All matters relating to the U. M. W. of A., district 26, in so far as such matters may affect the present situation.
(3)	Such committee to have power, after such investigation, by its report to establish a scale of wages to be effective from the date of the acceptance of this proposal until November 30, 1926, and the company and the employees to respectively obligate themselves to accept such a scale of wages.
(4)	Pending the report of the committee and from the date of the acceptance of their proposal the company to pay the 1924 scale of wages less ten per cent. After such report such wages to be readjusted to conform to the rates thereby established.
(6) All evidence given before the committee shall be treated as confidential and the committee shall make public its findings only.
(6)	If the committee deems it desirable that evidence be taken under oath it may apply to the Govemor-in-Council to be constituted a commission under the Public Inquiries' Act of the Province of Nova Scotia.
(7)	The report and recommendations of a majority of such committee shall for the purposes of this agreement be deemed the report of such committee.
That is the proposal now from the company to the employees. Personally, I do not blame the miners of Nova Scotia if they do not accept any such proposal as the basis for appointing a board of inquiry, because I do not think such a board of inquiry would get any further than many boards somewhat similarly constituted have in arriving at true and actual facts as to the composition of the company, its stock, whether actual or watered, and many other things that should be considered in arriving at the true facts.
Some one may say that I should not say these things, and if they do, I shall not take issue with them. It may be that someone under our constitutional rights, yes, and our constitutional restrictions, might observe very
[Mr. Murdock.)
curtly, "That is none of your business". As I pointed out in my opening remarks, Nova Scotia owns the coal mines; Nova Scotia leases the coal mines; Nova Scotia secures a royalty on every ton of coal mined from those coal mines; Nova Scotia issued the charter to the company which operates the mines; Nova Scotia has exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights within the province. And all these things being so, if anyone unkindly, or for any reason at all, informed me that I had no right to criticise a proposal for investigation, that it was none of my business, I suppose I should have to accept that without protest. But I think, indeed I hope, that this discussion may go far enough for us to get right down to brass tacks and determine whether this canker on the industrial life of Canada should be permitted to exist any longer. Personally, since taking this seat in the House, I have felt much more strongly on this particular situation than may be indicated bv anything I have expressed to-day. At the same time, however, I recognize some of the things involved in the partnership of authority entrusted to us as representatives of several autonomous governments carrying on the public business here in Canada. In this particular situation which my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) brings up to-day, the federal government has no direct authority although of course it can give ear to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman to vote out of the treasury of the Dominion any amount necessary to provide relief for those who may be in distress in the vicinity of the mines of Nova Scotia.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Would it not be just as logical for the government to vote the $5,000 requested by the municipal associations of Sydney Mines-I am simply quoting what I have heard in this regard-as to afford relief to the extent of millions for seed grain in the west, or relief to Home Bank depositors?


James Murdock: My hon. friend may be right, but if I were to follow that line of argument I should have to consider this fact, that the federal government has considerable latitude of authority in dealing with questions affecting agriculture. The federal government spends millions of dollars each year in the improvement of agricultural conditions from one end of Canada to the other, and it might be very properly held, although I have not gone into the point, that the particular seed grain transaction to which my hon. friend refers was directly in keeping with its authority in agricultural matters.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I would ask the minister this question right here and now. Why does

Miners and Steel Workers
the Department of Agriculture persist, through the Civil Service Commission, in calling for applications to fill various vacancies while the people of Cape Breton are left to starve?


James Murdock: I must ask the hon. member to refer that question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell).


Mr. GOULD:: Is it not a fact that the moneys that have been advanced in the interests of agriculture in regard to which complaint is made were a loan and not a gift? It has to be repaid.


James Arthurs: It was never repaid.


Oliver Robert Gould: It is secured by mortgage.


James Murdock: Somebody is next, I do not know who. However, if I may be allowed to continue, I have just a few more words to say in conclusion. If there were any consistent way in which, having regard to our authority, we could do something in the way my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg suggests, to alter existing conditions in Cape Breton island, I would be one of the most pronounced supporters of just such action. But I would add this, in no disrespect but with all consideration for what is involved in the question, if ever the old adage was true, that charity and assistance begin at home, surely it is true in this instance, when we find an autonomous government receiving some S600.000 a year in the way of royalties on the mining of that coal, and having complete jurisdiction over the questions that, are here involved. Is not that government the proper body to receive representations for assistance and such action as may be necessary to ensure, if possible, that never again shall similar conditions of unrest oocur? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this view should be recognized by my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg as well as by others in this House.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: During the past three sessions of parliament I have moved in this House resolutions relating to a national coal supply for the mines of Nova Scotia and1 Alberta, and in all of those resolutions I have suggested a remedy for the present unfortunate state of affairs described to-day, namely protection and bonuses. Three years ago I offered a cure for the ills of Nova Scotia particularly, so far as the mining situation is concerned. For the unemployment that exists in connection with those mines and unemployment generally in Canada someone is certainly responsible, but quite evidently there is a desire on the part of all who are concerned to evade 'that responsibility. We are told by the Prime
Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) that the provinces and municipalities are responsible for unemployment-under the British North America Act-while they in turn disclaim the responsibility. The government is charged with the work of bringing immigrants to this country to the large centres of population, and although it has control over the tariff the Minister of Labour claims that the province of Nova Scotia should take care of the situation. It seems that there is, as the military men say, a general passing the buck. The fact of the matter, however, is that at the present time the government of Canada is affording relief to the mines of Nova Scotia. Last session there was placed in the estimates some S200.000 as a bonus for the carrying of coal from Nova Scotia to central Canada, the object being to enable the mine owners to keep open and to encourage the government of Nova Scotia to give what assistance it could towards the relief of the miners and secure a market for Nova Scotia mines in central Canada. That bonus served the purpose of keeping some of the mines open and of encouraging the owners to pay their men more liberally and work some mines better than they had done before, so that it did a great deal of good in those places. It seems to me that one way in which the government might meet the present situation would be to extend the bonus principle. By putting an embargo on coal we would soon find that every pound of coal used in Canada would be mined and coked under the British flag-it would come from the Maritime provinces, from Alberta and from Wales. In that way the government would be doing something to solve the unemployment problem and develop a national coal policy.
The condition of affairs in the coal industry of Cape Breton is not a local one by any means: there is unemployment all over the Dominion, and it is at its worst in some of our cities in central Canada, particularly in the city from which I come. I am not interested in propaganda on behalf of any party, but I am interested in finding work for the unemployed in my riding. The government declares that it has nothing to do with unemployment, that it is purely a provincial and municipal matter. Well, the fiscal policy and the immigration policy of the government are largely responsible for the economic condition of the country to-day, and I submit that the federal authorities should shoulder their share of the burden of solving the problem of unemployment. Allow me to repeat a few paragraphs from an address on protection during the last budget debate May 5 1924.
Miners and Steel Workers

outlining what I believe to be the cure for the economic ills with which the maritimes and Nova Scotia are afflicted at the present time:
The principles of the good old National Policy should also be applied to join the coal fields of Alberta to the furnace and kitchen stoves of a great section of Ontario. The coal fields of Nova Scotia should also share with Alberta the benefits that would follow an attempt to apply the principles of protection to the problem of Canada's coal supply. My motto is Canadian coal for Canadians. The principles of protection should fast be organized into an economical system that will ensure an all-Canadian or other all British supply of fuel to take the place of the almost 3,000,000 tons of American anthracite and almost 11,000,000 tons of bituminous coal consumed in this country. The exact figures are 2.814.650 tons anthracite and 10,583,396 tons bituminous coal imported from the United States in the last year of record. Let the supply of allCanadian or other all-British coal be assured, and then put on a duty that will not permit a ton of American coal to be sold in Canada. Canada's money iiow goes out in payment for $24,705,536 worth of American anthracite, and $39,281,245 worth of bituminous coal, every year. These figures mean that Canada's coal bill pays $32,000,000 in wages to 15,000 United States workers every year. These figures mean that Canada's coal bill maintains United States workers and their dependents almost equal in number to the population of Ottawa. These U.S. workers and their dependents should be Canadian workers and their dependents, earning good wages around the coal mines of Alberta and Nova Scotia, and helping to supply a home market for the products of Canadian agriculture. The distribution between Nova Scotia and Alberta of the $61,000,000 that now goes to pay Canada's yearly coal bill to the U.S. would help to spread prosperity beyond the bounds of these provinces.
Now, what did Hon. Mr. Armstrong the Premier of Nova Scotia say in reference to this policy? He came up to Ottawa a few weeks ago and advocated a policy of bonuses and protection for the Nova Scotia mines; he even asked that an embargo be placed on United States coal for the maritimes' benefit. This is a concrete case; there are others. As I. have already said, unemployment is not confined to the coal industry of Cape Breton, and probably no province is suffering more from industrial depression and unemployment to-day than the province of Ontario. The Rev. Canon Vernon of the social service department of the Anglican church of the diocese of Toronto delivered a sermon recently on the hardships which the unemployed of our cities and towns are suffering in Toronto and elsewhere. Let me remind hon. members that the Anglican church minds its own business; it is not interested in the propaganda of the Minister of Labour or any other minister; it is interested in solving the unemployment problem and other social problems, and that problem concerns primarily the government through its immigration policy, its fiscal and transportation policy and its banking and trade and commerce policy, notwith-
]Mr. Church.]
standing what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) may say with respect to the responsibility of the provinces and municipalities in this matter.
The unemployed question is the most difficult problem we have. It is one for the federal government who should be assisted by this parliament and by the provincial governments, by the municipal authorities and by the churches to alleviate the distress arising out of unemployment.
It is only by enlisting the ability, the heart, the intelligence, and patience and energy and courage of every citizen that we may hope to improve the present condition of affairs of unemployment in Canada, whether in the coal mines of the Maritime provinces or in any of the other industrial activities of the Dominion.
We were told by the Minister of Labour last session-for this is not the first time the subject has been brought forward in this House-that the government's contribution for the relief of unemployment had decreased from over one million dollars in 1922-1923 to only four thousand dollars in 1923-24.


James Murdock: Might I ask my hon. friend if he does not know that that four thousand dollars was for unemployment relief of returned men?


Thomas Langton Church: No. Mr. Speaker, I have lived' in the city of Toronto and know something about conditions there. The Minister of Labour may have his agents, his subagents, his filing clerks and the regular retinue of a standing army on the payroll supposed' to take care of unemployment, and he does nothing; but when it comes down to the depth of winter, when in December and January immigrants from the Old Country are being dumped on the city of Toronto, the time has come for the government to do something. The city of Toronto, which contributes over $100,000,000 to the exchequer, and receives only about all told $281,000 in return, in the estimates, does not want to sponge on the federal government for the relief of her unemployed or for anything else; it will pay its part but not take care of all Canada, and our city does object to having 4,500 unemployed from the harvest fields of the west and other districts dumped on the streets of Toronto The various civic and charitable organizations all help the cause. Also the St. George's and other societies, the churches and other charitable organizations do their part, while as a matter of fact the government of Canada is responsible primarily for the conditions which have brought about such

Miners and Steel Workers
widespread unemployment, and therefore should contribute towards its relief. I have many cases of distress brought to my notice every day when I am in Toronto, and some of these people from the Old Land, new immigrants, I find were told by the immigration officers and the agents of the transportation companies that there was plenty of work for them in Canada. Surely such misrepresentation should' be checked up and those responsible summarily dealt with. I am not interested in propaganda either for or against the government, but I do plead with the government to give assistance to those unfortunate people who are out of work and in distress through no fault of their own. In days of stress and strain like these a little heart is wanted and a united effort to solve this great problem between the federal, provincial and municipal authorities all acting in unison. As one who has been in touch with unemployment in the city of Toronto I submit that it is the duty of the federal government to co-operate with the provinces and with the municipalities. Premier Ferguson of Ontario told his legislature the other day that unemployment was not a matter for the province but was a matter for the Dominion. He said, however, that he was driven to taking some action, so he brought down legislation, along the line of a measure passed by the Union government in 1917 or 1918, of aiding municipal works on a difference of cost basis to aid unemployment and so the Ontario Legislature voted 8200,000 for this purpose. I do not say that the Minister of Labour is to blame for the condition of affairs here, but I do think he might show a little more heart in dealing with the problem, especially when conditions are as they are to-day. The minister told the House last session that he was going to call a conference of all the provinces and municipalities on the question of unemployment, but that conference was a farce and broke up without any tangible result; the minister took one stand, the provinces another and the municipalities still another, and the representatives of the municipalities went home very much disappointed. This question is one of the most important that parliament has to face to-day. Recently the House dealt at some length with an academic question relating to the British North America Act which, by the way, is now being held up by the federal government as a justification for its not taking any part in the matter of the relief of unemployment. But any measure of temporary relief, while it may tide the unemployment over the difficult period of a month or two will not by any means solve the final question of unemployment for the future. It is not a question of propaganda; it is not a political question, it is rather an economic question and there should be united effort on the part of the Dominion, the provinces and the municipalities, the church and the nation, to deal with it in some effective way and employing the best intellect, heart and intelligence to solve it one and all.
I understand that a deputation was to meet the government with regard to unemployment to-day from western Ontario; for there is considerable suffering from unemployment in London, Hamilton and in many other cities in western Ontario. I am informed, however, that the deputation was headed off by telegrams in which they were told not to come by the Minister of Labour, otherwise they would get the same answer that had been given on a previous occasion, namely, that unemployment is not a matter for the Dominion government. Public opinion is not satisfied with the way this parliament has dealt with the question of unemployment. It has been made a football of and has been kicked about to and fro from the municipalities, the provinces and the Dominion, while in the meantime many men, women and children are in dire need and want and are being kept by the municipalities. In Toronto1 this winter $800,000 of the taxpayers' money was used in relief to the unemployed. What else can they do? They cannot let these people starve on the street. In Toronto they maintain a house of industry and almost every church and charitable organization in that city has its social workers' organizations all doing their part and trying to look after their own unemployed. A large number of the population are out of work; of some we know nothing about, because many people are too high spirited to report to an employment bureau that they are out of work. In my whole experience as a resident of the city of Toronto I have never known of as much suffering from unemployment as there has been during the past winter. I refer to Canon Vernon in this connection; he preached a sermon a week ago last Sunday morning in the St. Simon's church, Toronto, and speaking of the dire state of affairs in that city he said:
The relief of the unemployed alone can never meet the needs of the case. . .	. The nation, the province, the city and the church must consecrate their best in intellect, heart and conscience towards the solving of the problem of unemployment.
The medical health officer of the city of Toronto, Doctor Hastings, a man of conservative views who is at the head of a large staff, has reported to the city council, through his social workers, that conditions with re-
Miners and Steel Workers

spect to unemployment have been worse in many phases this winter than ever before. There are always three views to a question, your own, the other fellow's and the right view. The Minister of Labour evidently thinks there is on the question of unemployment only his view, but I ask him not to forget the other fellow's view-He asks for bread and you give him a stone. I suggest to him ' that instead of blaming the British North America Act for all the diseases this country is heir to, including unemployment, he should remember as I again repeat that there are three views on this unemployment question, your own view, the other fellow's view and the Tight view. I hope the minister will not fail to consider all these views and that he will give consideration to the representations of the municipalities and provinces.
References to this matter have appeared in the government organs and in the press generally; and here is an article which appeared in the Globe last week complaining about the unemployment in Toronto. They appear often in the daily press there.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not wish to criticize anyone or to curtail debate, but I would point out that the rule is very clear with regard to the debate on motions of this nature. It says:
A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) shall always be in order.
I have stated that I had some doubts as to the right of the hon. member (Mr. Woods-worth to bring this matter up in the form of a motion to adjourn the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. That doubt still exists in my mind, but I have given the hon. member the benefit of the doubt and the House has agreed that he discuss the matter. But I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the question at issue, namely, the distress prevailing at Sydney Mines. Any discussion of unemployment in Toronto, Montreal or elsewhere is not in order on this motion. The matter involved is a matter of definite public importance; it is specific, and the debate must be restricted to what is dealt with in the motion. I would therefore ask hon. members to respect the rule of the House in this regard.


Thomas Langton Church: Thank you; I have just about finished, Mr. Speaker. Your ruling is fair and correct. I am quite willing to confine my remarks to the situation in Cape Breton. But the problem of unemployment in Cape Breton will never be solved unless we apply a national policy with bonuses and a tariff wa'H-r-unless we have a system of national fuel supply. And this national policy 
should take care of the owners of the mines, the workmen in the mines, the labour problem in the mines, wages and production in the mines and their development along national lines. I have here a clipping which shows that out of 5,000,000 tons of coal shipped into the province of Quebec last year, 3,000,000 tons came from the United States and only 2,000,000 tons from Cape Breton. Under a national policy all the coal Canada needs should be mined and' coked under the British flag and secured from Nova Scotia, Wales and Alberta and not a pound from the United States. I firmly believe that if the government would apply the National Policy to the mines of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, it would get rid of the labour difficulties there, and get rid of unemployment. It would be doing something in a practical way to meet the situation. I am not unmindful of the difficulties of the government regarding unemployment, and I am quite aware that a policy that has been followed for sixty years cannot be changed in the twinkling of an eye, but I do believe the policy I advocated for the past four years, the National Policy, is right and that Premier Armstrong, of Nova Scotia, is quite right in coming to Ottawa and asking this government to sit down and consider what shall be .done for the coal miners and the coal operators in his province, along bonus and embargo lines.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as you have just remarked, the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) moved the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, and you, Sir, expressed the view that there was some doubt in your mind as to the wisdom of permitting the motion, having regard to what I assume you considered as the local nature of the issue which was being brought before the House. I think the wisdom of your doubt in the matter, if I may say so, has been very emphatically disclosed by the despatch which has just been sent out to the country by the Canadian press reporting the action of Premier Armstrong, of Nova Scotia, this afternoon, in reference to the matter here under discussion.
The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), in replying to the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg, stressed the point that inasmuch as the government of Nova Scotia owned the mines of Nova Scotia and, inasmuch as matters respecting mining come under the jurisdiction of the province of Nova Scotia, doubtless the Premier of Nova Scotia would himself be more familiar with the situation

Miners and Steel Workers
and the adequate means of meeting it than any other person, and that it was a matter essentially and primarily for the province of Nova Scotia to consider.
The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg stated that his object this afternoon in making the motion he did was to give publicity to the men's side of the case, and to urge upon this government that a commission of inquiry be appointed to inquire into the facts. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we had accepted what the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg suggested this afternoon and had agreed to appoint a commission to inquire into the facts, what would have been the consequences? The consequences would have been that while this House had agreed to appoint a commission to inquire into the facts, we should have discovered that the government of Nova Scotia had also agreed to appoint a commission of inquiry, and had so notified the parties at the very time the discussion was taking place in this House. I mention this matter in the form in which it has come before me at the moment as an illustration of the importance in this parliament of clearly distinguishing between the matters that properly come within the scope of discussion here, and those which mofe properly belong to provincial jurisdiction. A great deal has been said about unemployment, questions of local distress and the like. The government has no desire in any way to ignore any situation that may be of consequence to individuals or localities in different parts of the country, but so far as the business of government is concerned, those who have had to do with the framing of the constitution of the country have thought it wise to suggest, and in some cases to define very clearly, a division of labour between the federal government and the governments of the several provinces, and I submit, without going into a discussion of legal rights under the British North America Act, that the more one views these questions in a broad way, the more one will see the wisdom of leaving to local governments, to provincial governments, questions of local and provincial concern, and of confining the discussions of this parliament to matters that are essentially of national concern.
Here is the communication which has been sent by the Premier of Nova Scotia this afternoon to the parties who are immediately concerned in the difficulties in the 5 p.m. mines there. I think it grants all that the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg has requested to-day in the way of investigation into conditions and also points a way to a possible solution of existing difficulties. The communication is addressed to J. E. McLurg, Vice President, British Empire Steel Corporation, Limited, Sydney,
N.S. and to John W. Macleod, President, District No. 26, United Mine Workers of America, Glace Bay, N.S. It reads:
Dear Sirs:
As the result of recent conferences with you individually, we had an opportunity of quite fully considering the difficult, and in many respects delicate situation with which you are now confronted. Permit me to express my personal appreciation as well as that of the government to you both for your very frank presentation of your respective attitudes. In view of the public importance of the issues involved, and with the earnest hope that the present involved situation may be more satisfactorily solved, I beg to submit for your respective and joint careful and early consideration the following:
(1) I am advised and convinced that the British Empire Steel Corporation is about to take such immediate action as will put into effect a decision of that corporation to reduce the present or 1924 miners' wage scale by at least 10 per cent. It would further appear that the method of giving effect to the above decision on the part of the corporation will be the posting of a notice to that effect at the various collieries affected.
(2)	It is quite apparent from the correspondence exchanged between you:
(a)	That the miners under circumstances as now existing will positively not accept any reduction in present wage scale.
(b)	That if such a notice is posted it will result in
cessation of work on the part of the workmen. The situation would then resolve itself into a contest of endurance, involving loss and privations to both parties, and great injury to the public interests. It might, and probably will further estrange the parties directly interested, the corporation and the employees. This is a plain statement of a situation which I am convinced both sides to the dispute wish, if possible, to avoid.	4
(.3) Having given the best possible consideration I can to what has been stated bv you and to what has been made public to date by way of correspondence between your respective selves and those you represent, and with a view of using our good offices to bring about some means whereby:
(a)	Cessation of work may be averted,
(b)	The future may be regarded with more hope,
I am therefore submitting herewith to the British Empire Steel Corporation and the constituent companies interested, viz: the Dominion Coal Company, Limited, the Nova Scotia Steel & Coal Company, Limited, and the Acadia Coal Company, and urge and recommend its acceptance, that they agree with their employees, being members of District No. 26, United Mine Workers of America, to continue the present rate of wages during the inquiry to which I shall hereafter make reference, and for such time thereafter as shall be necessary for the findings of such an inquiry to be made public or as such an inquiry may direct. I make this recommendation because I am satisfied that the proposed reduction in wages is the outstanding impediment at present to be removed.
(4)	That the company will agree to work the mines
to the limit of their demand for coal and otherwise continue the work at the mines as if no investigation was being made. In other words, that the corporation will not deliberately reduce the quantity of coal raised from day to day pending a final settlement of the dispute.	.
(5)	On the understanding that the foregoing suggestions are mutually acceptable and agreed to, I beg to respectfully recommend and urge upon the workmen and their representatives that the workmen agree to work at their regular occupations at the present rate of wages during the time intervening between this pro-posed agreement being entered into and the report and findings shall have been rendered.
Miners and Steel Workers

(6)	In view of the fact that both parties to the present differences apparently agree upon the common ground that an inquiry is desirable, and in view of the fact that the Winfield Conciliation Board so-called has unanimously expressed the opinion that a fair and impartial inquiry by a competent authority, with a view to ascertaining the actual necessary cost of raining, transporting and selling coal, the ability of the eampaniftg to pay a rate of wages satisfactory to the employees, to earn a fair return on capital invested, and the bearing which the attitude and action of the employees have in relation to the efficient and profitable carrying on of operations and without which no permanent improvement in industrial relations can be expected until complete confidence is established between operators and employees.
And that such a result may possibly be brought about by such an inquiry, on behalf of the government if the above proposals are agreed to or, as an alternative, unless you in the meantime intimate to me that you have mutually agreed upon another method. I propose at the earliest possible date to recommend to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor to cause such an inquiry to be made under the provisions of the Nova Scotia Act of Inquiries concerning Public Matters, chapter 13, Revised Statutes 1923. It seems scarcely necessary to point out to either of you that the person or persons so commissioned or appointed by the lieutenant governor have the same power to summon and call for witnesses and enforce attendance of witnesses. to compel the giving of evidence and the production of documents and things as is vested in any court of law in civil cases and of requiring such witnesses to give evidence on oath, etc., and generally to do all things that the person or persons so appointed deem requisite, "to the full investigation of the matters into which he or they are appointed to examine". I need not intimate that inquiry under such a commission must be undertaken, conducted and concluded without delay.
(7)	It is confidently anticipated that, as you have each respectively intimated your desire to the public for an inquiry, you will each facilitate in every reasonable manner the work of such an inquiry and furnish such witnesses, documents, etc., as may be essential to make it full and complete.
(8)	It must be further agreed that the rate of wages determined by the person or persons so appointed shall be paid by the corporation from and after such date as shall be fixed after all the evidence shall have been heard and considered, and the corporation will be requested and required to give assurances that the findings of the inquiry in the above respects will be accepted and the wages paid in accordance with the terms of such findings.
(9)	Further, it must also be agreed, in order that such an inquiry be not made abortive that the employees will agree to accept its findings as regards the rates of wages to be paid.
(10)	Should the parties fail to mutually agree as to the period of time the rate of wages fixed and determined by the inquiry are to prevail, the government or myself would be pleased if necessary to use our good offices in discussing them with you.
This letter is going forward to you both by the same mail, and is respectfully submitted for your careful and let me hope favourable consideration. Both the government and myself will hold ourselves in readiness at any time to render any assistance we reasonably can. I must, however, impress upon you both that in the public interests, as well, I trust, in your own, that you advise me without delay of your respective decisions.
I have the honour to be,
Very truly yours,
E. H. Arm strong.
Premier.


Mr. IRVINE:: When was this document
issued?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I have just read to the House, as I intimated at the outset, is a Canadian press despatch, which came this afternoon from Halifax, Nova Scotia, and which may possibly appear in the evening papers. It came to hand during the course of the debate, and I thought it advisable to read it to the House immediately, because it illustrates effectively the point which the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) was seeking to make a moment ago, that this is a matter primarily for the province of Nova Scotia to deal with. It makes clear that the province of Nova Scotia itself has so regarded the question and that the Premier and government of Nova Scotia, as the communication states, have been in active communication with both parties during the past few days. They have agreed to appoint a commission to go fully into the existing situation, and have worked out a solution, or rather what they hope may prove to be a method of solving the difficulties which exist. I submit, as far as our service in the matter is concerned, that we can best help this situation at this time by not interfering in it at all. When the government of a province is seeking to deal with a difficult question such as this controversy in Nova Scotia at the present time it would certainly appear a part of the duty of all other organized governments when requested so to do at least to lend as much co-operation as they can in a friendly way; but unless requested to refrain from interfering in a situation which the parties more immediately concerned are doing the best they possibly can to remedy.
I know that for some time past Premier Armstrong has been doing his utmost in an endeavour to have the difficult situation in Nova Scotia satisfactorily met. He did, as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) mentioned this afternoon, come to Ottawa some little time ago to request the government to use its influence with the Canadian National Railways to place orders for coal. I told Premier Armstrong perfectly frankly that our policy was to leave the Canadian National Railways to the direction of its president and its officers and board of directors, that we could not interfere in the management of that road, and that the government could not bring pressure to bear on the management of the road to purchase coal which might not be regarded as necessary by the railroad, or to do what has been suggested in some communications here, to bank a quantity of coal
[Mr. Mackenzie King.[

Miners and Steel Workers
which would deteriorate over a course of time.
I made that perfectly clear to him, but I said at the same time that I would not feel that I was in any way infringing upon the policy of the government in the matter if, when I saw Sir Henry Thornton, I were to place before him what he, Premier Armstrong, had said and were to ask him to take this matter into his consideration and have it considered by the directors of the railway. I did see Sir Henry Thornton subsequently, and I expressed to him what Premier Armstrong had stated to me about the situation which was developing in Nova Scotia and about the possible help the Canadian National Railways might render if they could see their way clear to place orders for coal at this time. Sir Henry Thornton told me he was just as much alive to the situation as Mr. Armstrong was, or as this government was, and that naturally he would do what he could to help meet the situation and go just as far as he could, but that he had to consider the interests of the railway, and he did not propose to take a course he could not justify to his own directors, and which they would not be in a position to justify to the country.
The different parties who have had a chance to deal with this matter at all, have all appreciated, I think, the seriousness of the situation and all have been ready to co-operate and to help to the extent of their ability and opportunity; but I submit to continue this discussion longer, in view of what we now know, namely, that the government of Nova Scotia itself has offered to-day to appoint a royal commission to go very fully into the whole matter, is not at this stage to render a helpful service, but may possibly serve only distinctly to impede the very promising result that we all trust may be achieved.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Notwithstanding the suggestion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that this debate close with his address, I am going to venture to offer a few remarks upon the motion. An hon. member has not the right to comment either adversely or favourably on a decision of the Chair. I only make this remark, that I am very glad indeed that the rules of the House are not such as to prevent a case of distress extending over thousands of people and carrying them to the verge of starvation from being debated in this House when presented bona fide by an hon. member. The allegation in the motion is that large numbers of men are on the verge of starvation in the district of Cape Breton. The facts in support of it go to show that there are but two, and indeed
that there is possibly only one, cause for this distress. The main burden of the contention of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) was that there was an acute shortage of work and that there had been for many months in this district; and he complained as well-and seemed to attribute to the complaint some importance-of friction between the company who employs these men and the men themselves. I would not gather from the facts he adduced that there was any evidence that any part of the difficulty was a friction between the company and the men, or at least such friction as the action of this government or the action of the local government of Nova Scotia could, by investigation or any other similar means, remove. Digging down deeper into the whole substance what was it? What was the case the hon. gentleman presented to parliament? Was it not a case of men hungry for toil? Was it not a case of men wanting a chance to earn their living by the sweat of their brow and not able to find that work? Was it not a case of a company not being in a position to sell the goods that they might produce in order to give work to the men? What is the history of the whole subject? I know that in years gone by, extending back for at least four or five, there has been friction between the British Empire Steel Company and its men. I know that even in days of fairly satisfactory' employment there have been numerous strikes, the company contending that they were paying a fair wage, the men contending the opposite, and that these strikes have been submitted for arbitrament, the result of none of which has been wholly satisfactory. On the one side it was argued very vigorously throughout the whole of Nova Scotia that this company was over-capitalized, that it is a great aggregation of a long series of successively watered stocks, and, as well, that it is overmanned in its higher official service. I heard to-day an allegation that I had not heard before, that it was engaged in the bleeding of its assets by letting contracts to companies in which its directors were interested. I do not stop to comment at any length on the correctness of any of those allegations, and I will later explain why. I make only this comment:	That the company is highly capitalized, there is no question. I do not know whether it is overmanned or not. I have heard just lately in the House that there has been a reduction, and I think there would have to be, considering the state of business. I know nothing whatever as to whether it is bleeding its assets in order to give unjust benefits to its associates. But I think all will realize this,
Miners and Steel Workers

that you cannot attribute to watered stock at this time the difficulties which now prevail. When watered stock is used as a basis of a claim for dividends, then it certainly becomes a question whether it should be allowed to remain so watered. But when there are no dividends and no question of dividend arises, the difficulty cannot be laid at the door of watered stock. Incidentally may I say that if any blame is attributable anywhere for over-capitalization of this concern or its authority so to capitalize, all members of this House know now, though one did not know just a few years ago, that that blame cannot be laid at the door of any government of Canada, that it lies at the door of the present government of Nova Scotia which gave the company its charter.
Why do I say that other questions really do not arise? Because it seems to me that from the facts presented not only by the hon. member, but from communications which have reached me from the mine workers, signed on their behalf, from communications which have reached the government from the provincial authorities of Nova Scotia, from communications that appear with much prodigality throughout the press, the real core of the whole matter is a want of work, a want of industry; and when you have that condition then you could appoint all the commissions that any government, whether provincial or federal, could find paper to issue commissions upon, and you would be only dishing out palliatives that get nowhere. How is it possible to adjust the dispute if the actual state of affairs is that, on account of paucity of orders, lack of industry, lack of work, you cannot arrive at a medium between the two parties which is not unjust to both? I ask hon. members if that is not the real situation. I ask hon. members to read this really pitiful petition of the United Mine W7orkers of America. I do not doubt that many in this House have read it. I ask them to read this presentation, not by a Tory reactionary, not by any of those vicious characters who, in the words of the Prime Minister, seek to get power in order to over-lord it over the masses-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never used such an expression in my life.


Arthur Meighen: It is reported in the report of the right hon. member's speech in Hull.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like my right hon. friend to produce the report. He is in the habit of making statements he cannot prove.


Arthur Meighen: No. When was the last one?
[Mr. Meighen.J
Mr. MACKENZIE KING. The last one was yesterday when he said that there was a vote in this House last year against the government on the estimates. Let him produce it.


Arthur Meighen: I said I thought it was on the estimates; that I knew it was against the government, and he contradicted me. T have the vote now in my possession and, perhaps, the right hon. member will be a little slower in making his contradictions after this. I have been challenged pretty frequently, but I do not know yet of a case where the Prime Minister made good. What I had reference to was the vote on the 31st March, 1924, a vote on a motion which the government supported, announced its support of, moved and seconded by the two hon. members for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll and Mr. Kyte), in which vote the government had an adverse majority of 82 to 81. I told the Prime Minister I thought it was a majority of one adverse.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend's reference was to a government measure and a government defeat. Now he is trying to twist it.


Arthur Meighen: If the right hon. member will read Hansard he will find that it confirms every word I said. Now I am contradicted' that I have attributed to him the language of "overlording it by the Conservative governments."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What I stated was that this was the report of the papers which I read and which I can produce.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish the right hon. member would produce it.


Arthur Meighen: I will produce it tomorrow on the ord'ers of the day. The Prime Minister will be just in the position that he is in with relation to this other motion.
Now, perhaps, I may proceed with my speech. I stated that the memorial, which, I think, San be taken as revealing the true nature of the trouble in Cape Breton, was presented not by any government of Tory reactionaries. I wonder what would have been the language of hon. members in this administration in this dispute if there had been a Tory government in Nova Scotia-


Mr. McMASTER:: Perhaps things woulft have been so much worse.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member's
imagination is losing none of its elasticity if he can imagine a condition worse than

Miners and Steel Workers
described' to-day. The memorial presented is now condensed into a booklet, the introduction for which is written by Mr. Armstrong, Premier of Nova Scotia. In the course of the introduction he says:
Those who constituted the delegation represented the various cities, towns and sections, as well as the boards of trade that are directly concerned in the coal and steel industry of Nova Scotia. Among the delegates was one from the steel workers at Sydney.
It may be assumed then that the voice here heard is the voice not only of the authorities of Nova Scotia, but of the very steel workers affected and referred to in the motion of the hon. member:
You will note, therefore, that the delegation was thoroughly representative. Let me further assure you and personally impress upon you the idea that none of those who constituted the delegation were actuated by any other desire than to lay before your government and yourself the existence of facts that, in the opinion of the delegation, are very disturbing and alarming, and who genuinely believe that conditions exist that not only require a remedy but can be remedied. May I be permitted also to add my further personal endorsa-tion to the views expressed by the delegation, and to reiterate them and to urge upon you such relief aa may be afforded at the earliest possible time.
Accompanying the delegation were several hon. members from the district. Whether they were members of it or not I could not say, but I refer to the hon. members for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll and Mr. Kyte), who were referred to a moment ago. Now, what is the real essence of the difficulty in the Cape Breton district as revealed here?
The allied coal and steel industries of Nova Scotia have been for some years in a depressed condition. At the present time unemployment and consequent distress among those dependent-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some years?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, this government,
unfortunately, has been in power some years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And it will
be in power some years yet.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps so; but I do
not think that the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) will look forward to such a prospect with equanimity.
At the present time unemployment and consequent distress among those dependent upon the industries for livelihood is more serious than in any recent period.
The prospect for the future is that there may be even more serious depression and resultant poverty.
The province of Nova Scotia is largely dependent upon these industries which are the main, and in some instances, the sole support of the population in important centres.
This will be easily understood when it is considered that from 20,000 to 25,000 men are employed in the mining of coal and its associated industriesthe actual number depending upon the degree of activity that may be possible-and that directly dependent on these there are not less than 100,000 to 125,000 people, or more than one-fifth of the population of the province. The last census returns-
These would be the returns showing the census improvement or otherwise from 1911 to 1922.
-show that only in the towns and cities where there has been a development of coal mining and steel manufacture has there been any increase in population. But for the existence of these industries the population of Nova Scotia would have shown a decrease, from which fact the serious nature of continued unemployment in these centres may be understood.
I call particular attention to the next two sentences:
At no previous time has employment been so scarce and insecure, the future so unpromising and the industrial community so discouraged, as at this date.
If any immediate explanation had occurred to the mind of any hon. member opposite it would have been interjected at this point. The next sentence is this:
Faced with a disappearing livelihood, large numbers of skilled artisans may be forced to leave Nova Scotia unless relief is forthcoming. The deputation therefore asks the government to give careful consideration to the following conditions and the suggestions made for remedy:
The memorial goes on to recite the difficulties under which the coal mining industry labours; the handicaps it endures in comparison with its competitors in West Virginia and Kentucky; it recites as well the fact that because of the large enlistment during the war of these coal miners, and because of other war contingencies-at any rate, because of these conditions-there was under-production and loss of markets during the war period, at a time when in the United States, who were not then in the war, there was a large increase of production, a large expansion and a conquest of markets. The memorial then goes on to show that in 1916 the importations of round and run of mine coal were 6,949540 tons, which had risen in 1924, through absorption of the St. Lawrence markets by competitors in the United States, to 11,544,184 tons; that the value of importations of that kind of coal had risen in the same time from $7908,125 to $34,341,956; and that as respects slack coal the increase was less, being in tonnage from 2,678,000 to 3,823,000 and in value from $2,302,000 to $8,912,000. The memorial proceeds to illustrate the suffering which had ensued from this condition of affairs and to plead that the labourers were not injured because of the failure of the local parliament to pass proper humanitarian legislation. Here I may be permitted to call the attention of the mover of this motion (Mr. Woodsworth) to the premier's claim that although the men
Miners and Steel Workers

had the eight hour day as well as a Workmen's Compensation Act, and other aids which a local legislature could provide, they were experiencing the worst hardships they had ever endured.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Did they have the eight hour day in the steel works?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think he claims that; no, in the coal mines but not in the steel works. The memorial then presents to the government a suggested remedy and argues vigorously for that remedy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) told us the remedy suggested was the giving of orders for coal by the Canadian National Railways. If such was the only remedy urged I think the Prime Minister took the right course. But unfortunately I do not see at the .moment any reference to such a suggestion among the five presented. I had better read them, and the House at least will observe that if this was one of the things urged it was not all, nor was it the burden and great central object of the delegation which came down to this administration. Here is the resolution which they urged on the attention of the government and which they declared was passed by a unanimous vote of the whole legislature of Nova Scotia:
(1)	Resolved, that in any readjustment of the federal tariff to be taken into consideration by the federal parliament at its present session, this House is of the opinion that proper consideration should be given-
(2)	To so increase the tariff on American slack coal as to preclude it from entering into this country in unfair competition with alack coal from the Nova Scotia mines.
13) To so re-adjust the tariff that this slack coal will not be sold as run of mine coal without paying the customs duty which run of mine coal is entitled to.
(4)	To place some duty upon the importation of American coke with a view to encouraging the manufacture of Nova Scotia coal into coke for the purpose of supplying the Quebec and Ontario markets, and as a substitute for anthracite.
(5)	Further resolved, this House is of the opinion that the coal mining industry of this province would be encouraged and developed if proper and equitable consideration were given to such fixing of railway freight rates on coal as will assure its economical transportation to the larger centres of population in central Canada.
In a word, we find here recommended a tariff on coal and a reduction in coal rates. This is what the delegation representing the workers who are suffering, on whose behalf the hon. member appeals, and representing the province of Nova Scotia, headed by its Liberal premier, and accompanied by its Liberal members, urged on this government as a cure for the very things disclosed to this House this afternoon. Now, I did not get time to read the whole resolution over again, but it may be-


Mr. CARROLL:: That is the resolution
passed by the legislature of Nova Scotia?


Arthur Meighen: And endorsed by this
delegation.


William F. Carroll: There is a further request.


Arthur Meighen: And further on they do ask for steel orders and coal orders?


William F. Carroll: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I think that is likely correct. But this is the great central purpose of the delegation. As hon. members know and everybody knows, undoubtedly any national railway board will give all the orders for steel and all the orders for coal that it possibly can justify and perhaps even more. There will never be any difference of opinion about that. I venture to say there is not an hon. member of this House who for one minute suspects in his heart of hearts that either the management of this railway now or the management that it supplanted, ever declined going the utmost limit they could justify in providing orders for coal and for steel. The contrary was charged against my government, but it was never properly or righteously charged. I would not charge it against this government. I do not think this government is wholly without brains and patriotism. I would not think that any government or any board would not advance to their own workers all the orders possible for coal and steel to be used by themselves. That has been done constantly; but along that line nothing in the way of a permanent or substantial solution of this trouble can be looked for. But while all this is being done these conditions are generating and this suffering is endured.
I know that in this debate we cannot really decide anything, but surely we had better get under the surface to the heart of the subject and understand really what we are talking about. The question comes up:	Has
this government any responsibility in respect to relief? Now, there have lately been several announcements by the administration, and some constitutional law has been, argued this afternoon by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). I am not going to speak contemptuously of his law. If he is wrong he has certainly been misled by one who ought to know better. But there is no question of constitutionality in dispute, none whatever; there is no more question of the British North America Act arising in the matter than of the Criminal Code or Magna Charta, not a whit; nor does anybody suggest that the

Miners and Steel Workers
Parliament of Canada is precluded by the British North America Act from affording relief to suffering Canadians. Well, I hope he does not suggest it.


James Murdock: That has never been
contended so far as I have heard.


Arthur Meighen: Well, this pronouncement will settle the question. We will accept it now as the position of the government- that they are in no way whatever estopped, that the British North America Act has nothing on earth to do with the matter at all.


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, I decline
to let the right hon. gentleman continue his policy of misrepresentation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


James Murdock: I rise to a point of
order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


James Murdock: The statement has not
been taken or made as the right hon. gentleman persists in stating it. If the right hon. gentleman would quote the facts and the truth,
I think it would be fairer for those whose interests we are discussing.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. Minister of
Labour comes forward with such a tramp and beat that one is almost frightened at his approach, but the difficulty is that while he is all emblazoned with swords he cannot use them.


James Murdock: You started to misrepresent-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Murdock: You started your misrepresentation lakt year, and you cannot get away with it.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Labour, as I understood him, said that nobody had claimed he was forbidden by the British North America Act to give relief.


James Murdock: That this parliament
was forbidden to do what it likes. If it wants to vote its money, of course it can.


Arthur Meighen: Then I assert, and I
propose to stand by it, that the British North America Act has nothing in the world to do with it. If the British North America Act does not prevent the government granting relief, where does the act come in?


James Murdock: Is that a question?


Arthur Meighen: It is. I hope some one will answer who knows more about the act than the hon. minister.


James Murdock: The British North
America Act specifically and definitely places upon the provinces the responsibility that is here involved.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry, I was listening to my colleague.


James Murdock: I will repeat it. The British North America Act specifically and definitely places upon the provinces the responsibility that is here involved and under discussion.


Arthur Meighen: I see. The answer is not very illuminating. It would' be if the hon. gentleman would quote the act. The British North America Act does nothing of the sort. Now, when I assert that I put myself in the judgment of every lawyer here and of everyone who can read and write. The British North America Act does not fix the responsibility at all. Certainly in matters of civil rights the act gives the provinces jurisdiction and denies it to the Dominion. But this is not a matter of civil rights at all. Why, time and again the Parliament of Canada has voted money for relief-relief for seed grain, relief for food supplies, relief to the west, relief to the east, relief to San Francisco, relief to China, relief to India, relief to Japan -relief everywhere on earth. Does anybody suggest that we have for fifty-seven years been living under a constitution which permits us to give relief to the suffering in China and India and Japan, and forbids us to give relief to the suffering in our own country?


Mr. MILLAR:: Might I ask the right hon. leader of the opposition if the relief for seed grain was not almost entirely confined to those on Dominion lands?


Arthur Meighen: No, it was general. It was limited for some years, but when the distress became so great as to be beyond the power of the local authorities, the Dominion stepped in and assumed general responsibility. Later we shared it with the local authorities, not only in respect of seed grain but in respect of unemployment and every character of relief where distress was great. In such cases the Dominion has never before shirked its responsibility or declined to come at least in some way to the assistance of the local authorities.
Miners and Steel Workers


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend a question to clear up this matter? If an appeal were made to a provincial legislature to vote relief to Indians, would my right hon. friend contend that the legislature would be wrong in asserting that the duty was by the British North America Act assigned primarily to the federal government, and therefore wrong in declining to give relief?


Arthur Meighen: I would say there have been cases where even provincial legislatures have voted relief of this kind. But I was coming to the point which the Prime Minister has in mind. I q'o not dispute the correctness of the assertion that primarily this responsibility is local.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all that is contended.


Arthur Meighen: It is not a constitutional question in any sense whatever. It is more convenient and serves the public interest that local authorities should look after relief first; but the British North America Act does not so dictate, it is only common sense that so dictates. When, however, the suffering spreads beyond the range of the local authorities, when it becomes so general that it is no longer fair and reasonable to ask the local authorities to look after it alone, then this parliament has power, and' always has had power, to do anything that it thinks right, and there is no more a constitutional limitation on its action than there is on any other of its day to day activities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all that is contended.


Arthur Meighen: Why then quote the
British North America Act? That act has nothing to do with it; it is merely a matter of convenience amongst ourselves. Possibly I should point out that not only did the late government, in co-operation with the municipalities and the provinces, on a distinct basis set out in writing, contribute in the days which followed the war to the relief of returned soldiers and those dependent on them, but also to general relief. Not only did we do it, but this government did the same itself the first year it was in power, I have not been informed, Mr. Speaker, of any amendment to the British North America Act since 1922; I have not learned of any shifting of our constitution-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend knows very well that the action this government took with respect to unemployment relief was taken because of an obligation put upon the federal government in 
matters respecting defence and war. Parliament has interpreted its obligation in a generous way. Where difficulties have arisen out of the unemployment due to the war the government has said that as defence is part of the obligation of the federal administration the act should be interpreted in a broad way. It is in the spirit of the act that this matter has been discussed, and not otherwise.


Arthur Meighen: I can only repeat that it is not the British North America Act at all; the act has nothing whatever to do with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It still remains the spirit of the act.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want to be in the position of simply contradicting my right hon. friend. I am trying to make my own contention clear. The whole thing has no relation to the British North America Act; it has relation only to convenience as between the Dominion, the provinces and the municipalities. Certainly because of the war our obligation became greater; the war was our responsibility, therefore we felt there was greater obligation than there otherwise would have been. Not only did we look after those suffering from the war directly or indirectly; but because of the immensity of the question we went further. Not only did we go further, but hon. gentlemen opposite, not content with the distance we went, assailed us in the countiy for our parsimony and after they got into power passed an order in council going further still. So it is only talking beside the question -worse, it is misleading the people of our country; still worse, it is misleading those whom we have the least right to mislead, those who are suffering and oppressed-to indicate to them that because of constitutional limitations, much as we would like to do so we really cannot help them.
Now, there are other circumstances in which the responsibility of the government may be greater than usual-I mean the federal government; that is to say, when the policy pursued is responsible directly and indirectly for the dire result. But I do not want to be led into a tariff discussion as such, further than to say that responsibility is traced right to the door of this government, traced not by a sleuth of the opposition or of the Tory party but by the premier in the oldest Liberal government, this country ever had. It does not meet the situation for this government, when presented with a motion which delineates the results of the course it has itself pursued, to meet it merely by an assertion of the Prime Minister that "investigation" is the cure; that the investigation ought to be by the local government-and behold,

Miners and Steel Workers
the local government has started an investigation! I have not very much faith in the result of this investigation. I have no objection to its taking place-not at all, and I do nothing to impede it. But I do remember-and I put myself in the judgment of these very critical hon. members opposite when I say that it is not many months since we had an investigation. If my memory serves me rightly there was an investigation a little more than a year ago, an investigation into which this government itself ventured. I cannot remember who the investigators were; in the long dreary roll of investigators and commissions of this government I could not be expected to remember every name. But I do recall that Doctor Robertson was one, and he investigated-I am subject to correction-the very cause of difficulty which confronts us here, the position of the one side, the position of the other, the possibilities of both. In a word, he investigated in substance just what the Armstrong government propose to reinvestigate now.


James Murdock: That investigation was
in relation to steel; this is in relation to coal.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is not much
difference, anyway.


Arthur Meighen: Is there any real difference there? I heard some hon. member opposite say there was not much difference. I do not think there is. These two industries are closely interrelated. Every ton of steel produced, as I am informed, entails the production of four tons of coal. When steel production goes down coal production goes down. I want to ask, has steel production gone down?	I sent for some data and
have them before me-and I had not intended to read these but for the interruption of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock); frequently valuable fruit comes from his interruptions. Here is a table compiled from the Survey of Current Business, a periodical which has the imprimatur of the Prime Minister himself. In this table the pig iron production is taken as 100 per cent in the United States and 100 per cent in Canada in 1913, and the production each year since is given. Corresponding figures are given regarding the steel ingot production. The percentages start as I have said, at 100 in the United States and 100 in Canada in 1913. They became 75 per cent in the United States and 69 per cent in Canada in 1914. I do not need to read them all down the line. Suffice it to say that all through these years up to 1923, and inclusive of that year, the United States percentage kept higher than Canada in their pig iron produc-31
tion relative to the production of 1913, save in one year, 1921, when it was 54 per cent in the United States and 60 per cent in Canada.
Now, coming to 1924, we find that there was not any very great variation from the proportions-however, there was some-for the first four months. The percentages with respect to pig iron for the year, month by
month, are as follows:		
	United States Canada	
January	.. 118	76February	.. 120	71March	.. 135	93April	.. 126	100May	.. 102	101June	.. 79	68July	.. 70	55August	.. 74	27'Certain policies were	now getting	underway.	United States Canada	September	.. 80	27October	.. 97	39November	.. 98	27December	116	27I hope the hon. member for Centre Winni-	
peg (Mr. Woodsworth) gets an inside view into the basic cause of the distress which he so justly laments.
Let us take ingots and trace them from the month of April-I would give the figures for a longer period back only for the time which would be taken:
United States Canada
April	
132	120May	
104	124
Canada's banner month for the year:
United States Canada
June	.... 81	79July	.... 74	60August	26September	.. .. 112	21October	.... 123	23November	.... 123	26
One-quarter in the one case and five quarters in the other as compared with 1913 production.
United States Canada
December	 141	40
This is the story in simple arithmetic. Now I want to speak in relation to the remedy, and I shall use but one sentence. I have always had great doubt whether it was possible to take one single article of such widespread consumption as this and cure the difficulty by a mere advance of duty. That same doubt I have to-day. But! what I assert is, and I do not intend now to argue it further, that an advance and an advance alone is the real remedy, but it must be done as part of a general policy to enable such a remedy to be widespread and effective.

Miners and Steel Workers

I am prepared in conclusion to read the quotation which some moments ago I had in mind, my reference to which the Prime Minister challenged. It has just been put before me. It is the quotation with reference to that much-objected-to word "overlorded" I read from the Ottawa Journal of February 19-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: I call to the attention
of the Ottawa Journal and its many admirers, even of the Liberal press, throughout Canada the derision with which its name is received by hon. gentlemen opposite. I did not assert what paper the report was in; I asserted I had read it, and it was that assertion which the Prime Minister seemed to doubt.


James Murdock: Is its author the candidate for Gaspe?


Arthur Meighen: No, it is a news item, but if it were the candidate for Gaspe the day will come when the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) will hold his name in a great deal more respect than he does to-day.


James Murdock: Not until he starts to
tell the truth about Canada rather than reviling it.


Arthur Meighen: I think, Mr. Speaker, it
is not amendment to the rules we need so much as some knowledge of them. This is dated February 19:
The Right Hon. Mackenzie King, speaking last night at the banquet tendered to Dr. J. E. Fontaine. M.P., by the Young Liberal Club of Hull at the Windsor Hotel, said that it was ever the privilege of the people to declare if they wished to be overlorded by the Conservative or to entrust their destinies with the Liberal party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I am prepared to leave to the records of Hansard as to whether what my right hon. friend said in his remarks was not that I had used the specific language of "overlording over the masses." He used the word "masses," not "Conservatives." I said I had used no such expression as overlording over the masses. So far as the Tories are concerned, I am prepared to let them go their own gait.


Arthur Meighen: On behalf of the Conservative party I accept the apology.


Andrew Ross McMaster: As the hour is almost
six, perhaps I might be allowed to continue my remarks after the adjournment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon.
friend has referred to what he calls an apology, I would say to him I very much regret I am unable to see that his remarks were in accord with the truth.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I
would like in my first remarks to-night to compliment the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) on the very able address with which he favoured the House this afternoon. I feel that those whom he represents in this chamber are to be congratulated upon the strength and moderation of his remarks. He disclaimed any intention of making a speech. He merely placed the case before the House; but I take it, Mr. Speaker, you are at one with me when I say that very often the plain unvarnished facts of any case are the most powerful speech that can be addressed in regard to it. When the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg began his remarks he, as well as all the other members of this House, were unaware of the despatch which, during the course of the debate, came into the hands of the Prime Minister, to the effect that the government of Nova Scotia had acted along one of the lines indicated by the hon. member, and I would support the view taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that under the circumstances it would be proper and fitting for this debate not to continue. That might have been an attitude accepted by all, but it was not, and there have been some remarks made this afternoon which I would like if possible to answer.
When one is possessed of a single recitation one is likely to offer it when called upon to oblige a social gathering. When one knows only one song one is apt to render it when called upon to help in an evening's entertainment, and the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), it seems to me, has one panacea and one only, for the ills of the country, no matter whether those ills present themselves in the centre or at the extremities, and that panacea is more taxation and more restriction.
This is his story, this is his song,
Praising protection all the day long.
I always like to listen to the right hon. leader of the opposition, but I cannot congratulate him to-night on his subject matter for a panegyric upon the benefits of protection; because the British Empire Steel Corporation, formerly known as the Dominion Iron and

Miners and Steel Woikers
Steel company, formerly composed of the Dominion Steel Company and the Dominion Coal Company, which separated, and then joined together with stock-mongering manoeuvres too numerous to mention, is perhaps of all others the most striking example of the failure of protection, to bolster up and protect what might have been a sound industry. Because Mr. Speaker, this great industry in the Maritime provinces started with great natural advantages. They had easily accessible resources in coal. They had' iron ore which they were able to bring, from a certain distance it is true, but by water, a cheap means of transportation, from the neighbouring island of Newfoundland. They had the ability, the industry and the character for probity of the people of Nova Scotia to manage the work and to work in the enterprise. These are the great advantages with which they started. But they represented' an industry which has been forced on, beyond a natural pace, and which presents for a quarter of a century the effect of interference with the free course of trade and commerce, combined with the prejudicial effect of government pap and government bolstering up. It is just a quarter of a century since the Dominion Iron and Steel Company obtained a charter from the government of Nova Scotia, and they obtained' a charter which gave them great advantages. First of all, the town in which they were going to start their business was given the right to bonus, to relieve them from the burd'en of taxation, and to give them a free site. I stand corrected if my facts are not as I state them. Hon. members from the Maritime provinces will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right when I state they obtained exemption from taxation for a very long term of years.


William F. Carroll: Is the hon. gentleman
speaking of the Dominion Coal Company?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, the Dominion Steel Company. They obtained exemption from taxation for a very long term of years, and if I mistake not they received a free site for their plant. They were also benefited' in this way, as has been pointed out by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) this afternoon., The government of Nova Scotia owns the resources, as governments should own such great natural resources as coal, and it imposes a reasonable royalty on coal that is mined there. The royalty at that time was 124 cents a ton, but, in favour of this steel company, it was reduced to 61 cents per ton on all the coal mined for the purpose of being used in the production of
steel, or for the bunkering of ships which carried' the steel away from their works Very substantial benefits were thus given to this big enterprise. Not only that, but privileges of more doubtful utility were given to this new company. The directors were given the right to contract with the company because they were very closely interwoven with the Dominion Coal Company, and the new steel company was given the right to pay dividends on its preferred stock while the plant was in course of construction. Anything which could stimulate, which could galvanize this industry into life, was given by the Nova Scotia government. Then the town of Sydney implemented its part in the arrangement, as I have said, by giving a site and exemption from taxation for a number of years.
But that was not sufficient. The Dominion government cast a beneficent eye on this enterprise and it was given assistance. First of all, it was helped by the tariff. To hear the leader of the opposition speak this afternoon, one would have thought that this industry down in Nova Scotia was suffering from the absence of a tariff; but I see that steel billets are protected from $1.50 to $2.50 a ton; rolled iron or steel angles, from $4.25 to 87 a ton; bar iron or steel, rolled, from $4.25 to $7 a ton; rolled iron or steel plate, not less than one-quarter inch thick, from $2 to $3 a ton; rolled iron or steel plates or sheets, not otherwise provided for, from $4.25 to $7 a ton; iron or steel railway bars for railways, from $4.50 to $7 a ton; switches, frogs, crossings and intersections, 20 per cent British preference, 30 per cent intermediate tariff, 324 per cent general tariff; nails, bolts, spikes and so forth, 20 per cent British preference, 30 per cent intermediate tariff and 35 per cent general tariff.
Therefore, the benefits, if benefits there be of a tariff, were given to this industry. But that was not all. It was bonused directly from the state. That was not sufficient. People who wanted to build railways in this country were directed that if they wanted to have the subsidies which the building of railways would entitle them to receive from the government, must buy their rails from rail manufacturers in Canada and that meant either manufacturers at the Sault or manufacturers at Sydney. Therefore, there was no means known to the protectionist mind which was not taken for the purpose of helping on this industry. What was the result? The result was that every favour given by the Canadian people to this industry was capitalized by the promoters or the management by a watering stock, capitalization against the
Miners and Steel Workers

consuming public of Canada. There is no question of that. The leader of the opposition in regard to the watering of stock seemed to have a sneaking view in his mind that probably there had been more or less humidity about the organization and development of this company than there should have been. But, he said, the watering of stock does not have anything to do with the matter. I take issue with my learned and right hon. friend in that regard. It has a great deal to do with the matter. First of all, if an administration pays dividends on watered stock, what is it doing? Nobody wants to deny to capital a fair return. It is a short-sighted policy that wishes to deny to capital a fair return; but if dividends are paid on watered stock, that means merely this, that profits which should go to building up reserves for a rainy day or to labour, are paid to people who have no right to get them
Some months ago I had the pleasure of a conversation with a gentleman who attended the conference at Genoa on behalf of the government as one of its technical advisers. He told me that he had discussed watering of stock with many labour leaders from all parts of the world, and he found them, as a rule, most reasonable men, as convinced as he was himself that capital should be allowed to earn a fair return, but having the conviction that one of the things which keep labour and capital apart, which caused a rankling sense of injustice to be in tire breasts of labour people throughout the world, was this watering of stock, the payment of dividends on fictitious capital. Even when dividends are not paid, it has a bad effect on the company. It destroys the morale of those who are responsible for the company's success. They see supposedly invested in their industry vast amounts of capital on which they cannot earn a dividend, and they are therefore discouraged. It also lends its influence to stock jobbing, to the going up and going down of stock on a stock exchange until the stock becomes a method for gambling, and until honest and prudent investors do not want to touch it at all. That is another effect of the watering of stock and I think it has a great deal to do with the matter.
Another argument advanced by the leader of the opposition was that coal production has gone down. He says: Why?-because iron production has gone down and therefore we want a higher duty on iron. I should like to carry that investigation just one or two steps further. I am not sure whether iron production has gone down or not, but for the purpose of the argument, let us

assume that iron production has gone down. Why has it gone down?-because the demand has gone down. Why has the demand gone down?-because 'the buying power of the people has gone down and if-and this will come in immediately with a further argument which he advanced-by raising prices generally all along the line, you reduce the purchasing power of the people, you will reduce the demand and you will reduce the demand for iron and for coal. If you ask a man to pay more than he should for his boots, his clothes, his hat and all the other things that go into the maintenance of himself and his family, he will not have so much money left to erect a bam that he desires to build, and if he does not build it, the demand for steel, iron or wire nails goes down to that extent. That is the way in which the whole thing happens. The idea that you can get this country into a prosperous condition by increasing the cost of living, by making it more expensive to do business, is about as wise an idea as the one that you can raise yourself by taking a firm grasp of your own boot straps. I would have the House note this. My learned and right hon. friend says that this raising of the duty on iron and coal should not be a thing taken by itself-he spoke similarly in regard to freight rates the other night-it should form part of the structure of a general enhancement of duties. Where does the consumer come in if there is a general enhancement of prices? If you are going to advance the price of iron and coal, then you are going to advance the price of articles which go into the manufacture of nearly everything that is used in this country, and if you do that, you are going to make living in Canada more expensive. We talk about taxation in this country. We do not want to see taxation raised. We are quite right in that. We ought to try to reduce taxes if we possibly can, but to reduce taxes, you must reduce expenditure. There is, however, other means of taxing people than through a direct impost by the government. There is the indirect way by increasing the price of what the people have to buy. If you make living generally more expensive in this country, people will not stay here, they will go where living is less expensive and wages just as high or higher.
I should like to end on this note. For men who, in their heart of hearts, must know better, it is inhuman, it is cruel, to pretend that the lot of these miners and steelworkers can be bettered by raising the cost of living and by increasing taxation. I cannot think of anything more cruel, when one comes to think of it, than to hold out to men who are suffer-

Miners and Steel Workers
ing like these poor miners and steel workers in Nova Scotia, that hope, and to try to place the responsibility upon the failure to apply further a system which twenty-five years has shown in their own special case not to be a success.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Cape -Breton South and Richmond):: With the hon. member for
Brome (Mr. McMaster) I desire to congratulate the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) upon having brought this subject to the attention of the House. I am especially interested in the matter inasmuch as I represent in this House the const-.tuency concerned, and possibly I have some shreds of local information which may prove more or less valuable in this discussion. Unemployment, I regret to say, was not confined to the island of Cape Breton during the year 1924; it was a world-wide condition. But the unemployment that prevailed throughout Nova Scotia during the year does not by any means exceed other periods of unemployment in that province. The period in which there was the most distress and the greatest unemployment among the steel workers and the coal miners of the island of Cape Breton was in the year 1913-14. That is an historical fact which I am sure no hon. gentleman, having a knowledge of the conditions as they existed at that time, will controvert.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not controverted directly in the memorial signed by Mr. Armstrong?


George William Kyte: I have not read the whole memorial.


Arthur Meighen: I read it.


George William Kyte: Mr. Armstrong stated that there was great unemployment; perhaps he said that there was more unemployment-


Arthur Meighen: Than ever.


George William Kyte: Perhaps so; but notwithstanding that statement, I repeat the assertion I have made, that the greatest degree of unemployment existed in the years I have mentioned, when we had bread lines and soup kitchens, and when miners were endeavouring to support their families upon employment one or two days a week. In 1914 the world war came and changed labour conditions; it had some advantages in respect of the change it brought about in the condition of the people throughout the industrial centres of Canada. The demand for coal immediately increased enormously. We all remember that the harbour of Halifax and the harbour of Sydney were both filled day by day with
large numbers of warships and transports, so that these places presented the appearance of a great naval review. The transport of munitions and troops brought large numbers of these ships to our shores and they had to be supplied with bunker coal. Then there was the activity in the steel plant arising from the enormous amount of steel required for the various munitions of war. We had good times and prosperous conditions in Nova Scotia from the commencement of the war in 1914 up to 1920. Then again unemployment set in; and it is strange that our Conservative friends, who were in office for ten years and applied the principle of protection which my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) lauded this afternoon, had not the virtue to prevent unemployment in these centres. In 1921 the government of which the right hon. gentleman was then Prime Minister found it necessary to anticipate the requirements of steel rails for 1922 by giving an order to the steel plant at Sydney for the purpose of providing employment. This was in the fall of 1921, and in 1922, after parliament had met, a delegation came here from Sydney, headed by the mayor of that city, and on which there were representatives of boards of trade and of the Steel Workers' Union. Their purpose in coming to Ottawa was to seek relief for the unemployment conditions existing in Sydney and the collieries at that time. Surely my right hon. friend will not argue that conditions existing in February or March, 1922, were due to the advent of the present government to office a month or so before. Well, the present government relieved the situation by repeating what was done in 1921; that is to say, they gave an order to the steel plant at Sydney which anticipated the requirements of steel rails for the year 1922-23.
I desire to point these things out lest the impression gets abroad that the conditions existing in the mining towns of Nova Scotia to-day, and in connection with the steel plant, are unique, or exceed the conditions of unemployment that prevailed in any previous period of our history. That, I repeat, is not the case. Unfortunately we have had periods of unemployment from 1912-13 down to the present time, and a good deal of criticism has been directed towards the British Empire Steel Corporation. Now let me say that I have no object in representing their side of the controversy; but the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg read a resolution from the town council of Sydney Mines, describing the harrowing conditions that exist there, I think it is only fair that I should point out that in that respect the British Empire Steel
Miners and Steel Workers

Corporation is not entirely to blame. Sydney Mines is situated on the north side of Sydney harbour. For 150 years coal was being mined and shipped from Sydney Mines. Originally the property of the Duke of York, it was afterwards owned by the General Mining Association; and in the course of all those years the mining that had gone on there compelled the men to travel further and further underground and under the sea until it became exceedingly difficult and expensive to reclaim the coal. At the present time the coal mines situated on the north side of Sydney harbour extend some three miles under the sea; they are entirely submarine areas, expensive to work, and it is difficult to carry on the mining operations. The British Empire Steel Corporation has been confronted with very severe competition in the price of bituminous coal in Nova Scotia. It is a fact, as everyone knows, that in the last few years bituminous coal has come from the United States and has been sold in competition with the coal produced from the Nova Scotia mines. If, then, the British Empire Steel Corporation is to keep up the competition which is now so keen, it is surely necessary that it should mine the coal at the lowest possible cost. And that is why there is unemployment in Sydney Mines and in the mining towns on the north side of Sydney harbour. The British Empire Steel Corporation cannot carry on their mining operations at these mines at such a cost as will enable them to compete with the United States coal coming into Canada, so that they have been practically obliged to close down the mines. But there is another side to this picture. If the British Empire Steel Corporation has been obliged to close down its mines on the north side of Sydney harbour, it is a fact at the same time that dn the last year it has expended $3,000,000 in opening and equipping a new mine within the Glace Bay area. This new mine is the largest and most complete coal mine in the world to-day in point of equipment. It is the best equipped mine there is, and I am assured by officials of the British Empire Steel Corporation that the coal produced by that mine can be put on the market at a cost considerably less than the coal produced in the other mines of the company.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is that
No. 26?


George William Kyte: I do not remember; I think it is No. IB. It is a new mine; the equipment was completed and the mine opened a few months ago. That is a large sum of money for the British Empire Steel Corporation to
[Mr. Kyte.i
expend on one mine, but they felt it was necessary to do so in order to give continued' employment to those in their service and enable them to sell coal at a price to meet the competition of coal from the United States.
Unfortunately we have had a considerable amount of unrest' in the coal mining areas of Nova Scotia during the last twenty years. It is not for me to say who may be responsible for it; perhaps a little fault might be attributed to both sides. The fact of the matter is that the relations existing between the leaders of the mine workers and the officials of the British Empire Steel Corporation are not as they ought to be, and' I think the Premier of Nova Scotia had that fact in mind when he offered to appoint a commission to inquire into the whole controversy between the two parties. But we can go back a little in our history and ascertain what has been the attitude of our Conservative friends with regard to promoting the steel making industry of Nova Scotia. In 1912, a few months after they came into office, the then government remitted to the Algoma Steel Company duty on 75,000 tons of rails equal to $294,000, which rails were sold' to the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific Railways. If hon. gentlemen sitting opposite to us had always the desire to build up the great steel industry in that province that they profess to have at the present time, they would not have prevented the Dominion Steel Company from supplying those steel rails by remitting the duty to a rival company. The Algoma Steel Company had all the rail ord'ers that it could handle, but it was not content with that, it was not willing that the Dominion Steel Company should have any part of those rail orders, and it prevailed upon the then government to remit the duty in order that it might import rails from the United' States and sell them in competition with the products of the Dominion Steel Company at Sydney.
The right hon. leader of the opposition spoke of the presence of the Premier of Nova Scotia at the head of the delegation which came here some months ago to interview the government on the coal and steel duties.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman give me the year when that duty was remitted? I should like to make some inquiry with regard to it.


George William Kyte: In 1912. The matter was discussed in the House of Commons in the session of 1913. The right hon. gentleman read a portion of the address, delivered by Premier Armstrong on the subject of steel and coal duties when he interviewed the

Miners and, Steel Workers
cabinet last November. I am bound to say that the well-reasoned, courteous and illuminating observations which the right hon. gentleman read from the Nova Scotia premier's address were in very striking contrast to the original portion of his own remarks. The Premier of Nova Scotia is naturally interested in everything that pertains to the welfare of his province. The right hon. gentleman said that Premier Armstrong had stated that there was more unemployment in Nova Scotia at that particular date than there had ever been in the history of the province. Let us assume that that is correct. Well, I would also remind you, Mr. Speaker, that on the very day Premier Armstrong made that statement there were 1,300,000 men unemployed in England, principally steel workers and coal miners. That number is very much larger in proportion than any unemployment figures for Nova Scotia.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Free trade; they are going up in proportion.


George William Kyte: Well, if my hon. friend wants my opinion, I desire to say, the freer the trade the better, and the less unemployment there will be. But why is there unemployment at the Sydney steel plant? We have the same tariff that was current during all the years that our Conservative friends were in office. There is unemployment at Sydney because of the competition which they suffer from the manufacturers of steel in Europe. This competition is due to the depreciated currency. Since the war the Canadian Reconstruction Commission, as they call themselves, have carried on an active propaganda, their cry being: The way to reconstruct Canada after the war is to build up Canadian industry; and in order to build up Canadian industry we must put on more duties-increase the tariff. If increasing the tariff increases the prices of Canadian products to Canadian consumers, the Canadian Reconstruction Commission say: "Be patriotic; buy Canadian goods." Let us see how these gentlemen apply that gospel to themselves. The members of that reconstruction commission are also members of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. They require steel and iron in their factories. Are they patriotic enough to buy these products from the British Empire Steel Corporation at Sydney? No, Mr. Speaker. They say: Inasmuch as we can buy steel and our other raw products in Europe cheaper than we can buy them at Sydney, we are going to fill our requirements in European markets. It is only up to the great consuming masses of Canada to be patriotic; the spirit of patriotism does
not apply to them. That is the reason why we have had dull times in Sydney. The depression has nothing whatever to do with the tariff; it is the condition of the currency in European countries which enables the friends of the right hon. leader of the opposition to sacrifice Canadian production in their eagerness to take advantage of the lower prices in Europe.
But happily the picture is not as black as it has been painted by the right hon. leader of the opposition or by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). I am inclined to think that the right hon. gentleman imported a little bitterness into this debate because he felt it was the last time that he would be able to preach blue ruin to this House in respect of the steel and coal industry of Nova Scotia. I have before me a copy of the Montreal Star of yesterday's date.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: What is its name?


George William Kyte: The Montreal Star of yesterday's date.


Alexander William Chisholm: Then it must be all right.


George William Kyte: Well, it is not engaging in
whispers of death at the present time, but in aspirations of life. I find in big headlines the following:
Opening of six hearths will give employment to 1,800 men in March.
Then in smaller capitals we are told:
Blooming mill of British Empire Steel Corporation will begin operations on double shift about March 16, official declares.
The despatch reads:
Sydney, N.S., Feb. 23.-(Canadian Press).-Opening of six additional open hearths, the rolling of a 36,000 ton Canadian National Railway rail order and a concurrent big increase in the operations of the Sydney steel plant were announced here at noon by J. E. McLurg, vice-president of the British Empire Steel Corporation.
The statement says:
" On August 5 last No. 1 blast furnace was blown out and has since been re-lined. The stoves of this furnace were lighted on Saturday last, preparatory to lighting the furnace itself on the 28th instant, and this furnace will begin producing basic iron on March 1. During this month we have been operating six open hearth furnaces, but during the week of March 1 six more open hearth furnaces will be put in operation.
The blooming mill will continue operating on double shift about March 16, and the rail mill begin rolling an order of rails for the Canadian National Railways. This order is for 35,000 tons, not 50,000 as has been
reported.
" The billet mill, bar mill, rod, wire and nail mills will operate on double and single shift intermittently
as required.'*
Miners and Steel Workers

Amplifying his written statement, J. E. McLurg said that it means that 100 per cent production of steel will be under way early in March. Most of this steel will be needed for the rail order. The number of men employed at the plant to-day, exclusive of officials is 1,061 (this would make the total staff on the job something over 1,800).
The expansion of operations forecast in this statement means a marked increase in employment during the next two or three weeks.
There, Mr. Speaker, is a statement of the conditions as they exist in Sydney to-day. They are not the conditions that existed two weeks ago when the resolutions read by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) were drafted; they are not the conditions that existed when the articles from the Sydney Post and the Labour Herald in the town of Glace Bay, read to the House during this discussion, were written.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I may say that the telegram that I read was sent to me on Saturday.


George William Kyte: This telegram was sent yesterday to the Montreal Star.


Arthur Meighen: I read the article, or one to the same purport, nearly a week ago. I do not think it is surprising that if the government gives orders for rails there should be some work.


George William Kyte: I think the right hon. gentleman is mistaken; he is thinking of a similar despatch he read with regard to. steel plants in Hamilton which are running on double shift.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no; that telegram
appeared in the papers a week ago.


George William Kyte: Knowing the conditions in Sydney at the present time I accept the statement attributed to Mr. McLurg in this despatch; there is no doubt or question about it. But my right hon. friend and his friends will doubt it, and I question whether they will be very highly elated when they find that the statement made here is true. The question of unemployment, therefore, is about settled so far as Sydney and Glace Bay are concerned. If this despatch is true, and I believe it is; if the steel plant will soon be working on a basis of one hundred per cent production, then there will be employment for every steel worker in the city of Sydney and for every coal miner in the county of Cape Breton. That is the happiest solution of our difficulty, and I think the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg might very well allow the matter to drop with the assurance given in this despatch that unemployment will cease entirely and that the plant will be working full time by the sixteenth of March.


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker,
the discussion so far has, I think, established a few basic facts: First, that there is acute distress in the Cape Breton district. I took the trouble to wire a friend of mine at Sydney Mines Saturday night in order to get confirmatory evidence as to certain reports I had heard, and I have the following wire from him:
Much distress and suffering in all industrial centres of Cape Breton owing to long continuation of short time at mines and steel plant. Many people unable to get bare necessities of life. Writing.


George William Kyte: No doubt that is true, but
on March 16 there will be no unemployment and no suffering.


Arthur Meighen: For how long?


William F. Carroll: May I ask who sent that
wire?


William Charles Good: Yes; this wire comes from the manager of the British Canadian Co-operative Society at Sydney Mines, a man who is respected very highly in the whole district. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the predictions of the hon. member who spoke last (Mr. Kyte) will be fulfilled. But I desire a little later on to call attention to a condition of affairs down there which would indicate that as things stand at present a permanent solution or settlement of the problem is very far from being within sight.
The second basic fact that I think has been pretty well established in this discussion is this:	Although the propriety of action or
interference on the part of this government might be questioned, its right to act is, I think, not questioned. Certainly I do not think anybody will dispute its right to grant relief, and I hope that we will have a little more light upon the right which this government may have to make an inqury. I shall certainly be very grateful for further information upon this point. Perhaps the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurray) or some other lawyer here might enlighten us.
In the third place I believe it has been pretty well established that the remedy suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is vain and foolish. The facts and arguments that have been submitted to this House within the last hour or so should leave scarcely any doubt in the minds of at least the majority of those present that there is no solution in that particular direction. I grant that we might tax the whole people for the benefit of a Cape Breton industry, but is it a sensible policy to put five times as great a tax upon the Canadian people as the subsidy or assistance that will thereby be given to the steel and coal industries in that
i i

Miners and Steel Workers
particular territory? I think it would be very much more sensible, if we determined upon a policy of direct subsidy, to give it to the company outright in the form of a cash payment; and if the necessity can be established I would support such rather than anything in the way of a tariff. As has been pointed out, the tariff method is vicious and mischievous all through. We are simply loading upon the people generally a great burden, and the ultimate result will be disastrous even to the particular industry which it is planned to help, because the demand for its products in Canada will inevitably be curtailed.
I am afraid that what is wrong down there -at least, one thing that is wrong-is of long standing and deep-seated. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) stated this afternoon that there had been trouble down there for twenty years. I have been amazed and depressed upon reading the Labour Herald, and I think other gentlemen who have at heart the interests of this country cannot but be troubled very much at the evidence of antagonism and hostility that is found in its pages. I am very much afraid that the proposed investigation by the provincial government will get us nowhere. I doubt whether the mine workers will accept it and even if they did accept it I doubt whether they would accept the award made under that proposal, as it is practically compulsory arbitration. I gather from what information I have been able to pick up-and I do not profess to know a great deal of the situation, although I was down there once-that the trouble is too serious and deep seated to be remedied-although it might possibly be helped-by a committee of inquiry. I have in my hand two recent copies of the Labour Herald, and I find this paper filled with charges, some of them I think fairly well substantiated, against Besco. There are letters published here of a very serious character regarding a spy system that apparently has been in operation in the industry for years. I have here also as hon. members can see some of the originals which came from Sydney Mines, with a notation by the spy himself, as follows:
Please show to superintendent, and then destroy.
These are the original reports, Mr. Speaker and many of them have been published, showing a very, very serious state of affairs, which so far as I can see will render this industry wholly unable to compete with any other decently operated industry of a similar kind on the continent Unless this relationship between the management and owners of Besco and the miners can be altered, what hope is there for
the industry? I would like to give hon. members just one sample of the sort of report that is made. This one is dated January 16, 1918, that is seven years ago. We have recent letters of the same kind published in the copies of the Labour Herald which I have already mentioned. Here is a sample of the stuff that is reported by this secret spy agent:
Attended meeting of Local No. 11. President Barrett was at the meeting to-night; his remarks took up most of the time. Hand pick miners made a complaint about the overmen informing them that in future they would not be paid for extra timber, and that they would not put up any timber in working places. Mr. Barrett told them to put up all the timber that they wished if they considered it necessary to protect their lives, and he would see that they would be paid for it. He said, to hell with the cost to the company, that they want safety. Then the men complained about the kind of timber they were getting. The ordinary pit props are about six inches in diameter, but the timber they are getting now are 14 inches to 16 inches in diameter, and the managing committee were instructed to demand 25 cents each for this work. James Smith made a complaint about Walter Donovan, overman on south side; that the other day Mr. Chew, safety first inspector, was down in the mine, and that while on No. 8 landing south he asked the drivers how they were getting on.
An so on and so on. The report is full of this sort of information, which was reported to the company through one of its secret agents. I do not know whether the reports are true or not, but you can imagine what the result is when a system of this sort has been going on for years, and is exposed now, with all the evidence to the miners; and further all the allegations mentioned by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) this afternoon as to lobbying, bribery, incompetence, and so forth. What can we hope for, what does my right hon. friend the leader of the apposition (Mr. Meighen) hope for by putting on 9 p.m. a tariff when such a condition of affairs exists internally? I do not think you can touch it by a tariff, subsidy of any kind of special help, if that were advisable. Surely that is not getting at the root of the trouble!
I do not wish to prolong the debate. I wish merely to call attention to a most deplorable and difficult situation that has developed in that district, and I must confess that I do not see any very easy or any very quick way out of the difficulty. I think that perhaps relief ought to be granted. I think that perhaps this government might, if it has the power, make an inquiry; I wish we had more information on that point. If the commission proposed by Premier Armstrong is not accepted, then where are we? We are no further

Miners and Steel Workers
ahead at all, and this "canker," to use the word of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), is still there polluting and weakening and there is going to be no solution and no remedy until we get to the seat of the trouble.


Edward Joseph Garland: Before the question is put, Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to what has been said already on this matter. I wish to join with those who have congratulated the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) in bringing this matter to the attention of the House, and to give as my excuse for speaking, if one be needed, the fact that I am not wholly sure that the proposals read by the Prime Minister to the House, the alleged despatch from Premier Armstrong of Nova Scotia, will meet the situation at all. Especially will they not meet it in connection with the immediate relief that is necessary.
At the outset let me make it clear that I cannot exonerate myself as one of the members of this House from the responsibility that I feed when I read of distress of this kind. In answer to a remark of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) on this question, who asked, "When we consider our trusteeship, how can we act?" let me inform him that so far as my trusteeship is concerned I will vote for and support any measure of reasonable relief which this government would now propose, and go back to my constituents feeling satisfied that they will endorse that action. Perhaps hon. members who are accustomed to paying from $75 to $150 a month rent for an apartment in Ottawa might be surprised if I read to them one or two of the pay sheets, of the unfortunate miner in Nova Scotia.


William F. Carroll: Why not read a few relating to the Alberta mines?


Edward Joseph Garland: I will do that if the House wishes me to delay it to do so. But we are dealing with the situation in Nova Scotia at the present time. This pay envelope bears notations as to the number of tons that may be mined by the miner, and the price he receives. We then have the notation showing tons of rock or cap rock the miner may have to move. He is allowed so much for a certain weight, and then is allowed something for timber. After all that is added up you find a small weekly wage, from which must be deducted supplies which are usually bought at the company's stores, rent, which is paid to the company, coal, which is purchased from the company, water, secured from the (Mr. Good.1
company, sanitation charges, and I see attorney charges are put in here, in order to provide a way for the company to get around the Truck Act of Nova Scotia.


William F. Carroll: Does my hon. friend
presume to say that in the pay sheets of the miners a deduction is made for attorneys? If he does, I want to tell him he has not read a pay sheet of the miners of Nova Scotia.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker. I have in my hand a pay envelope of the Dominion Coal Company, Limited, Dominion No. 2 Colliery, form No. 17, and ij; contains a provision for deductions for attorney. I investigated this and found that the attorney referred to in it is not perhaps an hon. gentleman like my hon. friend who has just interrupted me (Mr. Carroll), but it appears to be the power of attorney which the miner gives to the company at the store so that the company will be able to get around the Truck Act bv deducting the cost of goods purchased, in other words, making payment in kind.


Mr. VIEN:: Does the hon. member realize that all that he has said now touches the conditions of the miner's civil contract, over which this parliament has no jurisdiction whatever?


Edward Joseph Garland: I trust the
hon. gentleman will elucidate the constitutional aspect of this question later. I am dealing with this case because I feel that I may add a little to the sympathy that has already been generated by the speech of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth).


Thomas Vien: You cannot increase our sympathy.


Edward Joseph Garland: Perhaps I
can get some measure of action on it.


Thomas Vien: Not by that means.


Edward Joseph Garland: The check-men's fees are deducted, the doctor's fees, the United Mine Worker's fees are deducted the relief fee is permitted to be deducted and the church fee and the hospital fee. On this particular sheet I hold in my hand, 25 cents is deducted for church, 25 cents for hospital and 30 for relief, and so on.
I went into this matter a little more deeply than simply to examine the pay envelope of these men, and I find on communication with the men that the following situation exists. During the calendar year 1923 the Dominion No. 6 colliery worked 207 shifts. Then 142 datal men were employed at wages ranging from $2.33 to $3.75, or an average of

Miners and Steel Workers
$3.20. An illustration of the position of a married man with six children is then given:
Income for 207 days, at $3.30..	$683 10
Expenses house rent, etc	$ 84 00
Coal	
92	00Light	
28	80Sanitation	
3	00Doctor,	hospital and relief..	..	49	40Total deductions	$257 20	257 20

That leaves that man with six children and his wife a total net earning of $425.90. Out of that he must provide all the necessities in the way of clothing, food and so forth for his wife and family. The hon,. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) quoted from Shelley on "What is Slavery?" This is slavery. During the year 1924 this colliery worked 173 shifts:	181 datal men were
employed on a scale of twenty different rates, ranging from $2.63 to $4.90, or an average of $3.94.
The largest number employed at one rate was about 45. They were paid $4.45. For our purpose we take this figure and calculate for a man with six children as his family working 173 days without any loss of time, every working day permitted during that year, he made a gross earning of $700.65. Deduct from that rent, light, doctor, relief, hospital, coal and so on he has a net of $443.77. Out of that net he must provide himself with his working outfit. The ordinary outfit would be as follows:
Three pairs of shoes at $3.50	$10	50Four suits of overalls at $2.75	
11	00Three suits of underwear at $2	
6	00Five pairs of socks at 40 cents	
2	00One belt, one cap	
1	00Lunch can	
2	00
Deducting this amount from the net income as above, we have $443.17, less $32.50, leaving a balance of $411.27. Out of this amount the wage earner has to provide for himself and family. While he has earned this sum in 173 days, he and his family must exist for 365 days or 52 weeks of the year and do not let hon. members forget that. That fact if no other would impel me to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister the attitude of the company with regard to the present situation that now exists there. The miner certainly cannot afford to accept a reduction of 10 per cent, even if he is on full time. He would still not be getting what the minimum wage board of Ontario would consider a decent living.
We come now to the attitude of the operator. I would refer to the Glace Bay
Gazette of January 5, 1925, in that issue a semi-official or inspired article appeared and it reads as follows:
That the Dominion Coal Company will adhere strictly to its demand for a ten per cent cut in the wages of the mine workers, the Gazette is able to state to-day on reliable authority. The company, it is informed, will not deviate one iota from its position as stated on the adjournment of the wage conference.
Preparations are even now under way for placing the collieries in a position for a prolonged shut down, and arrangements are completed for the taking care of the horses in the event of their being taken out of the pits. The pits will also be stripped of pumps.
By the way, I remember two years ago there was a tremendous outcry in all the orthodox press of the country, among the respectable people, against the horrible attitude of the miners in quitting the pumps. If you believe this despatch which is semi-official, the company itself is going to pull the pumps out. With what result? The article proceeds:
The pits will also be stripped of pumps, all movable machinery and equipment, and calculations are being made as to what collieries are likely to be lost through a long stoppage of operations.
Hon. gentlemen will note that-
As to what collieries are likely to be lost through a long stoppage of operations.
Property is more sacred than human wellbeing when you can blame destruction of it on the unfortunate employees, but property is not so sacred when the employers take it upon themselves to help in the destruction. The article continues:
While it is true that the company has applied for a conciliation board, the company itself feels that it is but a useless prolongation of the deadlock, as it knows its own position in the matter and has no intention of making any new departure from its announced policy. Its object in applying for the board is to demonstrate beyond peradventure that what it has said as to its position and its impossibility of paying the present wage rates, is absolutely correct.
And so, Mr. Speaker, we find that the Premier of Nova Scotia in proposing the conciliation board or commission to which the leader of the government referred to-day is going to have a very difficult if not an impossible task upon his hands. Both sides have declared the absolute impossibility of accepting any moderation of their present demands. Referring momentarily to the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition to-day may I suggest that the opinion of the work era down there is not the opinion expressed by himself. We find in their organ that they state that the American firms are selling coal in Newfoundland, in spite of Nova Scotia's nearness, an amount of coal far in excess of the amount of coal sold by Nova Scotia to that island. In Newfound-
Miners and Steel Workers

land the coal consumed is increasing every year, but instead of that increase being filled from the nearest coal field, which is the Nova Scotia coal field, it is being filled by United States coal, thirty cents higher than the price quoted by the British Empire Steel Company. I am not sure whether that is due to inefficiency or lack of business methods or anxiety to earn tremendous profits to pay interest on watered stock. The hon. member from one of the counties down there, the Liberal whip (Mr. Kyte) referred to mine No. 1 B. This despatch mentions that mine also and also mentions facts that corroborate what he said. It can produce coal cheaper than any other mine down there. The production cost down there is $2.76. Why is the price of coal in Halifax $11.60? Surely the tariff does not enter into that? It must be very difficult to sell coal there. As a matter of fact coal dealers in Halifax are selling American coal at ten dollars a ton and at that price they are actually underselling Nova Scotia coal in the city of Halifax.


Mr. HUGHES:: That just brings up a point that I was not quite clear on, the statement which the hon. member made a moment ago. Did he not say that American coal was selling in Newfoundland at thirty cents a ton higher than Nova Scotia coal?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, my statement was that coal that was being sold in Newfoundland was largely, not entirely of course, United States coal, and that the trade had increased recently, but that increased trad'e, instead of being filled from Nova Scotia, was being filled with United States coal at thirty cents per ton higher than the tender of the British Empire Steel Company for this trade.


James Joseph Hughes: Then the British Empire Steel Company were willing to supply coal at thirty cents a ton less than the price of American coal?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, that is true, but they did not get the trade because they did not look after it. The other people came in and took the trade away from und'er their noses.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perhaps they supplied better coal.	.


Edward Joseph Garland: That might
be so.


James Joseph Hughes: I think there must be a mistake, because the hon. member said a few moments later that American coal was sold at a lower price in Halifax than the Nova Scotia coal.
I Mr. E. J. Garland.]


Edward Joseph Garland: So it is.


James Joseph Hughes: The two statements do not tally.


Edward Joseph Garland: They are two different parts of the country; one is Newfoundland and the other is Halifax. I might as well read the balance of the reference to Halifax. It is as follows:
A week or two ago we were in Halifax and asked a coal merchant who it was that got the difference between the production cost at No. 1-B-
The mine to-which my hon. friend! referred. -of $2.67 and the sale price of $11.50 paid by the people of Halifax. "Not the coal merchants," he replied, "am selling American at ten dollars and can make more money for myself than I can by selling Cape Breton coal at $1.50 more. The American operators leave us a fair margin to work on, while Besco will only allow us half the margin allowed by the American firms. American firms are delighted with a fifty cent profit, Besco scorns such profits and refuses to sell coal on such returns." "Yes, yes," we said, " but what about this $8.83 of difference between the cost at the mine and the price in the city, who gets that?" "Well," he replied, "deduct a dollar for the city dealer and another for transportation and the balance goes to Besco."
Again I should like to call the attention of this House to a question asked by Mr. Joe Steel, a member of the provincial legislature last session in reference to the purchase of coal by the government for public buildings. The reply which he received to that question was that the government was purchasing coal from the Inverness mine which is a bankrupt concern, at as low a price as $4.60, and from the British Empire Steel Company at $11.75 a ton. Why the spread, the coal is equal in quality.
To return just once more to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighem), I wish to ask him to pay attention to the miners' position with regard to the tariff. He argues, of course, as he usually does, that the tariff is the one thing that is going to help everybody and everything. There is no need for me to repeat the splendid1 argument of ithe hon. member for Brome or that of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), but they have not referred to the attitude the miners are likely to take in the matter. I, therefore, have pleasure in quoting the following:
When Besco was organized it was to cut down production costs. She has done so without one moment's regard for human sufferings by laying off miners and over-crowding the mines that did continue to operate; but that did not end the cheapening process by a jugful. New cutting machines were introduced into the mines, which resulted in pushing up the death rate among the miners and the profits of the corporation c~d greatly cheapening production costs. Then there was the opening of No. 26 mine, and here the labour cost for datal labour was more than cut in half by the new improved haulage system. No doubt this

Miners and Steel Workers
"improved" haulage system is likely to prove a terror to the miners employed in that mine. Besco is producing coal landed in the cars at No. 26 mine at $2.67 per ton; she can ship this coal to Montreal for 87 cents a ton and sell it in large lots for $6 per ton and at higher rates for smaller quantities. There is no coal from the United States that can be brought to Montreal over the long rail haul and compete with this price. Besco always puts up the price to the point where it allowed her to ship in just under the price asked for American coal, and the price asked by Besco bears no relation to the cost of production and transportation but is exactly the twin brother to what the trade will bear. Besco could sell her coal cheaper in Montreal than she does to-day and still have a very good thing, for the financial year of 1923 on her mining operations Besco cleared nearly three million dollars. This is the same whining, lily-fingered bunch that is getting the Sydney Board of Trade, headed by their man Friday, Armstrong, to go to Ottawa and jabber their heads off about the tariff and "everybody sacrificing something to get business going." All of which means that the miners will be advised to take less wages and have Besco's impudent request for a cut sanctified by King, Murdock, Armstrong and the other flunkies of capitalism. However, the miners in their convention showed the Tory press that they did not fall for the Tory bunk and clap-trap about the "tariff" and Besco's well laid scheme with their flunkies on the Sydney Board of Trade and join in the mock parade to Ottawa.


James Murdock: What paper is the hon. member reading from?


Edward Joseph Garland: The mouthpiece of the labour people of that district, the Labour Herald.


James Murdock: The Maritime Labour
Herald?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes; at
Glace Bay, December 6, 1924. I have, therefore, laid before this House two despatches giving both sides of the case, one from, perhaps, my hon. friend's paper, certainly that of the Armstrong administration, and one from the labour people. I do not think I would be doing justice to myself or my constituents if I did not join with the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) in an earnest and urgent plea to this government to take into consideration the desperate position of these men now. There is no use waiting for that indeterminate time when, we are informed, a commission may be appointed by the Armstrong government. I do not know when that will be. We certainly know it is going to be very difficult to get these two opposing forces together. In the meantime, what is going to happen to the Canadian women and children who are there, to those people who have nothing whatever to do with this industrial strife but who must suffer because of it? I must earnestly plead with the government and my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) who told us that we could bring our troubles to him as
to the foot of the throne, to consider this question seriously. I am perfectly willing to give my sanction to an expenditure of this character, far more willing than I would be to voting $100,000 for a stone monument to war. Again, let me suggest to the Prime Minister not to be carried away .or become too excited over the despatches from Sydney. Mr. Armstrong may have a harder job on his hands than he thinks he has, and it may take a long time to get these industrial matters settled while in the meantime some relief is urgently needed. That prosperity which we are continually being told is just around the corner, and which I am just as anxious to see as anybody else, seems to me to be as many corners off to-day as it was a year ago.
Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond!:	Before commenting on the
very splendid address of my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), I desire to say a few words with reference to some of the other remarks that have been made this evening. I must say that my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) and my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland), as well as several others who have spoken on the question, have given evidence of a very large fund of very inaccurate knowledge concerning coal mines and coal mining in the island of Cape Breton. Touching the point raised against the British Empire Steel Corporation by the hon. member for Bow River, that hon. gentleman produces a pay sheet of that company and reads off a whole list of what are known as "off" taxes, the purpose of which in this connection I do not see. Every one of those off taxes, with the exception of the one regarding credit in the stores, which is given by power of attorney, is a matter of agreement between the United Mine Workers of America and the British Empire Steel Corporation; it is a contract between these two parties whereby these taxes are taken out of the sheets. And even the fees which the members pay to the United Mine Workers of America are deducted from the wages of the labourers every Saturday night, or at least once a month. With regard to the article which the hon. member read from the Glace Bay Gazette, I agree with him that it had a very great deal to do with the falling down of negotiations between the company and its employees a fortnight or three weeks ago.


William Irvine: I understood the hon. gentleman to say a few minutes ago that the pay sheet quoted by my hon. friend from Bow River was not from Nova Scotia. Whose information is correct?
Miners and Steel Workers


William F. Carroll: I told the hon. gentleman that if he was reading anything from a pay sheet which showed cost to attorneys, as he put it, then it was not a pay sheet of the British Empire Steel Corporation. The hon. gentleman made an explanation and no doubt the sheet to which he referred is one that properly belongs to the company. I repeat, that article, which my hon. friend says was inspired by the agents of the British Empire Steel Corporation, did more to cause a breakdown in the negotiations between the company and the men than anything else that occurred. I do not know whether it was an inspired article or not, but if it was inspired, then the man who inspired it is not a Canadian citizen and should not even be allowed to do business in this country. Who inspired it, I say, I do not know; and my hon. friend, although he lives three or four thousand miles distant from that section of the country, seems to know more about the situation than I do. Whether or not the Glace Bay Gazette is the mouthpiece of the company I do not know and I do not care; I do know it is no friend of mine politically.
As for the argument of my hon. friend with reference to the royal commission which will likely be appointed by the Armstrong government, I do not quite follow him in what he says in that direction. He agrees with everything said by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg; and that hon. gentleman suggested and strongly urged that a royal commission should be appointed to go to the root of the troubles in Nova Scotia between the United Mine Workers and the company that operates there. I am afraid my hon. friend is a doubting Thomas. I have great hopes that if the Armstrong government appoints a royal commission composed of good substantial citizens their labours will be satisfactory. And, when I say business men I do not care from what walk of life they come-whether they are miners or steel workers or men in any other vocation. But if the Armstrong government appoints men who the people will feel are just and fair they will go into the question in the way the miners of Nova Scotia and the steel workers want the whole thing probed; and if that is done then I say that the commission will be a success. The whole situation will depend on whether or not the men will receive an increase of wages if the British Empire Steel Corporation can afford to give it to them, and that question of wages will be probed by the commission, as I hope, when it is appointed by the provincial government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would ask the hon. gentleman whether the condition under which the commission is to be appointed, namely, that the men will be forced to abide by its recommendation, has not really been already refused by the miners in their reply to the company's proposal.


William F. Carroll: I do not know whether the miners have accepted it or not, but they will be given an opportunity of either taking or rejecting it. Of course, there may be a middle course; there may be an amendment to the letter which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) read to-day. There is always compromise; and the great trouble not only with the people of Nova Scotia but with hon. gentlemen in this House is that there is not sufficient compromise. If there had been more compromise in Nova Scotia in the last six months on the part both of the men and of the company we should not have the trouble that exists there to-day.
With regard to the coal industry of Nova Scotia, I would point out that the telegram which the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg read to-day comes from Sydney Mines in which I think there are three operating collieries. And these are the people who are looking for relief from this government or from some quarter. But that is a very small proportion of the mining area in the island of Cape Breton. We have, operated by the British Empire Steel Corporation in the island of Cape Breton alone, 26 or 27 collieries, an'1 my hon. friend receives a despatch from the centre asking for relief where there are, I believe, only 3 collieries operating. The other 23 collieries are not mentioned in this despatch at all, and that is a very important point for the House to note. Coming to the other 23 or 24 collieries, I may say that they are all contained in the county of South Cape Breton which I have the honour to represent. I do not say that things are ideal in those 24 collieries; they have never been ideal, and I hope that they will improve in the future. But there is only one particular section of these 24 collieries which to-day actually needs relief, and that embraces No. 2 and No. 9. No. 2 is one of the largest collieries in the world, and it and No. 9 are on the same shaft, the one overlying the other. In that district during the last three months there have been only two or three days work per fortnight.
I had a telegram the other day which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) read to the House. It was from the Rev. A. M. Macleod and Dr. Sullivan, who were chairman and secretary respectively of a meeting held in Glace Bay to which my hon. friend

Miners and Steel Workers
from Centre Winnipeg has referred. Those people did not ask me to go to the government and seek monetary assistance. They did suggest that the Canadian National Railway management should be approached to give an order for bank coal so that the operators could go ahead and mine it, thus giving employment and helping them out of their difficult position, the railway to take delivery in the spring. They also suggested that I should see the railway management as to a rail order.
I knew that a rail order had been given three or four weeks ago-the order to which reference is made in yesterday's Montreal Star. That is the only source from which I have had complaints since I came to Ottawa this session. I know there is difficulty in the Sydney mines as mentioned in the telegram to my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth). The cause of that difficulty has been explained by my colleague from Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Kyte).
As requested, I went down to Montreal last Thursday and saw Mr. Wolvin, president of the British Empire Steel Corporation, and Mr. Vaughan, purchasing agent of the Canadian National Railways. It has been suggested to-night that the Canadian National Railways would not buy bank coal because it deteriorates. Let me say that the Canadian National has been buying and using bank coal for the last twenty-five years. There was, 1 believe, a little difficulty because last year the coal was not mixed with newly mined coal. It must be remembered that it is only in the summer months that we can ship our coal satisfactorily from Cape Breton; in the winter time the railway rates are prohibitive. Those two gentlemen were unable to take action because nobody knows where he is at, to use a colloquial expression. The British Empire Steel Corporation do not know what freight rates they will be charged on their coal. My hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) suggests that they were asking all the trade could bear. Is my hon. friend so charitably disposed that he would sell his grain to-day for $1.10 a bushel when the market price ranges from $2.00 to $2.05? I presume the British Empire Steel Corporation is in the same good company with my hon. friend in this regard: they get what the trade can bear, and so does he. The Canadian National cannot contract with the British Empire Steel Corporation because the trade is in such an unsettled state; the corporation do not know whether they will be forced to pay ten per cent more than the present rates, or whether they will be allowed by the commission to put into effect a ten per cent reduction. I am in hopes that there will be
no decrease in the miners' wages. I believe that if the miners get steady work they are practically satisfied to continue at their present wages. I repeat, I am in hopes, and those hopes I believe are well founded, that there will be no reduction in the miners' wages, especially in Cape Breton. Those are the only two mines out of twenty-six from which I have had any complaints. Of course, everything is not satisfactory. In the other mines they are only working three and four hours a day. But may I point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) that if he turns over the front page of the Sydney Post from which he read the horrible picture there painted, he will find on the next page a glowing picture from the town of New Waterford, where their four collieries have been working for the last month or more. There are always two sides to every question.
My hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) may talk about the spy syktem and so forth, but the trouble originated during the war. Previous to 1914 we never had any difficulty in selling all the coal we could mine in Nova Scotia; we had a splendid market in Montreal and Quebec. At that time the British Empire Steel Corporation-then the Dominion Steel and Iron Company-had a magnificent fleet of coal ships plying between Sydney and Montreal. Those ships, I venture to say, carried coal cheaper than any other transportation line in America. The company also owned well-equipped piers both in Sydney and in Montreal. Soon after the war started practically every one of those ships was commandeered by the British Admiralty, and as a result we lost the Montreal market, which was captured by the Americans. They hold a great part of it still, but we are gradually coming in again and I am hopeful that a few years hence the British Empire Steel Corporation and the other coal companies of Nova Scotia will have completely regained that market.
To show how much a very slight reduction of freight rates will benefit our coal trade, I may mention that through the action of the Minister of Mines (Mr. Stewart) a bonus of one-fifth of a cent per ton per mile was granted by the government last year on all coal from Nova Scotia mines destined for points west of Riviere du Loup. This enabled the British Empire Steel Corporation to ship 100,000 tons of coal to markets which they were never able to reach before. There is one of the difficulties which the coal trade of Nova Scotia has to contend with. We may talk about tariff and other things, but the cost of rail transportation is the great underlying
Miners and Steel Workers

difficulty confronting the coal trade of our province.
The steel industry has been at a low ebb throughout the world for the last year, but we have not been in such very bad condition in Sydney. Some portions of the city are in bad straits, of course, but the first of this year the British Empire Steel Corporation was able to capture a very large share of the Australia and New Zealand markets. When I left Sydney the first of this month a steamer was clearing from the port of Louisburg for Australia laden with products of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. I do not think the outlook is so very bad. I am hopeful that the proposition put forward by Premier Armstrong will be accepted both by the British Empire Steel Corporation and by the workers, and that they will be able to get to work on their summer contracts in April. If so, I feel that the whole trouble of the coal and steel industry in Nova Scotia will be at an end.
I am not going to argue, Mr. Speaker, whether we had harder times under the Conservative government than we are having under the Liberal government; I am not going to argue that the tariff would or would not be a cure for our troubles in Nova Scotia; but I do say-and I think it was pointed out by my hon. friend from Bow River-that the miners themselves think that the tariff is not going to help them, because when the delegation from that province went to the United Mine Workers and asked them to appoint delegates to go to Ottawa to interview the government in order to obtain an increase of tariff, those mine workers absolutely refused to do so.
The right hon. gentleman speaks about the tariff being the trouble with us. I do not think it is. The tariff on run of mine coal remained at 53 cents a ton from 1911 until 1917 and on slack coal at 14 cents a ton from 1911 until 1921. If my hon. friends on the other side, who were then in power, thought that an increase in the tariff would be beneficial to the coal trade in this country, why did they not put that policy into effect and give us a higher tariff? That is something I am unable to understand.


Arthur Meighen: I wish the hon. member had put the question to me when I was on my feet.


William F. Carroll: Well, I presume that when the right hon. gentleman brings down his budget he will explain to this House-


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member will read the memorial of his leader in Nova Scotia he will find the explanation wery complete.


William F. Carroll: Well, I know Mr. Armstrong very well and if he has done this it is the first time in his political history that I have known him to make apologies for the Conservative party. I read the memorial veiy carefully and I do not see where Mr. Armstrong gave any explanation on behalf of the Conservative government of why there was no increase in the duty upon coal from 1911 until 1921. If a duty on coal will benefit-


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, the memorial explains very fully that on account of the increased value of coal, a specific duty, while a sufficient duty in 1916, is an insufficient duty to-day. The memorial shows the rate of increase since 1916. In fact, that is the whole burden of the memorial.


William F. Carroll: Yes, but my right hon. friend must not forget that coal was never so costly in Nova Scotia as it was from 1915 to 1917'or 1918.


Arthur Meighen: Not according to the memorial.


William F. Carroll: I have not the memorial before me.


Arthur Meighen: I have.


William F. Carroll: I venture to say my right hon. friend will not make the statement on his own account-and if he does he will not be backed up by the memorial of the Premier of Nova Scotia-that coal did not cost more between 1915 and 1918 than at any other time in the history of this country.


Arthur Meighen: Just a minute; I will have that.


William F. Carroll: I have good reason to know it, Mr. Speaker. In 1915 coal prices to the householder in the city of Sydney and the town of Glace Bay went up some 85 per cent. In November, 1918, the price was cut one dollar. a ton, and it has remained there ever since. I think that is a fair index of the market value of coal in that particular part of the country.
As to the other phase of the remarks of my hon. friend this evening, that is, the relief he prays for, I have said to the House that I have had no requests from the coal miners of my part of Nova Scotia for any monetary relief from this government. They

Miners and Steel Workers
did ask me to do certain things, which I tried to do and failed, except, of course, with reference to the steel order. I do not think the miners of Nova Scotia want doles. They are being looked after fairly well in the city of Sydney-and the city of Sydney suffered more last year than any other part of Nova Scotia.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? I have the figures now, taken direct from the memorial. The memorial states that 6,949,540 tons imported in 1916 were of the value of $7,908,125 and that in 1924-


William F. Carroll: What year was that?


Arthur Meighen: That dvas 1916, right between the two years the hon. gentleman named, 1915 and 1917. In 1924, according to the memorial, 11,544,184 tons were imported at a value of $34,341,956.


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend must be mistaken, because we did not mine 11,000,000 tons of coal.


Arthur Meighen: No, these are importations.


William F. Carroll: Oh, well-


Arthur Meighen: If the coal imported was more valuable in 1924 than in 1916 I would think the local coal would be the same.


William F. Carroll: The strange thing is that it was not the same. I can understand very well the argument of the gentleman who prepared or who presented the memorial. That is in regard to United States coal, but they are producing coal very much cheaper down there than we are. They can get it into the Montreal market-and they got it there last year, notwithstanding what has been said in this House; the same grade of American coal came into Montreal la6t year from the United States at a price from 14 to 18 cents lower than that of the Sydney coal, notwithstanding the cheaper transportation from Sydney.


Arthur Meighen: At far higher prices than in 1916.


William F. Carroll: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes, twice as high- three times.


William F. Carroll: My right hon. friend did not catch the weight of my argument. He is trying with his usual cleverness to get away from what I said.


Arthur Meighen: I caught it exactly.


William F. Carroll: The point I was making
-and I will return to it-is this: it is a marvel to me as well as to friends of the right hon. gentleman in Nova Scotia that there should be so much talk about tariff to-day when the same tariff exists in relation to Nova Scotia coal that existed from 1911 to 1921. My hon. friends made no move when they were in power to increase the duty on coal. Why? Because a howl would go up from every manufacturer in Ontario and Quebec if they dared to lay unholy hands on coal and place a little higher duty upon it.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Even if they were in
power now they would not do it.


William F. Carroll: I do not believe they
would. There is only one way to judge a party, just as there is only one way to judge a man

you must judge his future by his past. If on this question of coal we judge the future of the Conservative party in this country on their past record, then I say the duty on coal will .never be increased by them.


Mr. LADNER:: Should it be increased?


William F. Carroll: What does my hon. friend think?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I am asking him the question.


William F. Carroll: What does my hon. friend think? I am an Irishman.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If you are Irish you should have more courage.


William F. Carroll: I never lacked courage
when it was necessary. With regard to some of my hon. friends who seem to think that no good has come out of conciliation boards or out of royal commissions as regards the coal trade, may I say that there has never been a royal commission or a conciliation board dealing with the question of coal in Nova Scotia that did not give the miners of that province an increase? I think under the premiership of the present leader of the opposition a royal commission was sent down to Nova Scotia in the summer of 1917 or 1918, and I remember that Rev. Clarence McKinnon was one of the members of that commission. As a matter of fact it may have been later than that; it may have been in 1919 or 1920. They went down there to investigate the coal industry in Nova Scotia, and without getting the two parties together, without going into the question at all they got the operators to agree to give the men a ten per cent increase. The same result has followed from two or three different concilia-

Miners and Steel Workers

tion boards. I am not going into the question of who should appoint a royal commission to investigate coal conditions in the province of Nova Scotia or any other province, but had Premier Armstrong refused or neglected to appoint a royal commission in this instance, I was prepared to move the adjournment of the House here on some occasion in order to ask this government to appoint a commission of inquiry. But Premier Armstrong has appointed a commission, and there is therefore no necessity for this government to jump in at the present time.
A royal commission was asked for in 1921, I think, and a delegation came up here. At that time I said I was opposed to this government appointing a royal commission until they had found out whether anything could be done und'er the conciliation act. A great deal has been said in the debates this session as to the action of the Privy Council in declaring ultra vires of this parliament the so-called Lemieux Act. May I point out that on the statute books of Nova Scotia there has been since 1890 one of the best arbitration and conciliation acts for the settlement of disputes between employers and employees that exists on the statute books of this country. It is contained in chapter 21 of the old revised statutes of Nova Scotia, 1900. There may be some phases of that arbitration act which do not suit present day conditions, because it has not been brought up to date; but in every instance where trouble has occurred between employer and employee in Nova Scotia we have fallen back on the conciliation act of the federal government. The coal industry in Nova Scotia is not disturbed by the fact that the Privy Council has a'eclared that act ultra vires of this parliament. It is unfortunate that that has happened, but we are not badly off in that respect in Nova Scotia. So far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, in order to show you that they intended to look after their poor and distressed, the Assembly of the province twenty-five years ago delegated to the municipalities power to look after their poor and' distressed. I do not pretend to know what the conditions are in other provinces, but obviously twenty-five years ago Nova Scotia intended the municipalities to look after the poor and distressed in that province. I do not say that the time may not come-the time has been in this country -when this government should alleviate the suffering of the poor in any province. There may come a time when that will be necessary; it may be now; it may be that before this parliament rises dire necessity may exist in 
some part of this country which this government should relieve. But I do not think that time has come. There is a board of trad'e in my part of the country, in South Cape Breton, which has asked this government for relief, and those are the only terms upon which I would support this government giving monetary relief to any part of this country, when and only when the parties who are responsible for the relief of the poor should come to this government and ask for help. But not one city board in my county has asked for help. They are doing What they can, and our business men are also contributing to the relief of the poor and unemployed. I do not know just how they are getting along, but I do know that up to the present time not one of our city boards has asked this government to come to their assistance in that regard.
I have taken a little more time than I intended. As a matter of fact, I aid not intend to say anything on this subject at all.
In conclusion, I would say that
10	p.m. there is only one way in which the coal industry can become substantially successful in the province of Nova Scotia or anywhere else, and that is when you have harmony between the operators and the men. A great deal of the propaganda which has been read here to-day-I am not allud'ing to my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth)-does not tend to bring about that harmony which should exist between employer and employee in the coal trade as well as in any other. I believe in the importance of that factor, and I have not in my political life ever done anything to injure that harmony in any way. So long as I am in public life I am not going to criticise the British Empire Steel Corporation, just for the sake of criticism, and I am not going to criticise the men who work for that company, just for the sake of criticism. That does no good'; it simply widens the breach. The man who does good is the one who tells both sides simply and frankly: You have a function to perform, and you also have a function to perform. I would tell the British Empire Steel Corporation:	You must pay the
people in your employ not only a living wage, but a wage on which (they may have some table of comfort above the mere standard of (living. I would say to the men: Having received that wage you should do everything possible to make the works which your employers have undertaken successful, not only from a business standpoint but from a national standpoint, for the coal industry in this country is a national asset and we should so look upon if. I am hopeful that notwithstanding the foreboding outlook of some of

Miners and Steel Workers
those who have spoken on this question to-dlay, the British Empire Steel Corporation and its employees will geit together and that we shall have within a few months a repetition of some of the good times we have had down there. Hon. gentlemen talk about twenty years of stress and strife in Nova Scotia. Why,
I can go to Montreal and show you where there have been forty years of strife right in that. city.


Mr. MARLER:: Whereabouts?


William F. Carroll: I am not speaking of Montreal particularly, but the same is true of any industrial centre, Toronto, Winnipeg or any other city. Labour troubles are as old as any city. My hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) spoke to-night with an overabundance of hope of the good that may come out of this inquiry, but let me tell him when he talks of twenty years of stress and strife in Nova Scotia that, we have had no more stress and strife between employer and' employee in that .province than there has been in any other part of Canada. I could 'point to the constituency of my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland). What has been going on out there in the last few years? Has there been contentment, has there been happiness, has there been harmony between employer and employee in that part of the country? It seems to me .that a great many who have Spoken on this subject to-night are trying to focus attention on the troubles between the British Empire Steel Corporation and their employees in order to keep clear of their own troubles. Has all been contentment in the constituency of Brant? Have there never been strikes there? If there have not, it is a poor place to live in, because the people are not progressive.


William Charles Good: In referring to the twenty years, I was merely quoting the statement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). I might ask the hon. member how he can expect this harmony which we all desire if the facts that I stated exist, and continue to exist?


William F. Carroll: Will my hon. friend
vouch for all the statements he has made here to-night? Will he vouch, for instance, for the statement, made in the telegram that he read from Sydney Mines that there was much distress and suffering in all industrial centres at Cape Breton and that it had existed all summer?


William Charles Good: I can only say I have great
confidence in the man who sent the telegram to me.


William F. Carroll: I have better confidence
in myself, because I know conditions there.
I have lived there for forty-four or forty-five years, and I expect to live there another forty years anyhow. I say again I hope- and I use the word "hope" very often- I am in great hopes that the difficulties are going to be overcome for a time in any event in the coal and steel industry, so far as those industries are concerned. Give us one year such as the years between 1904 and 1909, just one year with such employment as we enjoyed then, and we will be the happiest and the most contented people in the whole Dominion of Canada.


William Irvine: In rising to make a few remarks I can scarcely hope to add any new information on the subject under discussion; nor is it my intention to attempt to criticise to any extent such policies as may have been advanced as a remedial measure for the situation which is reported' to exist in the Nova Scotia mining and steel industrial centres. I rise rather to see whether I cannot bring the matter to some practical head, to see whether, after all the threshing of straw that has continued throughout the day, there may not have been a little golden grain somewhere for those hungry people in Nova Scotia. I have heard it said that while Rome was burning Nero fiddled, and it is just possible that while we have wrangled here in parliament in political gymnastics and spent the whole day discussing constitutional trivialities, there are some children in Nova Scotia starving. So that if there is going to be any point to our discussion, if we are at all justified in occupying the attention of the House for the last six hours, I surely am now justified in making a plea that the government of the day, having recognized the facts in the case before us, will proceed to give some immediate relief to a situation which is stated in the motion as being urgent-something that has to be dealt with immediately. In making my plea for this relief I want first of all to enumerate, the salient facts of the case; I want to recall the attitude of the government as expressed on the issue, to point out the policy that has been advanced by others and repudiated by the government, and to ask if the government is prepared to take some practical action that will relieve the situation.
The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) presented the case for the Nova Scotia miners. He has been complimented on his presentation from all parts of the House, so that I gather from that circumstance that he was fair and did not ex-

Miners and Steel Workers
aggerate the facts. Now the facts which I wish to enumerate at the moment, and which are relevant to the plea which I wish to make are that there are distressful conditions existing in Nova Scotia at the present time. These conditions are of long standing but at present have reached unprecedented intensity. These alarming economic conditions which are said to be chronic by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Kyte), and which are admitted to be very serious at the moment, have been brought about partly by industrial disputes between the men and the company, and partly by very undesirable economic conditions which are not confined to Nova Scotia, but which are widespread throughout the Dominion of Canada, but which seem to have reached a more alarming proportion in that province than in some other provinces.
In connection with this condition an appeal has been brought before this House asking for relief. That appeal was inspired by a message sent by the relief committee of Nova Scotia to the effect that there were a great many people there who were suffering from great distress and were in danger of starvation. We were told by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) of some of the conditions that existed there, and I must say that while some of the conditions which he portrayed seemed to me to be almost unbelievable, still I must recall the fact that the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) acknowledged that there had been no exaggeration and that the case had been stated very fairly. We hear from the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg that a great number of people were living on meals which cost about four cents each. We hear that some children had no clothing except old flour bags. We hear that some of the children did not perhaps have very good flour bags, and some of them were very hungry; so much so that people had been known to gather mushrooms in the field in order to keep them from starvation. I hope hon. members from Nova Scotia will not think for one moment that I am trying to throw a slur at that province when I mention these facts. I venture to say that to some extent these conditions can be found all over Canada. I think the Minister of Labour possibly has in his possession at the moment a message by the mayor of my own city informing him of the conditions in our city in regard to unemployment and also informing him of the suffering of men and women brought into Calgary this year as a result of the immigration policy of the government. This shows it is not only Nova Scotia alone
fMr. Irvine.]
that is suffering, but it happens at the moment that the conditions are more acute there than anywhere else.
These are the conditions and the question is what can this parliament do. We have not helped the miners of Nova Scotia, nor have we helped the people of that province, nor have we improved the business conditions of the company by the discussion which has taken place to-day. The only way we could expect to improve conditions down there would be by giving some relief to the people actually suffering. What then can we do about that? I turn to see what is the attitude of the government, and in order to find the attitude of the government I must refer to the utterances of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The Minister of Labour as already pointed out acknowledged the facts as stated by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). He expressed his sympathy for the suffering people and he also added his regrets that such a condition existed. But while he was sympathetic, as I am sure we all are, and while he regretted the situation, as I am sure we all do, he confessed the impotence of the government to do anything in the matter. According to him it was not possible for parliament to take any action in this case. I am very glad Mr. Speaker for one thing at least in this discussion, that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has, I hope, forever tom the covering of the British North America Act from the shoulders of the government and exposed the nakedness of their policy to the Dominion of Canada. With regard to labour policies and labour difficulties, ever since I have been in this House, the minister has rolled himself up in the British North America Act. I am glad, I say, to hear that this issue has been completely and finally separated from the British North America Act, at least as regards the plea for relief which I want to make now to this government on behalf of the starving people of Nova Scotia. We are asking for a sympathetic consideration which, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has pointed out, has been granted by this parliament in many instances prior to this. We are told that ninety millions of the people's money, that is ninety million dollars from the pockets of the Canadian people, have been donated to the company that is at the present time largely responsible for the starvation conditions in Nova Scotia. I wish that some British North America Act had stood in the way of those donations.

Miners and Steel Workers


James Murdock: To permit the use of
the word "donate" would be rather improper. I did not say "donate." Ninety million dollars of the people's money have been expended in bonuses or for the products of the company.


William Irvine: In using the word "donate," I was using it entirely on my own account and was not putting it into the mouth of the Minister of Labour. But you may modify the word, if you wish; you may call it "expenditure" if that sounds better. We have expended ninety million dollars of public money on this company, and I say there was no British North America Act then to stand in the way of that-. If I mistake not, both historic parties have to accept responsibility for that expenditure. Whether that expenditure was justified or not, I am not now discussing; but if the Canadian government has, without hesitation, spent ninety million dollars of the people's money in building up a company, surely we can make a small donation to save from starvation some children that are suffering at the hands of that very company which we have so handsomely bonus ed.
I must express surprise that the Minister of Labour should have deplored the fact that labour men, not only in Nova Scotia, but throughout this country, are so ready to make their appeals to the government for aid. I would warn him that if they receive no better reception than they are likely to receive today, it may be that they will get tired of having hopes in the government and may cease to bring any appeals whatsover to it. Where should they come for relief, but to this government? Has this government not power over the financial institutions of this country which are more than anything else responsible for the conditions which w7e are now discussing? Has this government not full charge of the immigration policy of this country and does it not persist in still bringing in people when it has no work for the people that are here? Has this government not full control over the whole fiscal policy of this country which has an immediate effect on employment and working conditions of the people of Canada? Then, shall the labour men who may be the victims of any one of these policies of the government, not make their appeal to this government? Where else would the Minister of Labour have them go? Would he suggest that they lose all hope in this government of interfering in their interests and take direct or industrial or some other kind of action? If the Minister of Labour
is not prepared to listen to their plea, it seems to me there is no other action for them to take than some such action as he would characterize as unconstitutional. It must not be forgotten that even this government found no act to stand in its way when it wanted to find some steps that would lead to the sending of troops to fight labour men when they made their appeals. I hope that the situation which we are discussing now will not be permitted by the present administration to go on until it is necessary to spend more money in sending troops to quell disturbances than it would to keep these people from starving at the present time.


James Murdock: I know my hon. friend
does not want to be unfair, and he will, therefore, admit that troops, whenever sent, were requisitioned in accordance with the law.


William Irvine: I am not toung to place
any blame on the present government in the sense that they did something that was illegal. I simply said that they did not try to look for any British North America Act to stand between them and that kind of action, but they are looking for a British North America Act to stand between them and the taking of relief measures in regard to the miners of Nova Scotia. That, I think, is a fair criticism from the facts.
The Prime Minister, speaking also for the government, brought forward a document which came over the Associated Press wires, I believe, purporting to be a proposal advanced by the Premier of Nova Scotia. On the grounds of that the Prime Minister expressed the opinion that the discussion might very well be dropped in this parliament. I do not know whether it would be in order to discuss that proposal, for it may well be that a discussion of it here might stand in the way of the use that it might otherwise be. I will, therefore, say very little about it beyond remarking that it is too remote to be of immediate assistance in a situation that is termed as urgent; there was not anything in the document read by the Prime Minister which I did not read in the proposal which came to me this morning in the shape of the Besco Bulletin which was the actual proposal of the company itself; and further there was in that document a clause which I do not think any group of organized labour anywhere could possibly accept, so with these observations with regard to that, I cannot see how this parliament, after having discussed this question for a day, can presume to drop it on
Miners and Steel Workers

the grounds that the document presented holds a solution for the problem of the people of Nova Scotia that are represented as in a condition of starvation.


Mr. PUTNAM:: What clause does the
hon. member refer to as necessarily unacceptable?


William Irvine: The clause which makes
binding upon the labour men to accept the wage scale which might be decided upon by a committee that has not yet been appointed.


Harold Putnam: That is, if they freely
choose to go into it.


William Irvine: Certainly, but I am pointing out that they are not likely to go into it. If, however, they do, it is not an immediate thing. The Prime Minister also was very careful to throw from his shoulders the responsibility in this matter of granting relief and pointed out to us that local governments must be responsible for unemployment and all suffering that arises therefrom. Let me add in that connection that it is just possible that unemployment and suffering which result from the policy of the present administration may, some day, become such a burden on local governments that they may not only not be able to carry it, but rebel against it, and consequently the solicitous care expressed by the Prime Minister to protect the British North America Act may become the means of its final overthrow.
I do not think that we can possibly hope to get anywhere by trying to throw the responsibility on the shoulders of somebody else. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) brought forward his policy; and let me emphasize the fact that it was a policy. It is not my business to criticise it at the moment, although some hon. members have felt it their duty to do so. But at any rate the right hon. gentleman did have a policy which in his opinion would have some effect on the situation. But the government so far has advanced no policy at alL It is true that the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) took the leader of the opposition to task and refuted his arguments in the orthodox free trade manner. And he did it well. If he meant to contribute anything to the discussion, he meant inferentially that the cure for the Nova Scotia difficulty lies, not by any means in the raising of the tariff but rather in a lowering of it. But I notice that he did not speak for the government in that regard, for the government made no response to indicate their willingness to lower the tariff to meet the demands of the hon. member for Brome. So far as advancing a policy is con-

cemed, however, to meet the immediate situation or to meet any situation in a more remote period, the government if it has a policy has been quite silent on the matter. True, the hon. member for Brome emphasized the point that watered stock, which seems to have increased in great volume in the case of Besco, has a definite connection with the present situation there. But I should like to refer that problem back to the hon. member for Brome and I would ask him to use his influence as a good Liberal with the provincial government in Nova Scotia, which is also Liberal, in an endeavour to induce them to bring in legislation as speedily as they can to make it impossible for watered stock to remain in the stock of any company. That would, perhaps, be a step in the direction of a partial remedy.
Now, there are two things to be done. The first is immediate relief in the way of a donation, or a subsidy or an expenditure, or whatever the Minister of Labour chooses to call it. At any rate, some form of concrete assistance can be given to the people that are suffering. I believe that the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Kyte) prophesied that by the middle of March, I think he said the 16th, the whole trouble in Nova Scotia would be overcome for good, and all, although he did tell us in his introductory remarks that the situation was of very long standing and had almost become chronic. Well, if he is so sure in his prophecy, which he makes on the strength of an announcement in a newspaper that he would not have quoted a year ago with any degree of authority, that by March 16 there will be no trouble nor hunger any longer in Nova Scotia, then I want to ask the government, on the strength of that prophecy, added to somewhat by the optimistic expressions of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, whether they will not guarantee that no child shall die of starvation in Nova Scotia nor suffer from cold between now and that date, when the panacea which the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond advances will be put into operation. That is surely a very reasonable demand, and there is not a voter in Canada who would object to anything of the kind; nor is there any British North America Act which would be broken if the government took such an attitude. I have already mentioned the fact that the government of Canada, having made such enormous donations in times past to this company could not very well hesitate to make an expenditure now on these people Who are the victims of that company in need.

Miners and Steel Workers
It may be said that if the government made advances in relief of the miners of Nova Scotia they would be asked to do the same for people in other provinces. Very well. If that is so the government will have to meet the situation; they will have to reap the fruits of their lack of policy with regard to the industrial conditions of Canada When all is said and done, the fact is that the economic conditions in this country account for such a situation as this, and to the lack of policy of this government in meeting those economic conditions must be attributed the present state of affairs. There is no amount of argument, no amount of prophecy, no length of debating,, that can brush aside that point. What is required in Nova Scotia is *what we need in Alberta and in British Columbia and in all the other provinces as well: it is purchasing power. That is what we are asking for, and the government has lost its control over purchasing power by its own action; it has placed the control of purchasing power in the hands of financiers. So that the government must now reap the fruits of its policy. They are bitter and numerous, and they are to be found throughout the whole country; and merely to rise and say that there were hungry people in Nova Scotia in 1908 or in some other year does not get away from the situation. Even if I could take the prophecy of my hon. friend with any degree of confidence, would he be prepared to guarantee that no person will suffer from hunger or from cold from now until March 16? Would that hon. gentleman be willing to live on four-cent meals from now until that time, or without any meals at all? Here, frankly, is a situation from which, it seems to me, we have so far vied with one another in our endeavour to etep aside. I have noticed a tendency on both sides of the House to try to get away from responsibility and to try to blame somebody else for industrial conditions in Nova Scotia. I do not care who is going to evade the blame, but I certainly am anxious that something definite shall be done at the- present time. I therefore conclude my remarks by urging the Prime Minister to give some assurance to this parliament before this matter is finally dealt with, and some assurance to the distressed people of Nova Scotia, that this government will see to it that no one shall actually starve in that province between now and the time when this document, which it is said contains the solution of the difficulty, shall have demonstrated to Canada whether or not it can meet the situation.


Mr. F. L. KELLY (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I had determined not to take part in this debate, but in view of the telegram read by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth), as representing the constituency of North Cape Breton I think it is only right that I should add a word or two to the discussion. The telegram is rather a surprise to me, because when I left home about ten days ago there were no such conditions obtaining as we have had described to-night. In fact the collieries in that section during the three months preceding my departure had been busier than for any winter during the last six or seven years. I know there are hardships, especially in the coal district of Sj'dney Mines. Unfortunately last year it became the painful duty of the British Empire Steel Corporation to close one of their collieries in that district because it could be no longer worked at a .profit on account of economic conditions then prevailing. Consequently eight or nine hundred men became idle and had to be absorbed by the other two collieries still operating in the locality. When I left the district early in February one colliery was working a little over half time, and the other colliery was working only one day a week. At one colliery there was a loading machine for loading the coal into box cars for transportation to winter customers, but the absence of such a machine at the other colliery virtually closed it down.
I would only too gladly welcome the sending of relief to Cape Breton if the government could consistently see the way to do so. In fact conditions all over the colliery area, as I pointed out a year ago in my maiden speech, are chaotic, and at that time I suggested ways and means by which conditions could be bettered. At that time it was understood that a coking scheme was to be put into operation that would give us a better market for our Cape Breton coal. The rate subvention on our .coal west of Montreal helped us to extend our market. We asked for other assistance to improve the Cape Breton and Nova Scotia coal industry, but as yet this further assistance has not been granted to us. The difference between prosperity and the lack of it in the coal industry is dependent on the extra market for a million tons of coal. When such a market is secured the company will be able to operate their mines at nearly full time, thus giving the men steady work and full pay, and this will materially help to settle the present unrest.
Miners and Steel Workers

I was surprised when I heard the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) cast doubt upon the outcome of the proposal made by the Premier of Nova Scotia to settle the differences between the employees and the operators. I think it ill became the hon. member to make such a gloomy forecast. There has been too much of this gospel preached in the coal fields of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, and it is largely responsible for the evil conditions existing there to-day. Labour, when unagitated, has no wish to be tearing down its employers. I give the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg credit for his very fair presentment of the men's case. There are a thousand contributing causes that make it hard for the operator to successfully mine coal in Nova Scotia, and particularly in the Cape Breton district. These mines, as has been already stated, have been operated for a long time, and now extend to a great distance under the sea, which makes it very costly to bring the coal to the surface. Having to win the coal against the grain, it all falls away from the miner, and worse than all, for every ton of coal taken out they must also take out six tons of water.
I should be delighted if the House could devise some way of helping coal production in Cape Breton. One method, it seems to me, would be to extend the rate subvention over a period of five years, so the company will have a solid basis upon which to formulate their plans for securing wider markets for their coal. And when the government puts the coking scheme into effect, this will still further assist us. We have suggested having the duty on slack coal levelled up with that on round coal. It is apparent to everybody that round coal is being brought in from the United States and mixed with slack coal to the great detriment of our coal industry. Some reasonable means can surely be devised to put an end to this circumvention of the spirit of our tariff law.
If hon. members knew the conditions at Sydney Mines from the company's standpoint, they would not be surprised at the mines being idle at this time of the year. This is simply because we have no way of getting our coal out in the winter time to supply the central Canada market, for the freight rate from Sydney to Montreal is $3.60 a ton, against 50 cents a ton in the summer time. Consequently as soon as winter comes on the operators must of necessity curtail their operations. At the present time there are 25,750 tons of coal on bank from last year at Sydney Mines. This coal deteriorates very quickly when it is thus exposed to the weather. Every ton of coal which the British Empire 
Steel Corporation places on bank in the winter means a dead loss of from seventy-five cents to a dollar, besides the deterioration of the coal itself. Nobody wants bank coal. When the controversy began a year ago between the men and the operators, the operators asked the men to take a wage reduction during the winter on coal that had to be banked. Disinterested people thought this a very reasonable proposition, but it unfortunately did not appeal sufficiently to the spokesmen of the miners. The operators came to the conclusion that under these conditions they had not much encouragement to bank coal and lose 75 cents a ton on it. I am telling this only because some members may not know what is going on in connection with coal mining in Cape Breton, and in view also of the exaggerated remarks which have been made in the House to-night about the prices charged for coal by the British Empire Steel Corporation in Halifax and some other places. The British Empire Steel Corporation have no control of the price of coal in Halifax. They sell their coal at the wharf at Sydney harbour for $6 a ton and anybody who wants to import coal and deal in it commercially can buy it at Sydney at that price and send it to Halifax either by steamer or by sailing vessel at a rate of from 75 cents to II a ton. Any excess profit on that coal at Halifax is made not by the British Empire Steel Corporation but by the middlemen who keep the price of coal up. It is not right that anyone should be deceived by statements made in this House which are not true. I would not have taken any part in the debate-the subject has already been covered from every angle-had I not heard the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) making a forecast of what was going to happen in respect of the well-intentioned proposal of Premier Armstrong. It was really a species of inciting the reasonable miners not to meet the operators and have a conference and endeavour to have the difficulty settled as it should be settled in an amicable spirit on both sides of a long-standing difficulty.
Motion (Mr. Woodsworth) withdrawn.



TREATY RATIFICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion being called for the approval of a certain treaty between the Dominion of Canada and the United States- Hon. Mr. Copp:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like this motion

Supply-Customs
and the following one to stand until the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) returns. However, this might be a convenient moment to intimate to the House that two additional treaties were signed to-day at Washington by the Minister of Justice on behalf of Canada and by Secretary of State Hughes on behalf of the United States. The first is to define more accurately at certain points and to complete the international boundary between the United States and Canada. The second regulates the level of the lake of the Woods in order to secure to both countries the most advantageous use of the waters therein and of the' waters flowing into and from the Lake on each side of the boundary. This last treaty is based on the recommendations made by the International Joint Commission on the reference concerning the lake of the Woods submitted to it by both governments. The treaties will be tabled as soon as the Minister of Justice returns.



RURAL CREDITS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Have any plans been formulated for the further consideration of Dr. Tory's report on rural credits?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):: No. I am awaiting some further correspondence from Dr. Tory.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the government care to give any information as to when the report is expected?


James Alexander Robb: No, I could not give my hon. friend that information to-night. I will look into the files to-morrow morning and will try to let him know something about it to-morrow.



PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
would like to ask the Prime Minister if he has any report from the conference between the heads of the two railway companies in Canada with regard to the building of the proposed railway into the Peace River?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): I may say that I have information which leads me to believe that some communication will come to me in a very few days concerning that matter.

Hon. .J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of Supply.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is almost
eleven o'clock. What does my right hon. friend intend to do?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We would like to make a little headway. It was announced last night that we would go on with the estimates of the Department of Customs this evening, and I think we might devote a short time to them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Have the estimates of the Customs department been already before the committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, and that is one of the reasons we are anxious to go on to-night. If we do not take them up tonight we shall not be able to go on with them this week.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.



CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

[Stage Direction]
Civil government-Customs and Excise, salaries, $585,755; contingencies, $48,000.
Hon. JACQUES BUREAU:: (Minister of Customs and Excise): The estimates are the same as last year except that on account of the increase of the work and the various taxes that we have to collect we have found it necessary to add a junior departmental solicitor. That is the only change.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does this cover the cost of the income tax department?


Jacques Bureau: No, the fusion has not yet been completed. It is engaging the attention of the department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suggest to the minister that there should not be a fusion of the costs of the collection of faxes which are entirely different in their character. It is necessary for the House to know what the costs of the collection of indirect taxes are on the one hand and of direct taxes on the other. I am not now discussing the question of the minister using in any way he proposes the staffs of either department, but if we are to know where we are, if we are to know whether a tax conforms to the general principle which should govern all taxation, namely, that the cost of collection should not exceed the amount of revenue from the tax, then there should be a separation of the costs of collection. I do not want to detain the minister, but I would like him to give his view- affirmatively, I hope-on that point.


Jacques Bureau: The only thing I can give my hon. friend now is the percentage of the cost of collection of the revenue so far as customs and excise are concerned. I do not
Supply-Customs

think we have made any distinction as between excise and customs. They come under the same head; the same officers perform duties in both branches of the department. For 1923-1924 the revenue for customs and excise was $298,721,419.55, and the expenditure $7,435,931.59, or a percentage of 2.49. As to the income tax, I cannot say. As I have told my hon. friend, we are trying to bring these tax collecting branches under the one head, and although there has been no change made so far, it is contemplated that when the changes are made an economy will beeffected. For instance, if we can get all the income tax officers in the same building with the customs and excise officers, rent will be saved and the overhead be less. The plan-I will not call it a fusion-of bringing together all the collecting branches of the department so far as that is possible has not been completed yet, but is still under consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not want to unduly press my hon. friend. I am going to ask him, however to remember one fact when he is considering the bringing together of the different branches under one roof and saving overhead. That, of course, is a very good thing. But it would be a very wrong thing, and something which would work against the efficiency of his own department, if there was no check kept at all of the expenses of operating the different branches. I forget now what was the exact cost of collection of the income tax, my hon. friend will know that better than I do, but my impression is that it cost a trifle under 2 per cent to collect the tax. We were not then in as expensive a building as the department is in now, and it may be costing a little more today. I think my hon. friend will agree with me, when he comes to do it, that if there is one thing that ought to be done it is to let the country know what the cost of these services is. The country cannot know that if the cost of collection of customs and of excise, indirect taxes, is mixed up with the collection of the income tax, which is peculiarly a direct tax. I think my hon. friend has the point all right, and I am going to ask him to bear it in mind.


Jacques Bureau: I cannot give the cost of collection of the income tax, because I have not the figures. It is very difficult to separate the cost of collection of customs from excise because the same officers are performing the two duties; that was the object of the fusion. The total cost of collection of customs and excise for 1923-1924 was 2.49 per cent. I

understand that my hon. friend wants us to keep the income tax separate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The cost of
collection, that is all.


Jacques Bureau: That is a matter I suppose that will be discussed when we come to reorganize.


Mr. STEVENS:: There is apparently an
error here. The resolution on page 8 reads exactly the same as last year, but the details on pages 73 and 74 show an increase of about $12,000. It is either a misprint, or one or the other is wrong.


Jacques Bureau: The amount is exactly the same as last year, but on account of men having been let out at their maximum salary and ne.w men coming in at a lower salary, a saving has been effected of $11,425.


Arthur Meighen: Are there any cases here of the same man getting two remunerations, perhaps under a different name? That is the usual way it is done.


Jacques Bureau: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
if this is the time the minister would like to do this or not, but in connection with all the civil government votes, while on the one hand we know what it costs to run the
11	p.m. different departments, that information is really not correct unless we know the amount of superannuation that is also being paid on account of retirements under the act of last year. In other words, it would be quite easy for example to retire twenty or thirty or forty employees, at a great cost to the state, while making an apparent saving in the cost of running the department, through taking on others at lower salaries. We are really not in a position to know how we stand unless we know what the retirements are and the charges on the superannuation fund.


Jacques Bureau: Of course, the amounts
paid for superannuation and retiring allowances do not come under our department, but under the Department of Finance. Those pensions are paid by virtue of the statute.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I fully agree.


Jacques Bureau: The department recommends the retirements, but no books are kept for that purpose.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend does not quite get my point. I am not saying for one minute that it is a charge against his department, but these retirements are a charge

Supply-Customs
against the taxpayer; the taxpayer has to pay the cost. Superannuation is granted on the recommendation of the accredited minister of the department from which the employee is retired, and every department had, and I think to-day 'has a list of every retirement that it recommends. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I do not want to bother my hon. friend about that now, but I think we ought to have that information in connection with all of these votes. I think the members of the government without any trouble will agree that that information could be given.


Jacques Bureau: I understand my hon.
friend wants a list of all these superannuated or retired under the Calder Act during the fiscal year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: With the amount of salary in each case.


Jacques Bureau: I will bring that down.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already been trying to get that very information, but I was told by the Civil Service Commission, I think, that some of the departments had not turned in a report to them. I think the government ought to give a complete list to the House of all these retirements and superannuations from all departments during the year, and it would be far better if the whole list were tabled at one time than to worry each minister for a statement.


George Perry Graham: There should not be any trouble getting the information from the Civil Service Commission. The commission recommends all these retirements, and they must have a list of every one of them themselves.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They have not.


George Perry Graham: That is peculiar, because the minister recommends a superannuation, and it then goes to the commission, from them to the Treasury board, and from them to council. It is no trouble to get the last, but I am surprised the commission would not have it.


Arthur Meighen: I notice the addition of another solicitor. I know a demand wias made not very long ago to get rid of all these law branches in the different departments, and have all their legal work attended to by the Justice department. Apparently the minister is proceeding in the opposite direction. He is adding to the legal staff. It would look to me a retrograde step.


Jacques Bureau: I do not shore any hon. friend's opinion. Here is a department which
stands by itself, so far as legal work is concerned. We have all sorts of legal cases cropping up in connection with the seizure of stills, automobiles and smuggled goods. We have more legal work to dio than any department outside of the Justice department, and these legal details have to be dealt with in the department before the case is handed over to the Justice department. We have always had one departmental solicitor and one junior departmental solicitor. Until the work began to be as heavy as it is now, we thought we could do without further assistance, but on account of the increase in the work we found it was a great handicap.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid the hon.
minister does not make many seizures. The door is wide open apparently.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman's understanding is not absolutely correct. There is smuggling going on. I do not believe that any human being could stop it. You can decrease it and do the best you can. We have made lots of seizures-more than ever before.


Arthur Meighen: Of liquor?


Jacques Bureau: Liquor and cigarettesseizures of smuggled goods and of illicit distilleries and all these things which are carried on in violation of the Inland Revenue Act. Wherever we have been able to find these things we have made a seizure.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Just in line with the
suggestion made by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) as to a list of those superannuated from this department during the year, I would like also if the minister would supply us with a list of those, if there are any, who have been superannuated and re-employed after being superannuated. I see in the last Auditor General's report a statement made that persons employed in some of the departments have been re-employed after they have been superannuated. I do not think it is a sound practice, if it is being done. The Auditor General's report would indicate it has been done in some cases. I would like to know if it has been done in this department, and I will inquire as to other departments when they come up.


Jacques Bureau: I have been informed that there have been no cases of this kind in the Department of Customs and Excise.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Marine and Fisheries-salaries, $484,720.
Arthur Meighen: This proceeding is not
justified. The idea of the rule which provides

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
that the estimates of any department must be opened first on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday is to give any member of the House an opportunity of moving a general amendment in criticism of the item, or in reference in some way to that department. Now if the practice which was adopted the other night is to be followed again, of a minister coming in and putting through one item, retiring from the scene, and another minister coming on and putting through another item, of course there is no opportunity for amendment or criticism and the purpose of the rule is gone. What I mean is this; on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday the committee should rise before any minister goes on with his estimates, so that this opportunity of amendment can be given. In a word, if a minister enters upon his estimates, he ought to proceed with them, and the committee should not go from one department to another, thus depriving members of an opportunity of moving an amendment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think the Prime Minister wants this item called at all. I asked him the idea of going into committee, and unless my ears failed me he told me it was to open the estimates of the Minister of Customs and Excise; because if he did not introduce them to-night he could not go into them later on in the week. Therefore I waived all. objections.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is quite true, I mentioned that we wished to open the estimates of the Minister of Customs and Excise to-night. What I would like to draw the attention of the House to is that last night it was stated that we would endeavour to take up some estimates both of the Department of Customs and of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I agree with what the right hon. leader of the opposition states about going from one department to another, if the work of tihe session is at all advanced. I think my hon. friend will understand that unless we take up certain departments Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, it limits us, because we cannot discuss any estimates on Thursday or Friday that have not been opened on previous days. The Postmaster General will not be here on Friday, and unless we take up these estimates to-night, then the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture would be the only estimates that could be taken up later on in the week.


Arthur Meighen: There are three departments in already.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The estimates of the Minister of Customs have come up to-

night. I think if the hon. leader of the opposition will allow us to call the one item of the estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries it would1 facilitate matters. We will not proceed with it.


Arthur Meighen: If it is only for the purpose of enabling the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to come in on Thursday and Friday, I do not object.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all.


Arthur Meighen: Then I do not object to it.


The CHAIRMAN:: The item before the
committee is item 24, Marine and Fisheries, Salaries, $484,720. Shall I report progress?
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Wednesday, February 25, 1925