Mr. MURDOCK:

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

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

Mr. CARROLL:

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

Mr. MURDOCK:

We have had a rather extended discussion of this matter, which I have no doubt will not be entirely finished when I shall take my seat, but it seems to me an opportune time to give to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) certain information very closely connected with this matter as to which he made inquiries in the House yesterday, I think. My hon. friend wanted to know on Friday next- nothing like taking time by the forelock and getting into position as early as possible-

When the Minister of Labour purported to give to the press written communications received by him from J. B. McLachlan of the United Mine Workers did he give such communications in full?

The answer is "Yes." The next question is:

If not, why; and what is the text of the part omitted?

That is answered by the answer to the first question. But, for the information of the hon. member and because certain newspaper reporters appear to have thought it necessary to shield somewhat the Minister of Labour, I am going to read into Hansard the complete text of all these telegrams which I was not aware were not completely quoted in the press to-day. The House has the right to the complete context, and while of course I thank the gentlemen representing the press for being so considerate of me, I would say: Let the people have all the telegrams in full. The first telegram to Mr, McLachlan is dated the 18th inst.

J. B. MoLachlan,-

Secretary, District 26,

United Mine Workers of America, Glace Bay, N.S.

My attention has been called to a despatch appearing in to-day's Ottawa Journal dated from Sydney, and reading in part as follows: "The war is on, class war. In those words of a manifesto issued to-night, J. B. McLachlan, secretary of District 26, United Mine Workers, calls on the twelve thousand miners of Nova Scotia to join him in a policy of cutting the output as the most effective method of waging a labour war against the British Empire Steel

Nova Scotia Miners

Corporation." I have thought it well to bring the above statement to your attention, and should be obliged if you would let me have word immediately if any such document as is here outlined has been issued with your approval. I trust the published statement may prove to be without foundation, and take this opportunity, in any event, of expressing the hope that yourself and other officers and members of your organization will cast your influence definitely against any such policy as is indicated in the statement above quoted. You will, I think, on reflection agree with me that any strength which organized labour possesses at the present time is the result, not of the underhanded and dishonest methods of undercutting, or, as it is sometimes called, sabotage, but of straight and honest dealings, each worker giving the best that is in him for the wages agreed upon. Any union or trade practice which is not in absolute agreement with this principle will inevitably bring disaster, and workmen who unwisely allow themselves to be misled into the adoption of such methods will ultimately repudiate the leadership of those who have betrayed them. I trust I may receive from you an assurance that you are in sympathy with the view expressed in this message, and, since the despatch from which I have quoted and which has credited you with action on contrary lines has received much publicity I shall gladly do my best to see that any reply received from you by way of disavowal or otherwise receives equal prominence. I am handing this message to the press.

James Murdock,

Minister of Labour.

And here is the full answer received, which my friend from Leeds (Mr. Stewart) wants to hear in its entirety:

Glace Bat, N.S.,

March 20, 1922.

Hon. James Murdock,

Minister of Labour,

Ottawa, Ont.

Replying to your lengthy telegram of Saturday, wish to state that in manifesto issued by me on the 16th instant, neither the thing known as sabotage nor the word itself were mentioned. Once, however, I did in that document strongly advise the miners to cut down production to a point where all profits for the British Empire Steel Corporation would vanish. This tactic as a method of retaliation for a highly unjust encroachment of the employers on the wages of their workmen and an invasion on an already all too slender living I have proclaimed openly and in the face of day and there is nothing dishonest about it, you to the contrary notwithstanding. I have preached this with the blessing of my friends and amid the curses of my enemies. I have preached it to individuals, to tens, to hundreds and to thousands. I have done it on land and on sea, in miners' halls and in churches, on the hillsides of Nova Scotia and on her busy streets, and Mr. Minister, what are you going to do about it? I shall do it again this week, knowing that a miner has a perfect right to work with his coat on if he wants to. But what kind of innocent or hypocrite are you? Did you not one year ago call a strike of the trainmen employed at the Sydney steel works, owned by the British Empire Steel Corporation, and did you not circularize the trainmen on the Sydney end of 33

the Government railway to institute a blockade on all steel company products, and tell the trainmen to leave the cars with steel company goods in the sidings in the woods where there were no telegraph offices, and you made no exception to perishable goods? That was sabotage from top to bottom, from start to finish. Our method of fighting this unjust wage imposition is effective and within the law, and the prime reason why the stock gamblers of Montreal got you to wire a lecture to me is this: Listen-Caledonia Mine for the week ending December 16 hoisted 8,561 tons of coal at a labour cost of 82.02 per ton. That was before the cut in wages was made. Since the first of the year wages have been cut 32 per cent. For the week ending January 13 the labour cost per ton was $1.62; and then the miners refused to strip themselves naked to the waist, to give the best that is in them, as you put it, instead cut down production and for the week ending January 27 produced 2,322 tons at a labour cost of $2.25 per ton. Add on the other overhead charges on that miserable 2,000 tons of coal and you may be able to guess why the (Hallelujah Chorus is ringing in the soul of the miners who are actively fighting an unjust wage, and why the stock gamblers at Montreal are reduced to seek the assistance of an innocent like you. There is no wage agreement of any kind here. The British Empire Steel Corporation is seeking to impose a rate as low as $2.85 per day and refuses to give men with that small wage anything like six days per week. They are imposing these miserable wages to enable them to pay dividends on huge blocks of watered stock and on acres of idle junk that they call_ steel works. We shall continue to fight the imposition of this iniquitous wage reduction, if we have to rock the ramshackle institution known as the British Empire Steel Corporation from its rotten silfi to its bending and shaking rafters.

J. B. McLachlan.

That is the telegram in full that the hon. member for Leeds desired.

Mr. HANSON:

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

Mr. MURDOCK:

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

Mr. CHAPLIN:

Did you send your reply "collect" also?

Mr. MURDOCK:

"Charge to Labour Department-sundries."

J. B. McLachlan,

Secretary, District No. 26,

United Mine Workers of America,

Glace Bay, Nova Scotia.

Your telegram received and handed to the press. The written and actual record of the action authorized by the undersigned and others in connection with the strike of train and engine men in the steel works at Sydney in 1920 speaks for itself, and cannot be changed by any interpretation you may care to place on such action. Have no doubt whatever you have preached, as you say, so-called passive strike methods for some time, and still continue so to do. In my judgment it is un-British, un-

Nova Scotia Miners

Canadian and cowardly to pretend to be working for a wage rate in effect while declaring to the world that only partial grudging service will be given. My experience has been that men quit like men and walk off the job when unwilling to work for wage rates or conditions offered, but the advice you give would place you and those who accept such advice surely in some other class. Be assured that the undersigned has no brief for or personal sympathy with certain methods adopted by the British Empire Steel Corporation, and I regard it now, as during the recent general election campaign, as one of Canada's tragedies that any corporation should appear to be able to undertake to dictate Government policy or to shape the course of public events to its own purposes. Two wrongs, however, do not make one right and red-blooded Canadian citizens will not, in my judgment, follow your advice in the pretense of loyally staying on the job for the purpose of penalizing the employer.

James Murdock,

Minister of Labour.

May I in conclusion say this. I, as Minister of Labour, would have been very glad indeed to do anything I could consistent with what I believe to be federal rights in such matters to assist in bringing order out of chaos and in securing a further consideration of this situation. The deputation of mayors which waited on us the day before yesterday suggested that the board of investigation should have visited all of the mines in Nova Scotia, and held their investigation on the ground. I have no doubt that that would have been very much the better way hut Mr. Ling, the Mayor of New Waterford, and a member of that hoard, never by inference or otherwise conveyed such a desire or suggestion to the Labour Department. Had he done so, I would have undertaken as best I could to see to it that the board did go on the ground and there give that full consideration to the actual circumstances that he now contends should have been given. But there were no such representations whatever made to me at the time. I, of course, do not criticise Mr. Ling or other gentlemen for these after-thoughts which now occur to them.

Furthermore, if Mr. Ling and these other gentlemen had represented that the matter had not been fully and properly investigated, that there was ample reason for a further investigation of all the facts and circumstances of the situation in Cape Breton and elsewhere, I should have been only too glad to have undertaken, to convene again the board of investigation and insist on them going on the ground, as I understand the law permits the Minister of Labour to do and making a full and further investigation. But

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

Nova Scotia Miners

mines in Nova Scotia who hold no such views and to assist their wives and families as well. You would have no respect for a Government-let alone an inexperienced, in a parliamentary way, Minister of Labour- who would show the white feather and knuckle down to challenges such as we have had from J. B. McLachlan and others. You cannot-I give this advice as the result of some years experience-countenance for one moment the tactics of the reds; you must meet it and fight it man-fashion wherever it is found. While I have the most profound sympathy for some of the contentions that have been advanced yet it is a fact that despite the actual first-hand knowledge of some of us respecting the proper aims, ambitions, and conditions of labour, there are theorists who come to us from time to time and advise us from a theoretical standpoint how to deal with labour questions. Well, we are not going to deal with these questions on any such basis. So long as I can exercise my voice and my vote I say that the tactics of the red element-for that is what it really is-and the I.W.W. propaganda that has been used, and used during a period of dire distress in Canada and the United States, shall not prevail. They are the same tactics that have been used in the forests of Washington, of Oregon and of British Columbia-I refer to the suggestions now being scattered broadcast in Nova Scotia by J. B. McLachlan. None of it for me. i have been fighting that propaganda too long to start now to countenance any such thing as Minister of Labour, and I do not believe that hon. members will for one moment do anything more in this matter than uphold and commend the judgment of this Government in deciding that under the circumstances that have been explained to you no royal commission will ibe appointed at the behest and at the dictation of these gentlemen in Nova Scotia, these men who are advocating such an un-Canadian policy as we have been hearing of during the past few days.

Mr. HENRY E. SPENCER (Battle River) : Mr. Speaker, I would like, for a moment, to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to the fact that although labour owes a duty to capital there is also a duty on the part of capital toward labour. As one who is an employer of labour I feei particularly keen on that point, and think I am in a position to speak with some definiteness concerning it. There are three reasons why, in my opinion, this must he regarded as a serious question and one

33j

demanding instant action on the part of the Government. The first reason is this: I understand that when two years ago this same British Empire Steel Corporation applied to the federal Parliament for a- charter and an act of incorporation its request was refused. That refusal must have been based on some very good foundation. The second reason is that we are told this corporation has been allowed to water its stock to the extent of $19,000,000. Such a statement should not be allowed to pass without some effort made to prove its truth or falsity. It is a very serious charge, and if true I maintain that the employers of this Nova Scotia mine must consider their duty towards their men-they must consider whether it is right at the present moment to pay the miners practically a starvation wage and at the same time endeavour to pay a dividend on $19,000,000 of watered stock. Furthermore, the Government of Canada, I understand, has made a grant of some millions to this same corporation. If this be true, surely the federal Government should have something to say in a dispute of this character. It has been urged from the Government side that this is not a federal matter. I want to point out to hon. members that when you have men congregated in large numbers- such as they are in mining camps and in factories-and they are put on a low scale of wages, and hundreds and thousands of them are out of work, you have a responsibility towards those men. You can drive poverty in the country a good deal nearer the bread line, than you can drive poverty in the cities; and when a man gets down to a certain level, when he gets to the stage that wages are so low he has not the means of maintaining himself and his family, then neither a military law nor a civil law will restrain him: The only law he thinks of obeying is the law of selfpreservation. That is one of the truths we cannot ignore. Even if this were not a federal matter, it may speedily be made so if the dispute continues, and the Government does not take a stand. Because if these men are pushed nearer and nearer the bread line and mob rule begins to manifest itself in Nova Scotia, what will you see? You will see the mounted police sent down to the mines and military rule will be invoked. Does not the matter then become one of federal concern? I would like to urge upon the Government: Is it not better to take hold of the situation now and prevent its going any further than to

Nova Scotia Miners

contemplate what possibly may develop into dire results in the future.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :

A great many of us were inclined to take it for granted that, when a labour man was appointed to the position of Minister of Labour, the Liberal party was showing its sympathy with the great labour movement across the country. It seems to me most regrettable that there should not have been revealed, in the speech to which we have listened, any real sympathy or intelligent understanding of some of the fundamental problems as they affect labour. I sincerely trust that it has been the heat of the debate that has carried the minister further than is his real position in regard to this matter. It would seem almost as if he had resented the action of Mr. J. D. McLachlan as a personal affront I am not concerned-and I do not think the country at large is concerned-with the attitude of the Minister of Labour towards j. D. McLachlan. There is something more fundamental altogether for us to discuss here, and I can hardly conceive that constructive action should be delayed on account of anything of this character. The Minister of Labour spent a good deal of time making a very lengthy defence of the action which has been taken during the past weeks in this matter. I would ^ like t0 say -and I am quite sure the Minister of Labour omitted the matter unintentionally-that perhaps it would be fair to read the last telegram of the series. If I remember aright the minister read the first three, but did not read the last telegram from Mr. McLachlan. This is dated March 22nd, 1922, addressed to Hon. James Murdock, Minister of Labour, Ottawa, and reads:

Your telegram of yesterday to hand, and note that you state it as one of Canada's tragedies that the British Empire Steel Corporation should undertake to dictate government policy and shape the course of public events to its own purposes. X agree with you_ as to the corrupt influences of this corporation on the public life of the country, and desire to state that, to its other sins, it has added since January 1st that of a starvation wage for ten thousand workers. Your Government is young and surely yet uncorrupted by this corporation which you call one of Canada's tragedies. The starvation of ten thousand mine workers in Nova Scotia gives your Government right now ample justification to appoint a

commission at once which shall tear wide open the rotten heart of this corrupter of public life and starver of the workers of Nova Scotia, if you and your young Government have the courage of your convictions, you shall appoint a commission now and give it this man's job of cleaning up this corrupt tragedy.

J. D. McLachlan.

I submit there is nothing widely extravagant about that last telegram of J. D. McLachlan. It is rather a reasonable request to prefer to the Government of this country, and I take it that the Government assumes a great responsibility, indeed, if it refuses to accede to as reasonable a request as has been made by Mr. McLachlan, and by the delegation which has just waited upon it. The minister had a great deal to say about the I.W.W. methods and had a good deal of denunciation for those whom he termed the Reds. I think that is rather a curious thing, since the minister himself, on'two or three distinct occasions, made use of the phrase 11 red blooded Canadian citizens .

I take it that all this is a matter of the connotation of words. One party means one thing by red, and another party means something entirely different. The Minister of Labour believes in red bloodedcitizens. A good many of the Labour party use the term " red " not in so very different a sense, because

they instruct one another, that just as there is red blood in all of us, and the same red blood runs through all the human race, they should emphasize the universal human note in dealing with matters of importance in their public policy. With the ordinary labour man, I can assure this House, that "red" does not connote anything of bloodshed, but that "red" as used by them is rather the emphasis of human brotherhood. It is in that sense that they use it. I can quite understand that the minister may try to discount it by using it in another sense altogether, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we ought, in this House, to get away from the idea of trying to settle problems by calling names. I wondered almost if we should hear the other term which has been so prevalent during the last few years, "pro-German". I thought that was the next word to come. I take it that we are not going to get further by calling one another red, or by retorting that somebody else is yellow. We are in a position where we ought to consider these questions on their merits, and this is one question which is worthy of discussion.

Nova Scotia Miners

I cannot pass over some of the points on which the Minister of Labour dwelt, because they involve some things that are fundamental to an understanding of the labour position and, although I have not the privilege of an intimate knowledge of the situation in Glace Bay, I know that some of the matters that have been put forth here to-day deal with fundamental labour conceptions and labour positions. Those of us who represent labour here are bound to try to put forth the labour point of view with regard to them.

We have heard a good deal about loafing on the job. The Minister of Labour called upon high heaven to witness that he would always denounce that kind of a policy. Now, it is not the place to say whether or not that policy is expedient, but the ground was taken-a deeper ground than that-that it was utterly wrong. I do not know that I want to discuss a purely abstract ethical question, but I want to say that when we talk about loafing on the job, and when we sometimes make use of the French word "sabotage", or the Scotch expression "ca'canny" we are indicating a method of industrial warfare, which, perhaps, we could more accurately express as curtailment of output.

Now, I submit, that, leaving aside for the moment the ethical aspect of this question, curtailment of output is a natural, recognized mode of procedure in the business world to-day. There are factories all over Canada which, so soon as their managers think that profits are not sufficiently high to warrant further operation, curtail their production, or, sometimes, stop work altogether. Since the minister has put the question on high ethical grounds, if it is wrong for labour men to curtail production when they cannot earn even ia living for themselve's and their families, then it is a much greater wrong for any manager of a factory or corporation to stop work simply because he cannot obtain the profits he would like. I shall have to go a little further and mention an incident which I trust my farmer friends will apreciate rather than resent. I had a talk with the president of the farmers' organization of Alberta a year or two ago, when oats were selling, if I remember rightly, at about 16 or 20 cents a bushel. That gentleman informed me then that he was going to advise the farmers to stop planting oats and other kinds of grain until prices were somewhat higher, because, as he said, the farmers could not

produce at the then current prices. Well, that also, I submit, is a curtailment of production, and the farmer feels abundantly justified in the matter because he says he cannot produce at a loss. Neither he can; that is obvious. I remember saying at the time to the president of the association that what he proposed to do would be rather hard' on the people who lived in the cities. "Well," he said, "I don't see any other way in which we can bring the railroads and other large institutions to time." That is the selfsame 'step, apparently, which is being taken by the miners down in Glace Bay and in Nova Scotia generally. I do not say these things simply for the sake of talking, because I realize that we have an exceedingly difficult problem to cope with, an ethical problem if you will. We have been given one side of it by the Minister of Labour, and 'a great many of Us have failed to realize that there is distinctly another side to the question. Sometimes the worker is driven to do some things he does not like to do. May I be permitted to give an illustration from my own experience during the time I was engaged as a manual worker on the waterfront? I used to have a theoretical knowledge of some of these questions, and I discovered that that knowledge had to be somewhat thrown to the winds in the face of practical experience. Men were unloading ship's, and the day was supposed to be an eight hour day; but if the task was finished before the close of the day the workers were dismissed. The result was that when the pay envelope came they were short perhaps two or three hours of their day's work. Now, they needed every cent of the wages they were receiving in order to keep their families, or even to exist. They went to work at eight o'clock in the morning in the full belief that they would be able to work an eight hour day, but perhaps about two or three o'clock word would come that the cargo was almost through loading or unloading, as the case might be, and some times the suggestion would be made: "We must go slow and do not finish before the regular closing hour." And the men proceeded to adopt the policy ca'canny, of loafing on the job. No doubt it will be said, from a high ethical standpoint, that such a practice is reprehensible. However, let me say, on the other side, that there was no organization of labour on the waterfront at Vancouver as there has been, to a certain extent, at the docks at Liverpool and elsewhere; but a much larger pool of labour was kept for cases of emergency

Nova Scotia Miners

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

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) used a number of expressions which I have no doubt would win applause from a regular lecture platform audience. And they are true. But the use of them sometimes makes them only half truths, and a half truth is on occasion more false in its effect than a lie. The minister said that two wrongs do not make one right. Of course, we all applaud that. I may say, in passing, that I was very much interested to note that a good deal of the applause while the minister spoke came from the benches opposite rather than those immediately behind him. But let me ask: Is not this action which the minister himself is advocating-a policy of waiting, a refusal to deal with the one and the more fundamental wrong? I am not advocating strikes, I am not advocating slowing down on the job, I am not advocating violence or anything of the kind, but I do say that we have on the other hand, as has been stated by various hon. members, a company that is organized with millions upon millions of watered stock, and that conducts its affairs in the most arbitrary fashion according to the minister's own statement. Let me read it again:

Be assured that the undersigned has no brief for or personal sympathy with certain methods adopted by the British Empire Steel Corporation, and I regard it now as during the recent general election campaign as one of Canada's tragedies that any corporation should appear to be able to undertake to dictate government policy or to shape the course of public events to its own purposes.

I think we are justified in asking what steps the minister is taking to change that state of affairs. That is the prior wrong and the greater wrong of the two.

What about the advice to walk off the job? I suppose that is the action that would be taken by a "red-blooded Canadian." It is all very well if you can walk off the job, but, Mr. Speaker, I submit that a great many of these men cannot quit work even for a single day without involving hardship on their wives and children. That is the other side of the question. I noticed in some of our campaign literature a phrase to this effect: Your job is your living. The working men would be willing to go a little bit further and say: A man's job is his very life. Can such a man quit work when his family is on the verge of starvation, and would starve if he quit for a few days? You may talk about individual freedom, but such a man who is 'bound down in that way

Nova Scotia Miners

has no chance of enjoying individual freedom.

I am not sure whether the phrase was used. "Sacredness of contracts," hut the idea was there, that under no circumstances must a man break his contract. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to advocate, nor to justify the breaking of contracts, hut I do say that frequently to-day men are placed in such a position that it is absolutely impossible for them to carry through their contracts and fulfill their duties to others dependent on them. I am not going into questions of casuistry; they do not get us any distance at all; but I submit that even in law duress is recognized. If I point a revolver at a man's head and say to him, "You sign that document or I will shoot you," that contract, as the House is aware, would not be recognized as valid in any court of law. And yet that is precisely what it is in the employer's power to do when a man is at his wit's end, when he is at his extremity, when he has no food with which to feed his wife and children. Under the conditions the employer is in the position to point a gun, as it were, at the employee's head and say, "Take this job or starve." I hope to live to see the time when that kind of contract will by the laws of the land be declared invalid.

But we come back to the big question which we are apt to overlook: What else are the men to do? I am not justifying this course, let me say that again and again, but I do ask: What other course is pointed out to the men? We are told that there may be some danger of interfering with the provincial rights of Nova Scotia. I am informed by members of the delegation who are here from the East that again and again the miners sent delegates to the Nova Scotia Government to ask for some redress or some help, and that those delegates were told again and again that the provincial government had no power 'to act. There is the situation that we find. The federal government say: We cannot act. The provincial government say: We cannot act. In the meantime the men and their families are suffering.

The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll), if I understood him aright, admitted that there was considerable watered stock in the capitalization of this corporation. But he asked: Why should the federal government interfere with a company chartered by the provincial government? Mr. Speaker, let me put the matter as the common men of Canada are beginning to put it. It is a crime if a man

should put water in milk, and he can be tried under the criminal law and punished. I should like to ask: Why is it less a crime that a man should put water in stock? And I hope to see the Government during this very session introduce legislation that will make it criminal for anybody to water stock. Has the Dominion government no right to act? I submit that again and again, the Dominion government has interfered or taken action with regard to all sorts of industrial disputes from one coast to the other. Is there any reason why at this particular juncture action should not be taken in what seems a most serious situation?-a situation which has gradually been growing more and more serious for some months, and with respect to which the provincial authorities seem to have taken no action whatever. As some hon. member has already said, if there should break out any violent disorder he assumed that the Dominion government would be asked to send in the mounted police or the military to restore order. Have we not arrived at a stage in our civilization when we will refuse to adopt the policy of waiting till something serious happens,-something which we already see is likely to happen?

If I remember rightly, I was in the galleries of this House in 1913 when there was a strike in progress at Nanaimo. I think the Liberal party then in power-

No, no; the Tory party.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

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

Nova Scotia Miners

With the development of our large-scale industry, we have reached the point where it becomes necessary for the Government to take an active part in the management of big industrial enterprises. In a book published by Mr. Woodrow Wilson, containing some of the election speeches made by him during the campaign in which he was elected, he called attention to the fact that the old watchword of "individual liberty" with regard 'to carrying on one's business affairs was no longer applicable in our complicated industrial life of to-day. He used a very fine illustration to bring home his point. He said that in many cities of the United States the owners of tenement blocks were still taking the position that an Englishman's house was his castle and were refusing to allow the municipal authorities to enter those tenement houses for the purpose of inspecting the sanitary arrangements, and so on. He pointed out that even in England and Scotland-I think he referred particularly to the city of Glasgow, where this old doctrine that an Englishman's house was his castle had long prevailed-they had had common sense enough to recognize the changed conditions. They had said that it was only an accident that fifty families became herded together under one roof of a huge tenement; that in that case each particular suite was a private house, but the tenement itself was essentially a public highway; therefore its corridors ought to be policed and sanitary arrangements provided for it. Mr. Wilson said the time had come when all these large public corporations ought to be recognized as public in their character and ought to have the full light of publicity thrown upon every detail of their management and operation. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we must accept the necessity of regulating, of absolutely controlling, these big public enterprises, or go one step further and have the public, the Government itself, take them over and manage them in the interests of the people.

I .take it that there is no dispute with regard to the fundamental facts of the situation which have been brought before us. First of all, the men are not obtaining in Nova Scotia a living wage. I believe that the minimum wage of some 8,500 out of the 12,000 men affected is $2.85 a day. A great many of us who draw our salaries by the week or by the month are not familiar with the way in which the workingman must count his income. In Nova Scotia very few of the miners, I am informed by the delegation here, are obtain-

ing more than four days work in the week *-and that through no fault of their own. Four days' work in the week at $2.85 means $11.40 a week. Now, I want to turn for a moment to the Labour Gazette, one of the valuable publications issued by the Department of Labour itself. According to the Labour Gazette for February, $21.52 was the cost of a weekly budget for a family of five. That included twenty-nine staple articles of food; wood, coal, light, etc. But the miners of Nova Scotia are receiving $11.40 a week, only half the amount which, according to the Department of Labour, is the minimum on which a family can subsist. Either the figures of the department are grossly misleading, or there is something wrong with the wage paid to the miners of Nova Scotia. And I may say, Mr. Speaker, that this figure of $21.52 makes no provision for medical service, for union dues, for church expenses, for newspapers, for books, for insurance, for any of the cultural needs that most of us believe to be necessary if men are to live according to Canadian standards. That is the situation which we must frankly face in this connection.

Not only are the men not receiving a living wage, according to these figures, but their wives and children are suffering. We are told that children are being kept home from school because they have not sufficient clothing. We are told that the school boards have notified parents to send their children to school and have been unable to enforce that order because of the conditions of poverty prevailing in the homes.

Now, that is one outstanding fact: the men are not receiving a living wage. The second outstanding fact in the situation is that the corporation apparently has got the province by the throat. I do not need to read again the statement made by the Minister of Labour himself.

The third great outstanding feature of the situation is that men, women and little children are suffering. Surely we ought not to underestimate that fact. And I hope the minister did not intend to say that no action could be taken because Mr. J. B. McLachlan had not shown sufficient deference to the Minister of Labour. I do not care anything about that. I do not care anything about whether or not Mr. McLachlan has taken just the right attitude. There is a bigger question than that. It is the welfare of the men, and the women, and the children living down there in Nova Scotia. The delegation thai

Nova \Scotia, Miners

came here from those towns has made a most just and reasonable request. They are not proposing to take the law into their own hands, but having gone repeatedly to the provincial house and obtained no redress; having been told that the province was incapable of doing anything, they have come to the federal House and have said:

" Can you not do something for us?" Are we going to turn them empty away?

Two or three years ago, shortly after the war, we heard a great deal about the necessity for reconstruction, but it has turned out that reconstruction has simply meant in many cases construction along the old lines. I submit that the people of Canada, the ordinary people of Canada, the labouring men, the business men and the farmers, are looking for a new lead. They are tired of the old way of doing things and are * looking for a new lead. This new Government is to-day on its trial. Either this new Government must give a new lead or it will not be very long before some other government will have to come that will lead. I often think as we sit here dealing with our papers and talking back and forth about one thing and another, and then going to our offices and reading statistics, and that kind of thing, that we. are failing to realize the real thought and the real aspiration's of the people of Canada. The common people of Canada believe that every man in this country ought to have a chance, and they are not very much concerned with the questions of procedure or with delicate questions as to provincial or inter-provincial rights. They send their representatives here to this House, and they say there must be some way out of the situation. It is not for us on this side to devise ways and means; we cannot suggest very much. But it is for us to urge upon the Government in power that action, and if necessary, radical action, of a constructive nature should be taken, and iso far as 'some of us -are concerned we can pledge the Government that if that kind of action is taken, it will receive the fullest support from representatives who are here primarily not for partisan purposes but in an effort to bring a better way of life to the common people of this country.

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) :

Mr. Speaker, my excuse for entering this debate must be that I represent a constituency which is to a large extent a labouring one. A large proportion of my constituents work for wages, and a still larger proportion are workers in the very broadest sense of the

word. We have very few drones in the Coimox-Alberni district.

I do not wish to enter into the merits of the arguments in this case. Before I would venture to pass an opinion, I would have to have a very much clearer definition of -the two sides of the question than have been presented this afternoon. But apart from that, as I live such a distance from the scene of thi's trouble, it would be presumptuous for fne to pass an opinion upon it. I would rather leave that to the members who represent the districts concerned or those in the immediate neighbourhood.

I just want to express one argument for the consideration of the Government. We, have heard a good deal about Bolshevism and the Reds. Bolshevism is the word I shall use, because I do not know what the noun of Red -is, whether it is Redness or Redism; so let us call it Bolshevism. Bolshevism, like co-ordination, is a very much over-worked word. It used to mean only a majority-not a term of reproach under the constitutional conditions of this country. Then it drifted on to mean those principles, if we can call them so, or practices, promulgated and put into force by Lenine, Trotsky and their associates. The word went further in the last election and -became a general term of villiflcation for every one who had the audacity and temerity to oppose the candidates of the Government of the day. I think hon. members to my -left will be fully aware of that fact. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie), in speaking the other day, said that he had some four thousand Reds in his district, adjoining mine, and that I had -some thousands also. Well, he can speak for himself. They may be called Reds in the Nanaimo district, but in my district we call them intelligent voters. I am not a-t all ashamed, and I have no anticipation of being -ashamed in the future, of the so-called Reds who gave me their confidence in the last election.

Coming now to the fourth meaning of the word, Bolshevism may now fairly be applied to a spirit of Radicalism almost revolutionary in its desires, and also rather vague. I think that might honestly be described as the meaning of the word to-day in ordinary conversation. Now why do we find these men so? If we examine into the conditions and industrial surroundings of these men that they are called Reds we can perhaps find out what makes them red. We have all had some experience with this class of men. Do we find that the man who

Nova Scotia Miners

is well fed, well clothed, with a steady job and owning- his little home, where his family grows up around him, with a wage sufficient to keep him in decent comfort and allow him to save a little for his old age, which is the standard we should aspire to, and often with a little leisure to read and inform himself, because ignorance has a good deal to do with Bolshevism - do we find that man becoming a Red? Never. It is never that class of men. The men of that class are always inclined to take a sober and, in the dictionary sense of the word, a conservative view of things. It is the man who lives with his wife and family under conditions of poverty, misery and above all, with a rankling sense of injustice that you find becoming a Red. I have even heard men in good positions, well educated men, say in conversation regarding some incident, "It is enough to make me turn Bolshevik." That indicates the idea that it is a rankling sense of injustice against social and industrial conditions that turns a man or a woman to talk Bolshevism and Redism. It does not matter if it is a civil servant who after years and years of service in anticipation of being promoted to a higher position sees some political has-been promoted over his head, it does not matter if it is a lumberjack or a miner who has been done out of his wages for months by some quirk of law invoked by some unscrupulous employer, the principle is the same; they have a rankling sense of injustice in the conditions immediately surrounding them.

Then if you admit, for the sake of my argument, that Bolshevism is caused, or tends to be produced, by injustice in our industrial and economic surroundings, you must also admit the next proposition I submit, that the spread of that sentiment i's undesirable in Canada from every point of view. Then would it not be wise, granting those two postulates, so to speak, for the Government in the instance before us to seek in any and every way possible to remove any possible cause of injustice there may be in connection with these men's alleged [DOT]-and I use that word because I do not know the actual circumstances-grievances. If that were done, the cost of half-a-dozen royal commissions would be Well repaid.

It is true you can station Northwest Mounted Police at every street corner, and to a certain extent check free speech. I was surprised the other day to see my colleagues from British Columbia hasten to repudiate the 'suggestion I made that the Northwest Mounted Police were

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

Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River) :

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

Nova Scotia Miners

gated by Mr. McLachlan. However, I ask the Minister of Labour what he would do if he were himself in such a position? All that was asked of this Government was the inception of such a constructive policy as would meet the situation in the province of Nova Scotia. I wonder what hon. members of this House would do if they were face to face with hunger? I think they would look at this whole question to-day and with more sympathy than they perhaps now feel. These coal miners, as I view the situation, are confronted with this situation: Their union has not the means to carry on the strike; therefore, they are not in a position to go out on strike. They are not in a position to do what the Minister of Labour suggested this afternoon he would probably have done had he been in their place. The men are not merely faced with hunger themselves-if that were the case doubtless many of them would meet the situation bravely-but their wives and children are threatened with hunger. Now if hon. members were placed in that position I think they would do exactly what the delegation has done. I think they would send a delegation to this House to ask it to devise a solution of the problem. The Minister of Labour said a good deal during the election, and also since then, about the desirability of bringing employer and employee together to act in co-operation. Now I should think, Mr. Speaker, that as the head of the Labour Department he has the opportunity to evolve some plan that will bring employers and employees together. I think there is not an hon. member here but will admit that the most difficult thing in the world to-day is to bring face to face employer and employees who are fighting each other. They will not in the natural course of events, I think, come together of their own accord. The two parties should be brought together by somebody sympathetic towards both and animated with a desire to solve the problem which if left unsolved may develop into a heavy burden on the State. I ask the Government, or the Department of Labour, if they have no constructive policy calculated to meet this situation. I ask, are they going to meet it? Are they going to meet this delegation, talk to them fairly and squarely and then sit down and consider, and introduce as quickly as possible, the solution of the problem which the circumstances call for? That is all the Government is asked to do and I believe it is its duty to carry out the request. It is the duty of this

Government, in my opinion, to meet a situation of this kind as quickly as possible.

Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN (Cumberland) : Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency in which there is a large number of miners and in which one of the properties of the Dominion Coal Company is situated.

I believe we are having too much camouflage at the present time in reference to this question. We do not desire to deceive the miners of Nova Scotia and I claim that if we appoint a royal commission at the present time such action would be tantamount to deception. Because we have no power here to implement the recommendations of that royal commission as far as those mines and miners are concerned, and probably in two, three or four months time the same condition that now prevails would be found still existing only perhaps in a more aggravated form. No one in this House can have a more sympathetic feeling for the miners of Nova Scotia than we who know these miners well. No man can have more sympathy with the miners of Cumberland than we who know and appreciate their difficulties, and I would not to-night support any government or any party if I thought the action it was taking would betray the interests of these men. I desire to speak out plainly and to say that I believe the appointment of a royal commission would only postpone this matter and result in a more aggravated state of affairs than now prevails.

Let me briefly recite the facts. There was a dispute between the men and the company. The former applied for a board of conciliation and nominated as their representative Mayor Ling of Waterford in Cape Breton. Afterwards the government of the day appointed Colonel Thompson of Halifax representing the company. These two men not being able to agree upon a third member of the board the present Minister of Labour appointed Mr. Gillen of Toronto as the chairman. The members of the board proceeded to Halifax. Under the Industrial Disputes Act they could call witnesses from the four corners of Canada to testify and the witnesses would be paid out of the public exchequer. They did call a number of witnesses and an extended investigation was held. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been better had the members of that board gone to the mines. They should have gone to Springhill in the county of Cumberland and to Glace Bay and other mining towns in Cape Breton. However, they did not see fit to do so, but they did hold an investi-

Nova jScotia Miners

gation, and heard all the evidence presented by both sides. Then why appoint a royal commission to take the same evidence over again and then find ourselves in the position of having no power to enforce the recommendations of the commission?

My hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) said that the proper place for investigation was not here, but in the province of Nova Scotia. I endorse that statement, because in that province they have power to enforce the recommendation of any royal commission which they may appoint in that province. The decision in reference to the Board of Commerce shows how limited our power is in the federal arena to make any enforcement. The British Empire Steel Company is a Nova Scotia concern. It is incorporated under the laws of Nova Scotia. The mines of Nova Scotia are owned by the province of Nova Scotia, by the government of Nova Scotia if you like, representing the people of their province. It is the duty of the government of that province, I humbly submit, to appoint a royal commission to investigate the workings and operation of their own property, the coal mines of that province.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

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

Mr. LOGAN:

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

To make the men work.

Mr. LOGAN:

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

matter of property and civil rights, and within the provincial powers.

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

Mr. MARTELL:

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

Mr. LOGAN:

As to the accuracy of the

statement, permit me to say that the proper place to investigate that is before a royal commission appointed by the province of Nova Scotia, to investigate the position of the company. That province incorporated this company and gave it a large capitalization, and this company is answerable, I submit, to the province of Nova Scotia, and not answerable to this parliament or to the federal authorities.

Suppose the intention of the hon. member for Calgary were carried out, what would happen? A royal commission would be appointed by this government. That would take some time. Then this commission would proceed down to Halifax. Probably weeks would (elapse. They then would proceed to Cape Breton county, and Inverness, and down into Cumberland. More weeks go by, the children are still in want, the men are not working the mines, and there is trouble all over the province. What we do now should be done in the quickest manner possible, and the best thing for us to do is to say to the Legislature of Nova Scotia, "You have incorporated this company, and it is your duty to investigate the charges that have been made".

We have heard a great many statements made with reference to the watered stock of the British Empire Steel Corporation, but we do not know. Not a man in this House knows whether dividends are being paid on watered stock, or how much the stock is watered. It is all very well to make the statement. It should be investigated, before a commission which has power to investigate these matters.

Nova i Scotia Miners

If we appoint a royal commission, it would take them weeks to get the evidence together, and make findings. And then what could a royal commission do? It would be utterly powerless. A commission appointed here could make any findings they pleased, hut could not enforce them. The men would then find themselves exactly where they are to-day, with that much lost time and that much more trouble in the province.

We do not concur in the recommendation of Mr. McLaehlan that men should lie down upon the job. Cumberland men will not lie down upon any job-no mistake about that. We ought to recognize the fact that Mr. Baxter, the President of the U.M.W., is not in sympathy with Mr. McLaehlan on this occasion. I suppose that Mr. Baxter has, at least in the past, had the confidence of the people of that province, and the confidence of the miners. He does not concur in the movement of Mr. McLaehlan.

Therefore, I say, Mr. Speaker, do not deceive the men by giving them a commission from Ottawa. Such a commission could bring all the witnesses together", go to great expense, employ all the lawyers they wanted to prove the case, and at the end of the time we would find we were powerless and could do nothing to enforce the recommendations of the commission. Let us send this matter directly to the province of Nova Scotia where they have power to enforce the recommendations of their tribunal. It is within the purview of their legislative capacity to appoint a commission at the present time to investigate this unfortunate difficulty in the province of Nova Scotia.

Mr. T. H. McCONICA, (Battleford) : Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to become involved in this debate and, under other circumstances, I should certainly have preferred to listen, but some things have developed in the discussion, even amongst my own friends, with which I am not in full accord. What is the controversy before us to-night? It appears that a corporation organized under the laws of Nova Scotia, engaged in mining in that province, has upon its hands a controversy with the citizens of that province, touching a question of wages. Some investigations have been made, and there was an attempt, I understand, by the Department of Labour to adjust the difference. That attempt failed. Now, what has occurred? A grievous situation exists there, no doubt. It is said that there is a corporation on one side in which the stock

is very much watered-a deplorable thing, but something that did not come about by virtue of any action of the federal Parliament. The labour is organized, a very proper thing; but it was not organized by virtue of the laws passed by this Parliament. A controversy has arisen, not because of anything for which we in this Parliament are responsible, or over which we have jurisdiction. The controversy has arisen between the citizens of Nova Scotia and a corporation in that province. Under those circumstances, some gentlemen come to the Government and make representations. Are they parties to the controversy? Not at all. Do they bear any credentials from the miners or employees? None whatever. Are they here in a representative capacity? I do not so understand; they are here in their private capacity, when there is a remedy in the province itself, a remedy the efficiency and integrity of which have not been questioned by any gentlemen on this floor, and which has been pointed out to them, as was clearly set forth this afternoon by an hon. gentleman from the province in which the difficulty exists. Now, an hon. member from away west of us asks this Government to appoint a royal commission.

Mr. IRVINE:

Do you mean to say that

I asked for the appointment of a royal commission?

Mr. McCONICA:

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

Nova Scotia Miners

and it -was his own failure if he did not reap the harvest he expected. He did not accept any ifian's wages for which he was expected to raise a full crop, and then only try to raise half a crop. The difference is a very material one, in my estimation. What would be the effect of appointing a royal commission? What would it do? It would find out precisely what we all know, and nothing more. It would develop facts concerning which we are fully advised. And what would we do about it? We do not know. What could we do? Not a thing, so far as I have been advised by all the gentlemen that have discussed the question. We might just find out what we know already, but we could ascertain nothing more. It seems to me that we have had enough of this sort of business.

I deplore the fact that the miners of Nova Scotia are suffering. I deplore the fact that their employers are not able to pay them wages sufficient to maintain them. I do not know whose fault it is; the hon. gentleman does not know whose fault it is. If he were paying the wages he would probably be in a very different frame of mind. I know something about paying wages, and I have never had one hour's or one minute's controversy with any man I have ever employed. I have never had a labourer leave me that was not fully satisfied. But I do not like to hire a man and have him filled with the idea that he has to get even with me, for some fancied wrong, by neglecting that for which I am paying him. I do not like that doctrine, I am not here to endorse it, and I am sorry to hear it favourably expounded by gentlemen on this side.

Now, there is some talk about the Red business. We have nothing of that kind in the country I live in. I have heard some talk that the farmers of the West were not particularly loyal, that they were disposed to tear down government, and I remember a few years ago there was a great controversy in the city of Winnipeg. There seemed to be a concerted effort on the part of an element gathered in that cosmopolitan city for the purpose of sweeping a conflagration of anarchy over the western part of this great Dominion; and I heard it suggested that the farmers were organized and were ready to take up the fiery torch and cross and bear it through the West. I lived out in that country at that time, and I want to tell hon. gentlemen present that there was not, in my opinion, a man living on any farm in western Canada who would not have put his foot down with all

[Hr. McConlca.]

the vigour necessary to stamp out any attempt of that kind. No such sentiment has ever existed there. The western farmer is a loyal Canadian citizen. Why is he in the West? Did he go to that wild country bent upon plunder when there was no one he could rob? He went to engage in a legitimate, an honourable, a respectable and a useful calling,-a calling that imposes hardship, demands labour, and requires long hours of toil in a rigorous climate. What did he come to Canada for? Was he unfriendly to the institutions of the country? If he had been, why did he choose that rigorous climate? He came because Canadian institutions appealed to him, and because the flag that was to float over him represented his idea of liberty. He came to establish the one foundation iiistitution upon which all our liberties rest, he came for the purpose of building there that to which we all look as the great corner-stone of our civilization-he came to build a home. And is that man a dangerous citizen? No, indeed, he is not. He is there to engage in a useful and proper and arduous occupation; he is the busiest man in Canada; he is not asking for short hours; he is not asking for protection; he is there to render an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. And you can rely upon this, Mr. Speaker, that the torch of anarchy will never be kindled at the forge of industry.