Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson) :

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

Louder.

Mr. BIRD:

I have the consciousness that I am speaking rather loud-

No. you are not.

Mr. BIRD:

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

Nova Scotia Miners

force. I do not think anyone supposes that this Government would send down the Royal Northwest Mounted Police to enforce the findings of such a commission upon the British Empire Company. I do not think that for a moment. But there is such a thing as moral force which can be generated in the minds of the people, in other words, public opinion, which would be more effective than any physical force the Government could bring to bear. So for that reason I think the plea which has been put forward to-day is very sensible and reasonable, and it does not seem to me that our time is being wasted in its discussion. On the contrary, I think the time is well spent, for we are dealing with a big human question. Some of us are not very well prepared to speak on them, but these human questions are very alluring, and we cannot keep quiet while we listen to the pleas that are being made.

My own position is somewhat neutral, for I have no obligation in a political sense to Labour, none whatever; the only obligation I have is that which any rightthinking man must own towards the great mass of his little brothers-and I confess that I have a feeling that as opportunity arises I must put myself on the side of the bottom dog. I believe that sentiment is characteristically British. I believe in deference to hon. members opposite who represent another race, that it is also Galician. The word "sabotage" which has been interlarded in this debate considerably, had an honourable origin in the history of the race that is represented opposite, and arose out of conditions similar to those we are now considering.

I cannot speak for my group, and therefore I should like my words to be treated as purely the expression of my personal views, but it seems to me that the sentiments of the Progressive party and the sentiments of Labour are very near together at the root. The reason for this Progressive group being here is because of the widespread discontent, of which this labour trouble in Nova Scotia is a manifestation; it is the same root. Now, the immediate conditions which react upon the farmer are vastly different from those which react upon the labourer, but the ultimate conditions are the same! The difference is geographical, as some one has said of protection, that is all, but the root is the same; down beneath the ground there is a connection between the farmer and the labourer. And when we heard the talk about watered stock our hearts began to

kindle, because we of the Farmer group have felt for a long time that we too have been suffering from watered stock. When the charge of sedition was imputed to our Labour friends on the corner bench to my left, our hearts began to warm again, because that epithet has also been applied to us. In our efforts to get just conditions for ourselves we have had to suffer obloquy in the same way. So there is a real kindred feeling betwen Labour and Progressives.

But this is where I come near to the sentiments of my hon. friend from Battle-ford. I do not believe the average farmer has much use for sabotage. The farmer in the West-and I am speaking now of the class that I know-on the average usually employs either a man or a boy for at least some part of the year, and it would be repugnant to him at any time to find that man or boy loafing on his job, not because his moral sense is more highly developed than any one else's-I do not think that on the average the farmer's moral sense is any more discriminating than that of any other class-but because his sense of self-interest has developed just a little further than that of any other class in the country.

Now, moral fervour, as a certain class of philosophers have alleged, has its main root in self-interest. I believe there is a measure of truth in that theory, but I rather fight off the thought that the moral fervour, the righteous indignation, manifested by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) was a reflection of self-interest as it applied to the industrial affairs of this country. I do not think it was, because it seemed to me that the note of sincerity was clear enough in his speech, and his past record would confirm that.

But I think he made a signal mistake; he has put his Government in a very compromising position so far as a large class of the working men of this country are concerned. Mark you, a large section of the workingmen, and a large number of the farmers, too, are not Red,-they repulse the very thought-and they will not read the minister's speech with any kindly feeling. I am even afraid that some of that feeling will be reflected upon the Government which he represents.

Now, I think the Minister of Labour was inflamed a little too much by that word "sabotage"-a word which is all right for ornamental purposes and which looks impressive in a big headline, but which has no relation whatever to the facts of this

Nova 'Scotia Miners

case and has been very much misused. He could have safely taken that word for what it meant, and in reply to Mr. McLachlan he could, I think, have used more temperate language. He could well have afforded to overlook the gibes and sneers of that wily Scotchman; for I infer that he is a Scotchman,-not by his name, but by the fact that he sent that telegram collect. The minister occupies a position which enables him to overlook things of that kind, and I do think that the note of personal vindication entered a little too much into his discussion of the matter. I am sorry he is not in the chamber at the moment, because these remarks have been made for his benefit.

Now, I believe that the appointment of a royal commission by the Government to investigate this matter would have a very wholesome effect upon public opinion. It would have a very wholesome effect upon the Government themselves; it would make it easy for a good many of us from now on to give them that whole-hearted support that we have it in mind to give them so long as they array themselves with the forces in this country that are making for righteousness.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

That this subject is of sufficient consequence to have warranted the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Irvine) in moving the adjournment for the purpose of a discussion, no one can doubt. The solution of the difficulty that confronts Canada in the province of Nova Scotia goes to the very root of industrial and social life in that province, and has to do with the well-being and the happiness.- possibly even with the existence-of many of our fellow citizens there. An area of Canada of very considerable size, one of the oldest settled areas of this Dominion, is affected to a degree perhaps unknown hitherto as respects any other part of the country. I want to examine as carefully as I may the circumstances that have brought us to the position we are in and to suggest a course, if it is in my power to do so, that may help. I am not sure that I agree with any who have addressed the House upon the subject, and I am still more doubtful whether I shall find any with me after I am through my address to-night.

We all know that an order went out some time last fall putting into effect a wage reduction of enormous extent-371 per cent, on the average-applicable to some 12,000 miners in the Cape Breton district, employees of the British Empire Steel Corporation, distributed among its various

component companies. That reduction completely wiped away the increases that had previously been given by what is known as the Montreal (agreement-the first Montreal agreement-and, as has been stated to the Government in a document a copy of which I have been favoured with, represented as well a twenty-five per cent reduction in the wages that had prevailed before that agreement. This reduction the miners resisted, and the proper steps were taken toward the establishment of a board of conciliation. The company refused to name its representative on the board

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

The result of the resistance of the men to the award was that representatives of

Nova Scotia Miners

the men again met representatives of the company and some slight modifications were made, not affecting in any way the main body of the findings; not affecting in any way the 32& per cent reduction, but correcting certain of the anomalies that were found in the first report. It appears that some of the representatives of the men favoured the acceptance of the suggestion-which, of course, had no effect at all until accepted-and that others did not. At all events, the men declined to accept, and by a vote of about seven to one declared they would not be parties to such an agreement.

Consequently, the men were in this position, that all steps had been taken which they could take under the law of Canada. Whether there was a law of the province they might have resorted to or not that had any effect, I could not say. One has been referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) to-night, but under the law that comes under our purview here the men had taken all the steps they could take, the company had done the same, and still the clash existed. Now, having pursued the remedies provided for by the act in proper order, the fact remains that there is a class war on in the province of Nova Scotia. The fact remains that twelve thousand men are in a state of hostility against their employers, the British Empire Steel Corporation. In that condition of affairs one of their leaders, who appears, I judge, from press reports, to have behind him a vast majority of the men whether he ought to have or not, advises those men, and they accept his advice, to adopt a certain course, namely, to decline to work a full day's work at this reduced wage which now is in effect, but to give rather a partial day's work which they believe represents the full wage they receive, and which prevents the company making profits or piling coal as a reserve, which reserve the men believe would put the company in a position to fight effectually any further resistance on their part.

Now that this condition is a serious one, and a very serious one, none of us can dispute. Though there may be wrong on the part of Mr. McLachlan and on the part of the men who follow him-and I will discuss that later-though there may be wrong on the part of the operators, neither of these wrongs removes the fact that a serious condition of affairs exists in the province of Nova Scotia. Then the

question comes: Is there anything this

Parliament can do, is there anything this Government has failed to do or to-day can do, to improve the situation in the province of Nova Scotia? I hold in my hand what was given to me as a copy, and I have no doubt it is, of the memorial presented to the Administration by the mayors of the towns or cities in the bodies of this area affected so seriously by the present situation. These mayors do not come in their personal capacity. Surely it is not correct to say that they do. I have met only one, but we cannot ignore the fact that they are mayors elected by their people, representing all the people, doubtless, of the towns and cities of which they are officers, and they come here to make their representations because of the general concern of the whole community in a happy outcome of the present unfortunate condition of affairs. Those are men who ought to know what is really the trouble; they ought to be able to measure pretty well what the dangers are, what is to be avoided, and they ought to be able to judge fairly well what might be done. I read from their memorial in order to give their view of how serious, if not desperate, the situation is. They say:

In this connection the delegation wish to quote a paragraph from a letter received since their arrival in Ottawa. This letter refers to conditions in the coal fields of Cape Breton and says:

" The doctors here declare that there is more sickness among young children than they ever met with before. There are more children staying away from school than ever in the history of the mining towns of this district."

The delegation goes on to say:

This sickness among young children has resulted from nothing more nor less than malnutrition. The children are kept home from school because their parents cannot provide them with sufficient clothing. The Supervisor of Schools in Glace Bay is authority for th& statement that young boys are being kept away from school in order that they may earn something to help provide for the families; and any one who cares to investigate will find that children are actually going hungry in the mining districts and are falling ill because it is impossible to provide them with sufficient nourishing food and sufficient clothing.

We have in Nova Scotia laws requiring the attendance of children at school; but when notices are sent out to parents of supposed delinquents it transpires that the children cannot attend because they are not sufficiently clothed.

. This is an attempt to briefly sketch conditions as they exist; but no one who has not seen these conditions for himself can be expected to understand what they mean in the lives of tens of thousands of human beings-

Nova Scotia Miners

Because, be it remembered, while twelve thousand represents the number of miners, probably sixty thousand would more nearly represent the numbers in the families of those affected.

-and this is, we may say, the chief reason why we are here to-day asking the Government to Investigate. We feel that the situation will never be understood until a commission of sympathetic, just and competent investigators have gone into the mining districts of Nova Seotia and seen things for themselves, until they have seen with their own eyes the conditions under which these people are expected to live and bring up healthy families. For we can assure the Government that this dispute that is threatening the industrial stability of the province of Nova Scotia has had rise in these conditions. It is useless to expect peace and harmony and contentment in a community, the citizens of which are forced to exist in this way. If men cannot earn enough to feed and clothe themselves and their families, to live in some degree of comfort, and provide means of even a common school education for their children, not to mention some provision for the years in which miners become too old to earn, then, we feel, we may well despair of the future.

The memorial goes on with reasonings and assertions of what they say are facts much of a character similar to that I have read and some of it, indeed, even more alarming. The House recalls as well the words of the hon. member who represents at least part of the district affected, the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and it was only too plain from what he said that a situation far more perilous than appears now may well follow unless by some means or another alleviation is brought.

In the body of the memorial I have read it appears to be their opinion that only by examining the condition of the families on the ground can the problem be understood or a fair solution offered. It is most unfortunate that the board that already has acted saw fit to confine its geography , to the city of Halifax and was content to listen to what you might call inanimate evidence, instead of going right on the ground to the seat of the trouble, among the miners themselves, and seeing the actual conditions with their own eyes. All who have taken part in the debate, including the Minister of Labour, have clearly given the House the impression that the award could never have been expected to do what an award ought to do because of the failure of the board of arbitration in that regard. This delegation asked for a royal commission of men of sympathy and understanding and fairness of judgment to be selected to go down and, as it were,

re-try the case, and re-try it under conditions that unfortunately were not brought to bear when the former board or arbitration met. That is their suggestion. There may be a better. I do not argue whether that is best or not.

The question I am going to approach is this: Whether or not this Government is justified in simply standing aside and saying: "We have had that board of

arbitration. It did not do its whole duty by any means but all the same we have had it and here we have discovered a statute of the province of Nova Scotia. We are going to kick the whole thing out of Parliament and beyond our sight and push it over to the province of Nova Scotia for treatment." The Minister of Labour comes to Parliament, makes a speech of much passion and vehemence, declares against a certain line of conduct, and in an hour's oration and peroration denounces the suggestion with all the force of his personality. But really I think if he had given more careful consideration to an analysis of the facts before coming to the decision that he has announced here he would have better served the purpose of a Minister of Labour.

What is his position? He says: "I will have nothing to do with this thing at all. No royal commission for me. No action on my part. No dallying with the course of action on the part of Mr. McLachlan and his followers which is morally wrong and from which I turn my eyes in disgust." Were Mr. McLachlan assumed to be morally wrong, were all those following him wrong, were they indulging in something that is against the law-would even that be sufficient to justify the Government of the day in saying "Things can go right on until they step out of that line of conduct and comply with the law"? Let me give an illustration. Supposing Mr. McLachlan and his followers had declined to come under the Lemieux Act at all, that is under the Industrial Disputes Act? Suppose they had never negotiated with the British Empire Steel Company? Suppose they had never asked for a board of arbitration, following the failure of 'such a negotiation, tout had simply gone on strike? They would be violaters of the law of this land, they would be violating the provisions of the Lemieux Act, but would that be sufficient cause for the Department of Labour to refuse its offices in every way, to decline to help them altogether or help the board; would it be a justification for the Minister of Labour

Nova Scotia Miners

to say "Oh you did not ask for a board of arbitration, you never tried to negotiate, you did not obey the law of the Dominion of Canada, things can go on just as they like and men can starve. Whatever dispute arises I will not have anything to do with it because to do so would be to countenance and to encourage what is against the law of the land." Well, the Department of Labour has not taken that course in years gone by; the Department of Labour has stood always ready to help even though parties to the dispute might have been at the time acting in violation of the law.

Now let us inquire whether this case is worse than that? Are there reasons here for standing aloof in cold indifference that would not exist were the parties striking and acting in violation of law? What are these parties doing? Are they acting in violation of law? Are they in as bad a position as strikers would be who will not strike without asking for a board of arbitration? Well, I submit that they are not. I am not one who in the past has been noted for countenancing violation of the law. I have taken some risks, politically and otherwise, in order that the law of this land might be upheld; and I have no sympathy whatever with the conduct tof men who seek to gain their end by violation of a law of any kind, whether it is the Criminal Code or any other statute. And there is another class with whom I would have no sympathy at all: I would have no sympathy with a man, or a body of men, who, accepting a wage schedule and contracting to work under it, would go to work and seek to give only a partial day's work for a day's pay although they accept it as a day's pay. I do not think that would be particularly a violation of the law but it would be, morally at least, a violation of contract. To pretend to be doing a day's work ami not be doing it, that is what I would call loafing on the job, that is what I would call dishonesty-it is pretending to do what you are not doing.

Are these men even in that position? If they were I do not think it would be a violation of the law; but are they in that position? They may be but if so I have not understood the facts as adduced in this House. What have these men done? They have been requested, we will put it, to accept a wage reduction of 32! per cent. They have declined to do it. They say "No, it is not a living wage; we cannot support our families, we cannot send our children to school. We do not want to go on strike

34!

or go out." Why? The reason they give is that they have exhausted their funds in mutual help already and that they would have great difficulty in supporting a strike. They say: "Here, you are giving us two-thirds of a day's pay and we will give you two-thirds of a day's work and only that: we won't pretend to give you any more." That is what I understand to be their position.

Now aside from the fact, aside from whether it can be criticized or not, is it any false pretence on their part? Really I cannot see that it is. Mr. McLachlan announced this position publicly and we take the men as announcing the same thing because we must assume that each man went to his employer and said: "You pay us so much a day and we will give you so much work." I am speaking now of the men known as the datal men who asked for so much a day, I will speak of the others in a moment. Very well, it is within the province of the employer to say "We will not accept that; we will not pay you for that two-thirds of a day's work;" and I cannot see how anyone could very well complain when the men go openly to the employer and openly announce "We will do so much work a day and will not do any more." That is the stand the men have taken. If hon. gentlemen see offence in that well at least you can measure the extent of that offence, and I ask the House is the extent of that offence so terrible that the Department of Labour of Canada must fold its arms and cease to function altogether, that they must say "Oh, until you stop that, until you cease to do that anti-British or non-British, non-Canadian cowardly act you can expect no more help from the Department of Labour; we will leave the community to its fate until you cease to tell your employers that you will only do so much work for the wage they have offered you."

As regards the piece-work men respecting whom I ventured to interrupt the member for Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), really I do not see how any complaint can be made against them at all-let me say that very frankly. A man who is taking coal out of a mine at so much a ton is offered so much a ton. Perhaps a day's work is twenty tons-I do not know what it is- but he says "I will only produce fifteen tons." Well that man will only get paid for fifteen tons; consequently, how any complaint could be levelled against him -and I am told he represents thirty-five

Nova Scotia Miners

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

Mr. CARROLL:

And he is anxious to work.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

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

Mr. CARROLL:

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

Mr. MEIGHEN:

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

Mr. CARROLL:

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

Mr. MEIGHEN:

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

Mr. McMASTER:

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

Mr. MEIGHEN:

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

Mr. McMASTER:

That is a new arrangement.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

we are not in possession of the concrete facts of the case; and after all we can speak on this matter only from a human standpoint. We do know something about this British Empire Steel Corporation. We know, for instance, that it is not a provincial corporation, in that its shareholders do not live in the province of Nova Scotia. We know that it is not even a national but an international concern. We guess, too, that the statement that there is $19,000,000 of water in the stock is quite true, and that the company is endeavouring to get dividends on this watered stock out of the labourers whose wages they have reduced so drastically.

I am aware, you know, that sitting here quite comfortably and well fed, it does not seem such a bad thing to have your wages reduced 371 per cent. But if anyone got up to-night and moved that the indemnity, starting with the Prime Minister and coming down, should be reduced 371 per cent, I think it would be generally felt that this was quite a reduction. And that is the only viewpoint in this matter after all; just that. It may be that there is a provincial law, or a national law, in the way. But do you know what I thought before I came to this House? I thought that laws were made for people, but I know now that that is not true; people are made for iaws. And surely if there is something in the constitution that is in the way it can be removed so that justice may be meted out to those people, who seem to form a large part of the population of Nova Scotia. I believe that the mayors who came here did not come to represent labour at all. They did not come to represent the miners. They came to represent the people of the towns in which they live, who are not miners. Those people see the injustice of the thing and they feel that somebody must do something to remedy the situation. One of the mayors said that in his town there were 7,000 people, including children, of whom 1,600 were miners, and that he was not sent here to represent those 1,600 but the 5,400 who were not miners, because they want law and order in their land and realise that permanent law and order can come only through prosperity and happiness.

Now, I have here a copy of the notices sent to the parents of the children telling them that their children had not been to school and that under the law they were punishable by fine not exceeding $20, or in default one month's imprisonment. It strikes one that there could be but one ob-

ject in sending them to prison; they would be fed during that month, because the county council of Cape Breton allows 40 cents a day for the food of prisoners, while the British Empire Steel Corporation pays 19 cents per head per day to men who have on an average five of a family to support. From that standpoint, therefore, it appears that it would be better for them to go to jail for the month at least. I do not in the least feel that I am competent to enter upon a full discussion of the case, but there is sitting in this House a gentleman who is a recognized authority on such things, and who has written a very learned book, and I shall be glad to quote therefrom for the benefit of hon. members:

Of methods of industrial remuneration which are calculated to beget a sense of freedom in effort, and which therefore are specially adapted to promote efficiency, it is certain that experience has revealed no single method possessing a monopoly of advantage. On the contrary, methods wholly different have disclosed much of individual merit. The practice which in the long run is apt to do most by way of promoting efficiency, through harmonizing the interests of labour, capital, management, and the community, is pretty certain to be in the nature of a combination of features broader than any possessed by a single method.

What labour is really concerned about as regards remuneration, is adequate reward of the effort put forth. What capital and management are really concerned about is adequate reward for their investments and services. What the community is really concerned about is adequate value in services and commodities for purchasing power. The method of remuneration of labour which helps most to secure adequacy of returns all round is the method which is likely to prove the most productive of efficiency, and, in the long run, the most advantageous to labour.

What is earned, rather than what is received, or paid, is the fundamental consideration. Men should get what they earn, and should earn what they get. The amount of product must be looked to as the determining factor. The thing paid for is the result, not the time spent on obtaining it.

Where remuneration is the incentive to effort, if effort is to be adequate, remuneration must be adequate. The real interest of the parties to industry lies in the incentive being adequate to call forth the best that is in the worker in energy and skill in other words, the utmost of his will and capacity. If the best is to be expected of a man, he must be given the fullest opportunity to make the best of himself.

Wages, like hours, may be excessive or deficient. They are too high when they lead to laziness and indifference, and too low when they are insufficient to stimulate effort. Adequate wages are beneficial alike to labour, capital, management, and the community, in that they lead to a maximum of effort and a minimum of waste.

It is seldom possible to determine readily what are adequate wages. Much depends on the class of work to be performed and the

Nova Scotia Miners

amount of energy and skill required on the character and temperament, and even on the heredity of the worker.

Much depends, too, on circumstances and conditions such as the available supply and demand of labour, the hours to be worked, the quality of materials supplied, the efficiency of the plant and equipment, and other indeterminable factors. With remuneration, as with all else in industrial relations, to secure efficiency is a matter of proper adjustments. Account must be taken of human as well as economic considerations. The incentive must be adjusted to the individual. "The ideal condition economically", says Dr. Arthur Shadwell, "would be an automatic mechanism which would exactly adjust the incentive to the individual, or the wages to the work, thereby eliciting the best of which each is capable. This would be equally advantageous to the wage-taker and the wage-giver, and to the community to which both belong, because there would be no waste. Its perfect realization in industry is no more practicable than any other sort of perfection, but some methods of remuneration come nearer to it than others, and their comparative bearing on efficiency can be gauged accordingly."

Proceeding to estimate the various methods of remunerating Labour, by reference to the economic principle of " adjusted incentive " or " the differential treatment of varying capacity," this eminent authority finds that, of all methods, the farthest removed from the ideal is that of Time-wages at a uniform rate, in that it presupposes an equality which has no existence, and is therefore based on a false principle. Piece-work, on the other hand, he regards as obviously based on the sound economic principle that workers should be paid according to the value of their work. Where Time-work is adjusted to individual capacity, the principle is the same as that underlying payment by the piece.

That Dr. Shadwell in his analysis is right, must be apparent to all who, like him, have had a wide range of observation and experience. How is it, then, that Labour, which is primarily interested in the method of remuneration best calculated to assure it amplest returns, is so averse to payment on a piece-work basis, and inclines so strongly to payment of a standard wage on a time basis? To attribute this to sheer laziness, or to a desire to degrade all workers to the level of the least capable or industrious is as untrue to the facts as it is unfair to human nature. Workers in industry are just as inclined to put forth effort for the sake of reward, just as ambitious, just as eager for individual recognition, as individuals from any other class in soSiety. Nor are the leaders different from others in these respects. If in appreciable numbers the workers fail in these qualities, it is because the path of bitter experience has bred feelings of fatality concerning the circumstances of their lot, and because, in the immensity of the struggle in which they are involved, they see little hope of gaining a reward which they consider adequate, little opportunity of rising to a higher level, and little scope for individual initiative or individual attainment.

As a matter of fact, it is not the desire to ignore talent, but a belief that in some manner beyond their control special skill or exertion will be ignored, or, what is worse, exploited, that provokes among working men a reaction against piece-work payment, and a desire for payment on a time basis. As Dr. Shadwell has pointed out, the minimum time-wage, on which

Labour insists, is itself a sort of tacit and unconscious protest against a uniform rate, since a minimum implies possible variations which are not to fall beneath a certain point but may rise above it. Likewise, the real meaning of the " living-wage," he finds to lie in the fact that wages are the incentive to work, and must be adequate to produce it. Where men are forced by necessity to work below a standard which constitutes a living wage, labour, while apparently cheap, is really dear, because " sweated " Labour is either unwilling or without capacity.

If payment on a piece-work rather than on a uniform time basis is to be maintained in industry, it can be so only through affording grounds sufficient to lead to the substitution of faith for fear as respects the consequences involved. Foremost must come the certainty that if a man increases his output by working harder, he will continue to reap an advantage by so doing. This means that employers must refrain from cutting down the piece-price in order to reap, at labour's expense, the benefit of increased exertions on the part of labour. Such practice vitiates the whole principle of piece-work payment by destroying the capable worker's incentive. Since it inevitably results in a lessening of productivity, it deals a fatal blow at efficiency, leads to a consequent increase in the cost of production, and justifies the prejudice on the part of labour against this method of remuneration.

Piece-work, moreover, must not be rendered illusory in practice through employers providing bad material or machinery. The temptation to "speed up" machinery, thereby overtaxing energies of the worker, is something which must also be guarded against, though it is not likely to be a source of danger where the rate of speed is controlled by the worker himself. The fear that jealousy between workers may be excited through competition is less an evil than the danger that incentive may so vanish as to leave little room for competition. The example of the more capable and industrious should prove a stimulus rather than an irritant to less efficient workers where certainty of enhanced rewards is rendered apparent.

Once confidence is established in the piecework basis of remuneration through the assured maintenance of the principle on which it is founded that, namely, of workers being rewarded according to the value of their work, the stimulus of ordinary piece-work may be increased in various ways by additional rewards based on evidence of different individual capacity. In technical language, this is the principle of the "intensive differential rate." Referring to intensive piece-work, Dr. Shadwell says: "It takes different forms, but generally consists in paying each worker a higher price (i.e., a differential rate) for each piece or job in proportion to the rapidity and quality of his workmanship. This automatically adjusts the incentive to the individual who has the choice of earning more or less according to capacity and industry. The employer is able to pay higher wages for quicker work because he gets a larger output for the same machine cost. He divides with the worker the advantage accruing from the difference."

Organized labour, in some trades, has protested against this method on the ground that it resembles the task system of wage payment and creates jealousy and ill-feeling. It is clear that a rare impartiality must be exercised in any attempt to apply the principle of the

Nova Scotia Miners

"intensive differential rate," and that a just discrimination is difficult. Unless, in practice, suspicion of favoritism or of undue pressure can be avoided, this method may well serve to arouse rather than allay unrest.

Similar in (purpose to payment by the piece is the premium or premium bonus plan. It consists in offering additional pay for more output in a given time, or for less time expended on a given piece, or for economies effected with respect to power, supplies or materials used in production. The premium may be differently calculated according to the nature of the work. It may be on a time basis, so much by the day or week with additional pay for curtailment of the time required for a given result, or on a piece basis with a bonus for the less time expended on a given piece. Or it may be on a basis of inverse ratio to quantities of power or materials consumed. The method is open to the same kind of dangers as payment on a piece-work basis, and prejudice against it can be overcome only by the same regard for the maintenance of standard rates irrespective of the premiums or bonuses allowed.

In the remuneration of labour, the fears of capital, management, and the community are just as important a consideration as those of labour. If productivity, in which all share, is to be increased through improved relations, capital, management and the community, as well as labour, must have their faith increased through the elimination of their fears. All payment based on the principle of " the adjusted incentive " and " the differential treatment of varying capacity," tends in this direction.

Labour cost is only one element in the total production cost. There are in addition the cost of premises and equipment, including plant, power, tools, and machinery the cost of maintenance, raw materials, and supplies; the expenses of management, including superintendence and direction of processes; and there are the risks of various kinds to/property and person which become chargeable upon industry. It is quite conceivable that "the differential incentive," whilst it elicits the best efforts of each man by paying him according to value of output, offers no incentive to him to promote th,e interests of the whole by care of machinery, by economy of power or raw material. It may, through the effort to increase his own output, lead the worker to be extravagant of many things. If cost of production is to be kept down, something more is required which will give the wage-earner a direct interest in the success of the undertaking as a whole, Such an interest limits the tendency toward extravagance in the use of the property of others, and has the advantage of reducing the need and the expense of supervision. A direct interest in the success of an undertaking as a whole is the prevention of waste in production what a knowledge of industrial processes as a whole is to intelligent and sustained effort.

" A thoroughly effective method of remuneration," says Dr. Shadwell, " includes both principles, (1) the differential incentive, which acts on the individual as such; and (2) profit-sharing, which acts on him in his collective capacity, as a member of a body bound together by common interests and working for a common end. By increasing the efficiency of labour, they diminish its cost, and so increase profits though wages rise."

I thought it possible, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the Government had forgotten

that he wrote this book. If he does remember, I am quite sure that some of his followers, judging by the sentiments they expressed this afternoon, are not in sympathy with it; and Hansard to-morrow morning may make good reading for them. This is the thing, however, that as a House of Commons which is supposed to represent the people of Canada, we should remember: the only thing worth while in industry, no matter What that industry is, is humanity. If the Government can, by appointing either a royal commission or a commission that is not royal, go to the ground and look it over-I think the Minister of Labour admitted this afternoon that the investigators in this case had gone to Halifax rather than to Glace Bay and Cumberland and the places where the miners worked and lived-if the Government can do anything by this means, they should do it. I felt that as the only woman member of the House-although I would rather be known as the member for Southeast Grey than as the woman member of the House- I would not be fair to myself or to the women and children in Nova Scotia who are to-day really suffering for the lack of food and clothing, if I too, did not raise my voice in protest against conditions that are made possible by the special privilege and great power that have been granted to the British Empire Steel Corporation.

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my hon. friend who has just taken her seat (Miss Macphail) will not be surprised when I say, that I agree whole-heartedly with the greater part, if not all, of what she has said. As to the conditions existing in the mining regions of Nova Scotia and the unfortunate and deplorable state of affairs which has arisen out of a particular industrial .controversy, I am very much in accord with what has been said this afternoon. The question that we are called upon to consider, however, is not these conditions but how they can best be met.

The discussion to-day has arisen out of the Government's attitude toward a request which was made yesterday by a deputation that a royal commission be appointed tc consider mining conditions in Nova Scotia. In order that the House may understand the significance of the Government's action, may I make perfectly clear just what powers a royal commission has and what powers exist under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, which has already been applied to deal with this dispute and the

Nova Scotia Miners

provisions of which are still available should it be thought advisable to have further use made of them. To show the relationship, perhaps I might go back a little and trace the steps which led to the passing of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.

One of the hon. members who addressed the House this afternoon pointed out that the old Liberal government had appointed royal commissions to deal with industrial disputes. That is perfectly true, but the reason why it did, was that at the time there was no other agency for conducting investigations under oath where the matters involved were in the nature of industrial disputes. The first legislation of this Parliament with special relation to industrial controversies was enacted in 1900, when a Conciliation Act was passed, based upon similar legislation in force in Great Britain. That act empowered the Government to appoint at the time of an industrial dispute, a conciliator who might go into the district affected and endeavour to bring the parties together, his powers were voluntary and failing adjustment of the controversy by voluntary effort, he was limited to making a report which might influence public opinion sufficiently to assist in ending the controversy. For a number of years that was the only legislation we had to deal with industrial disputes. Under it there were many interventions, but experience went to show that the act was insufficient in that it gave to the Government conciliator no power to get at the truth in the event of the facts being, disputed as between the parties. He was unable to summon witnesses; he was unable, except with the consent of the parties, to investigate premises; his power was, in large measure, simply one of persuasion.

One or two very serious disputes arose, one, in particular, in western Canada which involved the interests not merely of the two contending parties but also of the general public, who in no way were responsible for the controversy and had no voice in its settlement. I have reference to the strike which took place in southern Alberta, I think it was in 1907. Because of a dispute in the coal fields there, many of the settlers in our western provinces found themselves at the beginning of the winter season without coal or fuel and threatened with the possibility of freezing to death. After that situation had been brought to the attention of Parliament the

Industrial Disputes Investigation Act was passed with a view of providing machinery which might more adequately deal with these disputes and which would give to all parties concerned the power of investigation. There was always this objection to a royal commission: that the Government might be accused of including in its personnel an appointee or appointees of their own who would be persona non grata with one or other or both of the parties to the dispute. It is seldom that a government can satisfy all parties to a dispute in the selection of the personnel of a royal commission. It was thought, therefore, that if a method could be found which, while protecting the rights of the parties, would at the same time give to each an opportunity to investigate through an appointee of its own, some one in whom it had confidence, that would be the wisest course the Government could take. That is the theoretical basis of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. It recognizes first of all that Labour as a party to an industrial controversy has the right to have its own investigator participate in the investigation; that capital also as a party to an industrial controversy has the right to have an investigator in whom it has confidence participate in the investigation. Then there is the third party, the public, which is vitally interested in most industrial disputes.

I must confess that except for a chance remark or two we have heard1 little said this afternoon or in the course of this debate as to the public interest in the matter, and it is in that regard that I wish particularly to say a word or two a's to the Government's attitude in this matter. The public are interested in a just settlement and particularly in the prevention of industrial disputes. This fact the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act takes cognizance of by permitting the two parties to the dispute to agree, if they can, on a chairman, but failing agreement by the parties, giving to a minister of the Government, representing the people of the country, the right to appoint the chairman of a board; also if either of the parties to the dispute fails to appoint a representative then giving the minister as representing the public the right to appoint such member of a board. Once a board of investigation has been established under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, that board has all the powers of a royal commission. It can sumlmon before it witnesses, it can compel the production of Aoeu-

Nova Scotia Miners

merits, it 'has the right to take evidence under oath, it can go on to the premises concerned and investigate matters there; it has all the powers that a court has.

Now, notice this, and it is an important point for hon. members to have in their minds: The Government might appoint a royal commission, place on it very honourable and estimable persons, but would it be possible for the Government to place on a board, representatives who were likely to share to the same degree the confidence of the parties concerned as representatives selected by the parties themselves?-and that is the right the parties have under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. When this dispute took place in Nova Scotia the parties to it were asked to name their members on the board1. The miners named a member, and their member had all the rights and powers of a royal commissioner. He had the right to call before him any member of the company concerned, he had the right to demand the production of the books of the company concerned. I repeat he had all the powers and rights that any royal commissioner would have The other members of the board had similar rights.

Now, when those rights have already been given, when a board has already acted with that full power and authority, does it seem a wise course for the Government immediately afterwards, because the award that has been given has not been satisfactory to the parties concerned, and simply, because asked to appoint a royal commission, to go on and investigate the matter further ? No one in this country has greater faith in the power of publicity to remedy certain wrongs than I have. I believe there are evils which publicity can cure that no penalty on earth would ever cure, particularly that class of evils which are of the nature of an injustice, or of meanness, arbitrary behaviour and the like. Things of this kind, which are more or less common to all industrial controversies, will not stand the light of publicity. I believe firmly and strongly in the wisdom of the widest publicity as the best agency for helping to solve industrial wrongs, but there comes a time when one has to decide just how many agencies of publicity must be set to work and in what particular circumstances they must be set to work.

I hope I have made it clear, as regards this dispute, that every member of the board appointed, including the representative chosen by the miners themselves, had

[Mr. Mackenzie King.)

thiis right of investigation and all the powers that go with it-powers equivalent to those of a royal commission. One of the members of the delegation which appeared before some of my colleagues and' myself yesterday to ask for a royal commission was a member of that board. He mentioned that the board did not visit the different parts of the mining area affected, and he was asked the question by one of my colleagues whether any communication had been sent to the minister at Ottawa to request the board to visit these districts. He intimated that there had been none, but that he had spoken to his colleagues and they had preferred to sit in Halifax and1 have the investigation carried on there. Can the Government be held responsible for the board having failed to travel to different parts of Nova Scotia to make its inquiry when no member of the board brought that 'suggestion to the Government's attention? My colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) would have been the very first to have directed the board of investigation to go wherever any member of it wished to go, and I venture to say that if any useful purpose can be served by a further investigation, and it is desired to -have the board re-convened, visit these different districts and take evidence, my colleague the Minister of Labour will be the first to try and bring about that effective means of investigation.

One thing I should like to point out, however, and it is this: The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has read to the House this evening oart of a memorial which was presented to the Government yesterday. I think hon. members who heard it will recall that what he read had to do very largely with the condition of the children attending the schools, that they were not attending as they should because they were not properly clothed, had not sufficient food, and the like. Well, I ask hon. members of this House, is the question of the attendance of children at school primarily a question for investigation by this Government or by the government of the province concerned? If there is any truth in this memorial, and I am not calling it in question one way or the other, the matters that are brought to the attention of the Government in that memorial would appear to be matters primarily of concern to the province of Nova Scotia.

Let me direct the attention of hon. members to this further fact. The province of Nova Scotia has offered to appoint a

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I did not state that it

was not industrial warfare; nothing of the kind. I would like the hon. gentleman to tell me wherein what I stated was wrong. If I misstated the facts, will he please state where and what the real facts are?