Mr. VERVILLE:

I was not in the House on Friday last when the Estimates of the Department of Labour were under consideration, but I have read in ' Hansard ' the speeches made by members on this side of the House on that occasion, and I do not wish to go over the same ground that has been covered by them. In the few remarks that I intend to make, I wish to tell the hon. Minister of Labour very frankly exactly what the labour men think of him as a Minister of Labour.

I have read very carefully the report made by Commissioner Price. I am surprised that in that report letters of the miners from the West have been published, but very few, if any, of the letters that have been sent to the Department of Labour have been published. It would seem fair that both sides of the case should be stated in a report made by a Royal Commissioner.

It is true that I have asked for' the papers to be brought down, but the returns are very slow in coming. This may be one of the reasons why this year the Estimates of the Department of Labour have been brought down almost before those of any other department. Generally, the Estimates of the.. Department of Labour are brought up very late in the session. I am aware that I shall not get the return for which I have asked 'for, for a long time to come. Last year on the 5th of April, I asked for a return, and it was just for

a lock and key. I got the return only last week, and no look and key.

I claim that this report of Commissioner Price is not absolutely correct, and I really believe that it has been copied from a report made in 1903. It seems to me that this report was written with the intention of making the country believe that the whole fault lies with the men. I am not here to say that the men are perfect, far from it. If you want to get perfect men, whether employees or employers, you will have to go higher than the members of this House, or the public in general.

It would only be fair if both sides of the question were put before the public. I know that letters have been sent to the minister, and he will probably read some of them to the House. A letter, which I intend to read to the House, was sent to the Minister of Labour and the answer was simply: ' I will take the matter into consideration.' The Minister of Labour is still considering the matter, although it is a long time since the letter was sent. This letter, which appears in the report of the commissioner, has been sent by the miners themselves and is dated September 30, 1913:

Hon. T. W. Crothers,

Minister of Labour.

Dear Sir,-A short time ago, if you remember, in the Wilson hotel, you made the remark that if you could do anything in your power for the benefit of the workers that you would be only to pleased to do so. Now, 1 will endeavour to give you a full explanation of the trouble which we are engaged in at the present time. Our men have been openly discriminated against, and the companies refuse to give any reasons whatever. They refuse to meet our commitees, and we claim the right to Question at any time why our men are discharged.

The companies refuse to concede that right to us, and what do we find? They put us up against a lockout; our men are compelled to act on these gas committees and we can find no other reasons why they are discriminated against. Of course the companies are able to prove that they are not discriminating against our men on account of their actions on gas committees, but they do not submit any reasons why they have discharged them, and that is what we want to know-if there is any way to compel them to let us know why they are allowed to discharge our men unquestioned. That is the only question at issue. And if there is any remedy we would like to know.

Trusting you will give this question your immediate attention and that we will receive an early reply.

This letter has been replied to, but only with the statement that the letter will be taken into consideration. The ministers are still considering the question. And I am not prepared to say that the men did all that was right, but I am prepared to

[Mr. Verville. j

admit that both were right and both were wrong. But first of all I believed that when the minister took that trip to the West we expected that through his power as minister he would bring the two elements together, and, for the benefit of British Columbia as well as the country at large, would secure a settlement. It seems to me the mission of the minister was not to settle who was wrong and who was right, but to try to bring about a settlement. I have read the report. I do not pretend to know anything about mining further than to have been in a mine to see the conditions under which men have to work underground. At the same time, I think the commissioner was not justified in making this report. I do not know any better way by which I can show that than by reading to the House a letter that the minister himself received. That letter was written by Mr. Farrington. Of course, it may displease the minister, because this man happens to be an American, and I know the minister does not like to have any truck with the Americans. But he certainly is in a position to criticise the report better than I am. I hope the House will bear with me while I read this letter, for I am particularly anxious to get it on 'Hansard' so that the people in this House and outside of it may know how the criticism often levelled against the men in this case appears to one who knows exactly the mining situation in the West:

Hon. Thomas W. Crothers, K.C.,

Minister of Labour for Canada, Ottawa, Ont.

Sir,-I have Just been favoured with a copy of the official report filed with your department by Royal Commissioner Samuel Price, who, I understand, was appointed in accordance with an Act of the Dominion Parliament to investigate the coal miners' strike now existent on Vancouver Island. Because of my having charge of this strike from its inception, I think I can discuss the report with a reasonable degree of assurance that I know my subject; and as the representative of the men involved in the strike I feel that I have a license to defend them against the injustice done their cause by reason of the commissioner's manifest failure to reveal the truth. Therefore, in the absence of a personal meeting, I take this means of communicating to you the statement that the Royal Commissioner's report is neither an impartial nor a complete exposition of the situation on the Island. Much of it is composed of a quotation on an opinion written by a former commissioner in connection with the Island strike of 1903, and which opinion was virulent in tone, unwarranted by the facts and injurious to the miners of that time, but entirely foreign to the present controversy; yet it is now reproduced in Commissioner Price's report, evidently to deceive the public and

injure the men engaged in the existent strike. Moreover, as a Congressional guide the report is misleading, and worthless as an historical document, for the reason that the commissioner has given but scant consideration to the miners' side of the dispute, while he has overstepped propriety to find justification for the iniquitous attitude of the mine owners. He has given credence to rumour where rumour was damaging to the miners' ~ union, and excused the evil practices of the mine owners in the face of tangible proof of their guilt.

To those who are familiar with conditions on the Island it is clear that the Royal Commissioner has predicated his report upon the unsupported statements of the mine owners and their satellites; and, on the other hand, denied the union men the opportunity of appearing before him in defence of their position or to refute the untrue statements of these hostile agents. In view of my prominent connection with this trouble I should be expected to have much valuable matter to contribute to the investigation, and I have, yet I was given no opportunity to present it to the commissioner. In fact, I never met him but once, and then only informally, during my brief conference with you in Vancouver city the first week in July. I do not mention this because I feel slighted, but because it shows the commissioner was not anxious to have facts. Furthermore, I have made careful inquiry of the district and local officers connected with the strike, and many individuals of influence and activity among the strikers, all of whom unite in declaring they did not have the privilege of appearing before the commissioner, and none of whom were even aware of his visit to the Island; which further indicates his desire to escape rather than to find the truth.

Couple his transgression in this respect with his transparent disposition to favour the mine owners and his apparent willingness to accept and include in his report everything, no matter how flimsy, that reflects discredit upon the United Mine Workers of America, and you must agree the Royal Commissioner's report is destitute of justice to the striking miners.

The miners have been insistent in their claims that the Canadian Collieries Company are employing Orientals, in violation of the Provincial Mining Laws to break the strike. The commissioner has concealed the true conditions in this respect by making irrelevant comparisons and by failing to give an account of the number of Orientals employed during the two and one-half months intervening between the last day of May and the date of his report. However, accepting his figures as a basis for computation, we find that of all the men employed in all the coast mines during 1912 less than 20 per cent were Orientals, and that of the men employed under ground by the Canadian Collieries Company eight and one-half months after our men were locked out, or in May, 1913, the ratio of Orientals was more than 62 per cent. And had the commissioner considered the additional number employed during June and July, and up to August 14, the date of his report, the ratio would be greater than that. Yet the commissioner says:

' Statements made as to the wholesale granting of miners' certificates to Orientals, who are said not to be properly qualified, are also, I find upon careful inquiry, not correct. According to figures obtained from the Department of

Mines, only thirty-six new miners' certificates were granted to Orientals from the commencement of the trouble down to the time of the inquiry, and the examination for these was conducted in the usual way according to the requirements of the law, and the certificates were only granted after the examiners, including the Chief Inspector of Mines, were satisfied that the Orientals were qualified and entitled to receive them.'

It is a matter of common knowledge among the strikers that the men employed as strikebreakers in the Cumberland mines of the Canadian Collieries Company are being wantonly maimed and killed because of their inexperience and a lack of knowledge as to how to protect themselves against the dangers of mining. In this connection the commissioner says:

4 The allegations made as to unsafety of some of the mines are at least grossly exaggerated. The statement that the percentage of fatal accidents at the mines of the Canadian Collieries Company has increased over two hundred per cent cent from 1911 to 1912, while correct, arises from the fact that in 1911 these mines had an abnormally low percentage of fatal accidents, only 94 per 1,000. while that of the province was 2.32 per 1,000. In 1912 this company though showing as alleged, a great increase over 1911, was still very low, and little over half that for the province the exact figures being 2.12 per 1,000, while that for the province as a whole was 3.92. The official returns show that at the Extension collieries there had been no fatal accidents either in 1911 or 1912?

While admitting an increase of 200 per cent in fatalities during 1912, in the mines mentioned, he attempts to justify this sacrifice of human life by saying other companies have killed more, and points out that no fatalities occurred in the Extension mines of the same company either in 1911 or 1912; but he neglects to explain why none occured in these mines. The explanation is a simple one. During 1911 and up to the middle of September, 1912, the Extension mines were operated by experienced men, and from the middle of September to the end of 1912 they were idle because the company could not recruit enough Chinamen and other inexperienced N vagabonds to operate the mines of both Cumberland and Extension, so they herded them all into the Cumberland mines and slaughtered them there; which fact also accounts for the 200 per cent increase in the fatalities .occurring in the Cumberland mines during 1912. [DOT] Rut what of the fatalities occurring in the same mines of this company during 1913?

Almost eight months of this year had passed when the commissioner's report was rendered, yet, though dealing with fatalities, he ignored completely those occurring in that period. Why? At the end of 1912, the Cumberland mines had been closed to their former skilled employees only three and one half months, and the list of fatalities augmented 200 per cent. When the commissioner's report was rendered the former employees had been excluded for eleven months. The number of inexperienced men employed had been increased, discipline demoralized by the constant coming and going of strange men, and the safety of the mines impaired because of a lack of experienced attention. Now, do not forget that for the first eight and one half months of 1912 these mines had the advantage of being worked with prac-

to say anything about the manner in which he was received in Great Britain. I happened to meet Will Thorne, a member of the Congress and a member of the Imperial House of Commons, who was a fraternal delegate at the last Congress in Montreal. Mr. Thorne told me that the reputation of the Minister of Labour had preceded him to England and that his reception at the Trades and Labour Congress was a very cool one.

There is one thing upon which I insist, that is that the minister should give us not only the correspondence which has taken place between the Department of Labour and the miners but also the correspondence between the department and the mine operators. It must be remembered that there is still a strike there, which is a detriment to the mass of the people of this country and we are here to try and bring about conciliation as far as possible. I really believe that the minister cannot settle that strike. I believe that his lack of experience in labour matters will prevent that. There are some in this House who understand the position as clearly as I do, that it is necessary for a man to have experience in that walk of life. The mentality of men generally must develop according to their circumstances and surroundings. We cannot expect my hon. friend to be able to settle these things because he does not understand the situation. If my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Shepherd) had been a Minister of Labour, I am almost sure that he would have been able to settle that strike because he would have known how to go about it. We cannot expect that with all the intelligence of the Minister of Labour he can do that, it is impossible for him to do it. So I would say to the Prime Minister, if he were in his seat, that I am sorry to tell him he has made a great mistake in appointing the present Minister of Labour.

Mr. CEOTHEES:

Hear, hear.

Mr. VEEVILLE:

Of course he may not believe that but we can all express our own opinions. Let us talk openly here, we are in committee and we may as well be frank. What I am going to say to the minister, may not be Parliamentary language, but the labour men of the country call the Minister of Labour as a Minister of Labour, not as a member of this House, a regular frost. Of course I do not know what that means, English is not my mother tongue, but that is what they say. At the same time I know the Minister of Labour has

been East. He is quoted in the newspapers as stating that conditions were all right in the East. I take issue absolutely with him. I know my men whenever I go anywhere, I go with the crowd, with the men who are suffering. I dc not go with the crowd who do not want anything, who are well supported in every way, whether by the tariff or otherwise, men ivh) are not in want, at least not in want of three meals a day. Whenever you are with this crowd you will find that conditions are not so nice as we may suppose. I do not know if my hon. friend has found that out but I happened to make inquiries about the Dominion Coal and Steel Works and 1 found out exactly how the poor miners are treated in that part of the country. Not one but a dozen or more of them came to me and showed me how they are treated. First of all some are obliged to buy at the company's store. It is true that at the sto;e they do not sell dearer than at other places but in many cases the men have tc get a certificate from the oflhe that they have earned a certain amount of money. That means if a man has been sick or has sickness in his family and has not worked, he cannot get anything to eat because he has not earned anything. It is true that they do not have to pay too high a rent but just imagine a man earning $1.40 or $1.50 a day who, not being able to work on account of illness or illness in his family, cannot get anything to eat because the company's store will not sell to him. The miners are charged a certain amount for medical assistance and a certain amount for the relief fund, &c., and it will be found that in many cases the labourers working in those mines receive $331 per year to live on provided they work every day, and I am informed that some of them are obliged to handle 115,000 lbs. of coal a day to earn $1.95. Let one of us do that and see what he would be like at the end of a day or a week or a month. That is the condition under which many of them are working. I am not speaking now of the regular miners but of other classes of men. I never bother myself about men who are getting from $4 to $6 a day, provided they can earn it in a day of reasonable length. It is those who earn the small wages who are treated worst. Whether at Glace Bay or Sydney Mines or Sydney, at the steel works, the conditions of the poorer class of labourers are deplorable. It is inhuman to have men working eleven, twelve or thirteen hours a day. If these people were business men they would give three shifts in the twenty-four hours.

I think the Department of Labour should immediately set to work and try if possible to have three shifts a day in those institutions. I have been in the- homes of these men, I have seen them. I know exactly how they live. They are mere mortals, they simply know the -route to go from the- works to the house and back again; they have no time to think because they are so tired they have not time to rest. I was told by one authority when I spoke- of the heat: This is very hot but you get accustomed to that. I told him that if this principle were followed out logically then those men, if they worked there long enough, could shovel in much hotter stuff in another -place and never burn themselves.

If you call a meeting of workingmen in any of the cities, there is a staff of men employed by the companies that will be found at every door and I have seen fifty men come to a meeting and look in at the door and I have heard them say: We would like to go in but these officers are there and we will get fired to-morrow if we go in. The minister says everything is all right; probably he has been told that everything is all right by the mine owners and other interested persons. I would advise the Minister of Labour, whenever he goes anywhere, to find things out for himself and not to take the company's word-not even to take the men's word. Let him go as a common citizen and inquire for himself. When the minister travels he might ride in an ordinary, common car like any one else. We do not need to ride in a special car when we go anywhere. Let him ride in a common car and with the common people. The Department of Labour should consider the situation at these steel works immediately.

I wanted to explain the conditions of which I have spoken to the committee, and 1 have read this letter because it is a thorough exposition of the case from the miners' standpoint. It is written by one of the organizers. My hon. friend will say that he is an American, that he is paid to do this and that if he did not do it he would get fired. I might answer my hon. friend by saying that he is getting paid for the work that he does now and that if he did not do it the Manufacturers' Association would say: We will get this man fired out of that job.

I hope that, when my hon. friend the Minister of Labour, is placed upon the bench as a judge, the present Government will take a practical man and put him at the hpad of the Department of Labour.

whichever Government is in power, whether it is this Government, or the one which succeeds it, I hold that it will never have any success until a practical man is made Minister of Labour. I fail to see that when John Burns was made a minister the prestige of the British Government was in any way diminished in the eyes of the world. I fail to see that when Mr. Wilson was taken from the ranks of the miners of the United iBtates and made a member of the United States Government the Government was diminished in the opinion of the world. Far from it; these governments have increased in the estimation of the world generally. Unless this Government, or the Government which comes after it, can find a man in this country to be Minister of Labour who is a practical man and who will understand exactly the grievances, whether of the employers or the employees, no success cJn be hoped for in the administration of the Labour Department. The Minister of Labour ought to be a man who is practical enough to understand the conditions and one who will not resort to a lot of technicalities in order to attempt by all possible means to fool the men. I am not applying these remarks only to the present Government, but I claim that this Government, or any Government which comes after them, will never make a success of the department until such time as they have a man of practical knowledge, a man who has made a thorough study of economic conditions, not in a superficial fashion, but from a practical point of view, at the head of the Labour Department. I do not believe that my recommendation will be followed by this Government and probably not by another Government that may come in, but nevertheless that is my impression and time will show whether I am right or wrong.

Mr. SHEPHERD:

The hon. gentleman

made the statement that a man had to mine . 115,000 pounds for the sum of $1.95.

Mr. VERVILLE:

To handle.

Mr. SHEPHERD:

What do I understand the hon. gentleman to mean by handling- not mining?

Mr. VERVILLE:

No.

Mr. SHEPHERD:

That is a matter of

51 tons and it would be impossible for any miner to mine that quantity.

Mr. VERVILLE:

Some of these men are getting as little as 13 cents a gross ton to load the coal.

Mr. CROTHERS:

Mr. Chairman, before attempting to reply to the observations made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville), while the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), is in the chamber, I would like to call his attention to some grossly inaccurate statements made by him in this House last Friday evening when we were in committee. He stated on that occasion, as will be found on page 592 of 'Hansard ' that:

,1 happened to be looking over the Civil Service list the other day-

Just happened to be.

-and I found that for the year ended March 31, 1911, the list of employees of the Labour Department consisted of twenty-one names. In the list for last year there are thirty-nine names. In a little over two years in this department, which is what might be called a non-productive department from a material standpoint, there has been almost a doubling of the staff, and yet what is the net result?

I have here the Sessional Papers for the year 1911 and if my hon. friend will look at them, on page 276, he will find that instead of there being only 21 members of the staff that year there were 24. If he will also be good enough to look at the report for last year, he will find, on pages 369 and 370, that instead of the number having grown from 21 to 39 it had grown from 24 to 30.

Mr. MACDONALD:

The Estimates state that there were 35 last year and not 30.

Mr. CROTHERS:

There were 9 out of these 35 that were vacancies, which vacancies were not filled at all.

Mr. MACDONALD:

Are you going to fill them now? You are taking votes for 36 this year.

Mr. CROTHERS:

Yes, there are nine vacancies and 36 have been placed in the Estimates this year.

Mr. MACDONALD:

Are you going to fill these positions up?

Mr. CROTHERS:

They were there last year and I did not fill them up.

Mr. MACDONALD:

Why are you taking a vote for them if you are not going to fill them?

Mr. CROTHERS:

Perhaps my hon.

friend does not know the practice in the -different departments. If a man is promoted from one position to another the salary is voted for the position that he has left although there is a vacancy, and the position may be left vacant year after year, or until another man is appointed in his

place. It is a very peculiar practice, but it obtained when we came in, and it obtains yet. I am calling the attention of the committee to the grossly inaccurate statements made by the hon. me aber for Humboldt when he said that in 1911 there were 21, when, if he had looked at the record he would nave seen that there were 24. He says that last year the number was 39, when, as a matter of fact, it was 30.

Mr. NEELY:

Will the non. gentleman be good enough to send over the Sessional Papers for 1911? [DOT]

Mr. CROTHERS:

Yes, I will be glad to. The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) has read a long letter said to have been written by Mr. Frank Farrington. This is the same gentleman who supplied us with some evidence which throws a flood of light upon the origin and purpose of the labour troubles on Vancouver Island for the last year and a half.