Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

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

Mr. IRVINE:

In what way would an

attempt by this Government to settle the

trouble in Nova Scotia be countenancing sabotage?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

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

Mr. IRVINE:

I would ask the Prime

Minister this question: Have there not

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

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

There may

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

Nova Scotia Miners

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

Mr. IRVINE:

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

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

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

an investigation under the Industrial Disputes Act has taken place, to-morrow it may be called upon to appoint a commission for like reasons in the province of British Columbia, and next day for similar reasons in the province of Ontario. There has to be some policy followed consistently, and the policy which the Government is prepared to follow is that of seeing that in so far as these industrial disputes can be fully investigated they shall be fully investigated, and that in so far as each dispute can be investigated by a board possessing a personnel in which the different parties concerned will have confidence, the effort of the Government will be to secure that personnel. In regard to the request of the deputation that waited upon it, all that the Government has said is-to quote from the words of the letter which I sent yesterday and which my hon. friend (Mr. Irvine) has read:

-that having had the matter under consideration the Government is of the opinion that the situation is not one which in the public interest can be satisfactorily dealt with under the existing circumstances by a Royal Commission.

"Under the existing circumstances!" And that has reference to the policy which we think is not in the public interest but which is being followed by one of the parties to the dispute at the present time. We are prepared to consider the interests of labour, we are prepared to consider the interests of Capital, but we have also to consider, and to consider primarily, the interests of the public; and I contend, Mr. Speaker, that it is not in the public interest for the Government to issue a royal commission upon request of parties who are taking a course of action which cannot be defended in this Parliament.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Marci'l, Bonaventure) :

It is the right of the hon. member for East Calgary to close the debate. If any other hon. member desires to speak he should do so now.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

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

Nova Scotia Miners

absolutely nothing to remedy it. Suppose we test this case on any of the grounds put forward by the hon. gentleman. Suppose we take the ground of public necessity. Here is a great big public interest involved, not only in connection with the men and wages, but also in connection with the mining of our coal. There is a public interest with respect to the coal, which we urgently require. It is not only Nova Scotia that is interested, but the whole of Canada, up to the city of Montreal is vitally interested in the question of the production of Nova Scotia's coal.

The case is absolutely parallel to the case my hon. friend refers to, where he justified the royal commission of 1907. My difficulty is to find out just exactly why we cannot do something. Only two nights ago, when the estimates for the Labour Department were under consideration, an hon. member, speaking from this side of the House, asked the Minister of Labour whether, in his opinion, labour disputes could not be better settled by men of strong common sense, who knew human character, and how to deal with men rather than by men of scientific attainments, and I understood there was a very cheerful assent given to that proposition by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). But there is no such man on the job. He has today given us two reasons why this request is refused. The first reason, is that the request was made by representatives, not of the men, but of the people down there, that they were not in a position to say that the men were to be bound by anything that was done, that they did not know the companies would be bound by anything that was done, and because these people came here, not representing the men, a royal commission could not be granted. That was his first point. Later on, as the theme developed the real reason apparently was that, upon a very vital question, in the minister's mind, a question of policy in connection with the railway matter, the attitude of the men as represented by Mr. McLachlan, was such that he would not give them any commission. I do not know which was the real reason for refusal, but I know the grounds were absolutely inconsistent, one with the other.

The Premier gives illustrations, and makes an argument, for example, as to the peculiar position of this company, the peculiar complaint, and the peculiar interest the province has in connection with it He refers particularly to the school question, but there was much more than

the school question. It is quite true my hon. friend did refer to the school question, but the memorandum refers to lots of things that are very largely in the hands of this Parliament. The memorandum says for example-

We feel that, unless prompt and effective action is taken by the Government, matters too long drifting may break out into open hostilities to the lasting injury of the entire province.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is something which at least concerns, and very closely concerns, the Dominion authorities. But we are not driven to that one particular thing; there are many grounds that could be raised. What is the idea of a Labour Department? That is what we are concerned with. Is it to say that, because one party to the controversy is utterly and entirely unreasonable, no attempt shall be made to bring him to his senses? Is it because the issue is grave and difficult that the department is rendered absolutely impotent to take action? That apparently is the attitude. Nothing is to be done because one of the parties to this issue is entirely wrong. Well, to the extent of the wrong, I should have thought there was all the more work for the Department of Labour to do, if that department is to properly function. Here is a very serious labour dispute, and we have not a single suggestion made by the Minister of Labour as to how that dispute is to be settled, except that somebody else is to take up the job, and that he iis not worrying about it. He will not go into it, the thing is too serious and the department will not deal with it, because these men are going to such absurd lengths that the department will not have anything to do with it.

How are you ever going to get people into a reasonable and proper frame of mind, assuming they are all wrong, unless you apply some of the excellent principles to be found so splendidly set out in the firsi part of the Prime Minister's book. He says in that book that the first underlying prim ciple in the settlement of industrial dis putes is that of the open conference which, he points out, cannot be applied unless you first bring the parties together, and at least try to make an honest attempt to settle across the table all differences. It is admitted here that this board of conciliation did not go upon the ground, or at least did not familiarize itself with the local situation. I do not know that the Government is to blame for that. I would not blame it for that at all. The Prime Minister in his argument to-day, asked,"How is the Govern-

Nova Scotia Miners

ment to blame for that?" The Government was not to blame for it. Absolutely not at all. There is no question of blaming anybody, but what we are finding fault with is the lack of action. The Government was not to blame one way or the other for what that commission did or did not do, and that commission may be absolutely all right, but the point is that the people there do not think it is all right. You have a deadlock. You have a Labour Department appointed for the purpose of breaking deadlocks, and I would have thought the more serious that deadlock, the more suffering entailed by it, the more necessary direct and urgent action on the part of that department.

I think the House is entitled to at least some statement from the Minister of Labour as to how this condition is to be properly handled, and to whom he has on the job, if he has anybody there. Apparently he has nobody there, and why? Because it is a mess, because it is a difficult proposition, the people ought to be left absolutely and entirely to their own resources. It is said that Nova Scotia can look after itself. You might say that about any labour trouble in any province in this country, but why have we a Labour Department? We are maintaining a Labour Department to settle these matters.

The saime argument might be made as to the Alberta trouble. The Labour Department took action in that case and brought peace and production to the coal fields there. They did not do that by saying "We have no jurisdiction." They did it by going on the ground, and getting the parties together.

Mr. LOGAN:

Does the hon. gentleman

not know that the mines of Alberta are the property of the federal government while the mines of Nova Scotia are the property of the provincial government?

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

The hon.

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

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

Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :

At this late hour I do not propose to detain the House for any great length of time in discussing this question. That it is a question of very serious moment is quite evident from the information disclosed in the debate to-day, and it seems to me, with the present temper of the situation in Nova Scotia, there is a condition of affairs there that might easily and readily become more serious even than it is at the present time. That is a question which neither the government of Nova Scotia nor the Government of Canada can afford lightly to pass over. (I am not going to enter into a discussion of the question of paying dividends on watered stock of the British Empire Steel Corporation. The question of watered stock in corporations is, in my judgment, a question that might well engage the attention of this House, because I think that a very great deal of the industrial trouble we have had in this country is due to the fact that the management of corporations are inclined to earn returns on stock that is very greatly inflated. I do not wish, however, to discuss that aspect of the matter to-night.

I rise mainly for the purpose of offering a suggestion to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Government,, and it is one which under the circumstances might very well be accepted. As to the attitude they have taken in regard to the appointing of a royal commission, it appears to me that there is considerable force in the arguments advanced by the Prime Minister. There was a Conciliation board appointed several months ago to inquire into this whole matter. It seems pretty generally admitted by all parties to the dispute, and the public as well, that the board of conciliation did not discharge its duties as fully as possible in the way of seeking information from the miners themselves, and from a study of the question in the precise areas affected, as it might have done. I am quite sure that the man whom the miners appointed as their representative on that board is one in whom they had confidence. The atmosphere in which the board of conciliation approached this work several months ago is totally different from the atmosphere that exists at the present time, and I would offer a suggestion to the Government. It was hinted at by the Prime Minister, and I trust it will be acted upon.

Nova Scotia Miners

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

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

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

Mr. CRERAR:

I am glad to hear that

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

everything was done that could possibly have been done.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :

I do not indulge the hope that I shall be able to add a single new thought to the discussion, but I should like to concentrate the attention of the House upon what I believe to be the really vital point of the whole matter; and what I have to say is very much in line with what my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has said. Most of my knowledge of this matter came from my presence at the interview with the gentlemen who waited upon the Government yesterday, the four mayors from Spring'hill and the three towns in Cape Breton. I had a general knowledge before, but the precise information that I have on the subject I have derived from these gentlemen.

Now, listening to the discussion in the early part of the debate, one would have thought that there had been no machinery for dealing with matters of this kind. My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Irvine) pictured the scene of the miners coming to the Dominion Government and finding (that nothing could be done, and going to the local government and meeting with the same experience. He then asked what in the world was there for the miners to do but something which he did not suggest but left us to guess at. Is that a fair statement of the case? That would imply that we had no machinery whatever for dealing with such a situation, and if that were the case it would be deplorable indeed. But that is not a fair statement of the matter. We have machinery for dealing with these things, and too little attention has been given to the fact that such machinery has been employed. As a matter of fact it has been set in motion.

Let us see what was done. Under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act the miners named as their representative a Mr. Ling, a very intelligent, earnest and respected member of the mining community, who has the honour to occupy the position of mayor of his town. The British Empire Steel Corporation, for reasons of their own, did not nominate a man. The late government, exercising the power they had, nominated a gentleman in Halifax, Colonel Thompson. I have the pleasure of knowing Colonel Thompson, who is a most respected citizen, and who, I am perfectly sure, approached his duties with a sincere desire to act fairly to every one. The parties not being able to agree, the present

Nova Scotia Miners

Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) appointed a Mr. Gillen, from Toronto. I do not know Mr. Gillen, but I understand that he is a man of large experience and is much respected all round. I spoke to Mr. Ling yesterday, who was a member of the board and one of the four mayors that came to see us. I said: " The burden of your difficulty appears to be that the tribunal met at Halifax and did not meet at Cape Breton or Springhill?" He answered, "Yes." "Well," I said, "you were a member of the board. Did you move that it should go to Cape Breton?" " No," he said, " I asked the question and I was told that it would sit at Halifax." I have no doubt he meant well, but it would seem that, had he attached much importance to a meeting at Cape Breton, he would have done more than merely ask a question as to whether the board would meet there. He would have appealed to the Minister of Labour. I turned to the Minister of Labour sitting-next to me and said, " Were you ever asked to direct the commission as to where they would meet?" "No," he said; "had I been asked I would have gladly given such direction."

The picture they presented of the situation with regard to the schools and the children, and the general condition in those towns, is so deplorable that it has moved all of us to sympathy. But I do not think the right steps were taken, and I think Mr. Ling would admit now that he should have requested a meeting of the commission at Sydney. He did not do so. I suggested to him, "Would not that be now the best way? I am not sure," I said, "speaking from memory, whether the Minister of Labour would have power to revive the commission, but if that could be done would it meet the case?" Well, he was not prepared to answer for other people, he was not representing the labour men; as has been said, he was representing the community generally. I said, "Won't you admit, Mr. Ling, that if the commission could be revived and go down to Cape Breton and discuss the question on the ground, it might lead to satisfactory results?" He answered, "Perhaps it would." "I do not understand," I said, "that you are questioning either the integrity or the competency of the commission?" "No," he answered. I then put this further question to him, "You think Mr. Gillen was trying to do right?" "Yes," he replied. Then I added, "You have confidence in Mr. Gillen, and Colonel Thompson has the confidence of everybody. Why in the world cannot you

get together and have the matter adjusted in that way?"

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

Mr. MEIGHEN:

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

Mr. FIELDING:

I made no condition

about Mr. McLachlan at all, in fact I had not given that phase of the question much thought, but I think if we have legal power

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

Mr. IRVINE:

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

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Marcil):

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

Mr. IRVINE:

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

Penitentiary Act

helpful to all who listened to him; and, finally, the leader of the Progressives made a concrete suggestion, which was endorsed by the hon. Minister of Finance and accepted by the Prime Minister. I do not know if the course suggested will result in a solution, as a matter of fact I do not contend that any government can find an absolute solution for any problem, but I am very glad to see that so much interest has been created in this particular case.

In summing up the debate I wish to make it quite clear that I did not suggest the appointment of a royal commission. I have just as little faith in royal commissions as have hon. members on this side of the House. I never suggested that. But I have to a very great extent got all that I was trying to secure in the suggestion which has been made. It seems to me however, that it was not fair on the part of the hon. Minister of Labour to claim that the Government has the right to make a stipulation to the miners that it does not make to the other side concerned in this row. The hon. Minister of Finance suggested, if I heard him correctly, that they had the right to exact from both parties a promise to accept the finding of the commission. I think that is reasonable; but to expect that the men alone shall make that promise does not seem to me at all fair.

I am delighted that throughout this prolonged debate there has been no incursion into party politics, but that the question before the House and the country has been discussed in such an excellent spirit and with such excellent results.