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

Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the notification by the management of the Powell River Paper Company to the members of the local union of paper makers in their employ that unless they surrender their charter by Sunday the 20th instant all members of the union in their employ will be discharged, this action in the absence of any strike, threatened strike or labour trouble constituting an attack on the

Ihe Jrowell Kiver Company is a large paper manufacturing company on the coast, about one hundred miles north of Vancouver. It is one of those places called a company town-site, that is, the company obtained a town-site, put up their works, and are the exclusive owners of the townsite with the exception of one small block which is owned by a Chinaman. The effect of this is that the company practically controls everyone -who lives and speaks or even thinks in that town. I wish to give full credit where credit is due. The town is very well run from the point of view of labour conditions, that is, the living conditions are satisfactory, the houses are quite properly built, the sanitary conditions excellent, and the light and water satisfactory. The houses are furnished to the company's workers at a very reasonable rental. There is nothing to complain of in that respect at all. I wish to give credit where credit is due, but unfortunately the company have the idea-it is an American company, under alien management and with alien capital-which is prevalent in some sections of the States that the workingman is practically a chattel, and they not only have the people in that town working for them but they wish to think for them. I am not exaggerating because I know the circumstances. I know a case where a man went as a delegate to a political convention and was promptly discharged for that reason. I know another case where a min-

Labour and Organization

ister of the gospel was accused of being too democratic in the views of Christian democracy that he preached, and that man-he was not fired for they do not fire parsons, but he was notified that his house was required for some other purpose. The parson was willing to stay, and his congregation were willing to keep him, but that man had to sever his connection with that church because the views of Christian democracy that he preached there were not acceptable to the management of the town. I am only saying this by way of illustration to give the House an idea of the attitude of the management towards the people of that town. The company, of course, is largely employed in making paper, and there is a paper makers' union, a trades union, in that town, and the union has been languishing a great deal because since labour conditions got hard, the union was frowned upon by the management, and the only place they could hold their meetings was in this Chinese block that I mentioned before. The company was unable to get this Chinaman to move. He had bought the block before the company acquired their property. The officials of this organization were notified about a month ago that their services would be dispensed with. Every official of that union was discharged and their places were taken by somebody else. Now the members of this trade union have been notified that unless they surrender-that is the word used-before next Sunday their charter, that is-go out of business entirely-that is what it amounts to exactly- all the members of the union there will be discharged. I wish to state that my information further says that there is no strike or threatened strike, and there is no labour trouble of any description. It is simply that the employers and the organization of employers take the stand that they will prevent, so far as they are able, labour from organizing in their particular way.

Now, I thought the time had long gone past in this day and generation, when it would be necessary for me or anybody else in this House to rise and defend the rights of ordinary labour to organize for their own protection and in a thoroughly legitimate way. But it appears that there is a reactionary sentiment which always crops up in this country and which is very much alert. Not only is it unjust but it is a very bad policy to treat trade unionism in this way because trade unionism is the bulwark of society against Bolshevism. Certain people may not think that, but it is the case. Wherever there is a genuine trade union you will always find it opposed to any suggestion of Bolshevism. There is some kind of an international union which is affiliated with the Bolshevists of Moscow, but that is not supported or endorsed by the genuine trade union-in fact the most bitter conflicts take place between the genuine trade unions and the Bolshevist. Therefore, I am justified in saying that when these organizations of genuine working men get together for their own improvement or benefit they should be encouraged rather than frowned upon. They are the future bulwark, as I have said, against Bolshevism. And what do you suppose these men will become if they are compelled to surrender their charter on this occasion, or if they are thrown out of their homes and employment in consequence of this action on the part of the employers? What will be the next step in the political affiliations of these men? They will become Bolshevists and I would not blame them if they did.

I would like to point out that as far back as 1918 the late government passed an order in council, No. 7,143, on the 11th July, in which there is what is called a declaration of a war labour policy. I grant you it says a war labour policy. Conditions were very unsettled then. Indeed we did not know from day to day what steps or what attitude labour might take. It was very urgent that labour should, in plain language, be conciliated, and the Dominion government very properly stepped in and pronounced, so to speak, or declared, what they considered was a proper war labour policy to be followed not only by the Dominion but by the employers on the one hand and the employees on the other. They formulated practically a policy for better mutual relations which they endeavoured to induce the two parties to adopt voluntarily as between labour and their employers. The second condition reads as follows:

That all employees have the right to organize in trade unions, and this right shall not be denied or interfered with in any manner whatsoever, and through their chosen representatives shali be permitted and encouraged to negotiate with employers concerning working conditions, rates of pay, and other grievances.

I do not believe there is one per cent of the employers of Canada who do not subscribe to that declaration, and who do not prefer to see trade unions in their neighbourhood so that they can deal with their representatives in all matters of dispute. If that was good law or sound policy for the government to adopt in 1918 it cannot be very far off what is just and fair to-day, and there is the whole question in a nutshell. I simply ask protection for these men in their iegitimate rights to organize-not for strikes, or anything of that kind, there is no strike, but simply the right to organize.

Labour and Organization

I may say that this industry is not without obligations to the Dominion government. They get very substantial proteeticn-my hon. friends to the left of me will be glad to know -ranging from 15 per cent to 35 pel cent; and I may say that my information is that during the war the production of their paper was costing them $32 a ton and it was selling in the neighbourhood of from $90 to $160 a ton. Today conditions are different. The price of paper now will probably run-under the present conditions of manufacture because they have got modern appliances-about $25 a ton and the selling price of paper is somewhere from $60 to $65. So that the protection this industry is getting from the Dominion government affords these manufacturers at least a very adequate measure of protection, being the difference between $25, or say $27, and $65 a ton. Therefore they could well afford to lend some ear to the government if they interfere on behalf of these working men. In the present case I feel like adopting the remarks of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean.) the other day when he suggested that the way to solve the question of the enhanced price of sugar was to give the refiners twenty-four hours to come down in their rates or they would see the effect in the budget. Perhaps it is not too late to insert an amendment in the budget which would solve this situation also.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary East); I do not think it is necessary for anyone to make a speech at any great length on the question. It seems to me that it is a simple question and the issue very clear. I wish to say, in the first place, that the labour men concerned in this difficulty, as well as the whole labour movement in Canada, are indebted to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi for having brought this matter to the attention of the government and the House. I think that from his presentation of the case it is an attempt being made by the employers concerned to prevent labour from organizing. They have given an ultimatum to the men that before next Sunday they must surrender their charter or leave the job. The men concerned are not very likely to give up without a struggle. Not only so, but the principle underlying this ultimatum involves the whole labour movement in Canada, and I do not suppose that organized labour as a whole would be willing to quietly sit by and see the principle upon which they are organized challenged in this way, knowing that if it is surrendered in the one instance it may be surrendered in other instances, and that ulti-

mately there will be no labour organization at all. So that, in the interests of the country at large as well as in the interests of labour, I hope the government will take whatever steps may be in its power to put this matter right. There is no doubt that if this thing is allowed to go on-and the government, I presume, has the power to do something to prevent it

unrest will follow. I do not, of course, anticipate that the government will take any attitude that will be detrimental to the interests of labour in this case. On the contrary, I quite assume that it will do the fair thing. I am not clear as to what exactly the government has it in its power to do in this connection. However, I have no doubt the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) will make that clear to us. I would conclude by urging that in the interests of the general public and in the interests of the labour movement as a whole-seeing that their right to organize has been threatened in this highhanded manner-the government will take whatever steps are in its power to prevent this thing being put through.

Mr. FRED STORK (Skeena):

I wish to

endorse what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said. This is the natural outcome, as I see it, of the "closed town" system as we know it in British Columbia. It is what might be expected from the system that has prevailed there of recent years. There are in my constituency several towns which are entirely manufacturing centres, but they are owned and controlled absolutely by the company which operates the industry. These companies have prevented anyone else from coming in; they have a complete air-tight monopoly. The system has been imported from some of the American states. Some years ago it was in vogue in Montana and other states where they had industrial centres that were owned and controlled entirely by the mining corporation. To the people of the United States it proved to be a very irksome system and they wiped it out there. Apparently the American manufacturer coming over to Canada has brought this system with him, and we find to-day in British Columbia quite a number of centres, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has mentioned, where the industrial corporation completely controls the whole situation. The men who are on their payroll are entirely under the jurisdiction of the company. In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, that does not make for good citizenship. A situation in which a man labouring for a corporation in which he has no voice of his own, in which to a very great extent he is precluded from

taking part in public discussion, where he is prevented from exercising his own free will as a citizen, and prevented from joining anything he wants to join, cannot make for the wellbeing and prosperity of the Dominion. I am of the opinion that we have the power to very much curtail this system. This is a matter which has received some attention from former provincial governments, but up to the present time no action has been taken. When a company policeman can meet the incoming boat, and tell any man who steps off the boat that his presence is not required there, that is a condition which should not obtain in any British free country. We find that these corporations enjoy the benefit of police, they enjoy the benefit of post office and custom houses. I agree that some attention should be given to this matter. In accordance with the suggestion of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean, in regard to sugar, it might be well to serve notice that if people are going to endeavour to carry on the feudal system in Canada they should not expect to make use of governmental services and all our modern public utilities.

Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):

The Labour department has received no official advice in regard to the particular question referred to by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), although this morning he mentioned the advice that had been received by him from British Columbia, and this afternoon he sent across the floor of the House for my perusal the telegram which he had received. As indicated by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Irvine), it is rather uncertain what this government or this parliament or the Labour department might do in regard to the situation referred to. Many hon. members in this House, I think- and I know very many people outside of parliament-are of the opinion that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is intended to maintain some timely supervision and authoritative control over such a matter as the one we are discussing. But that is hardly the case, as the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act only assumes to maintain some reasonable timely supervision over certain possible industrial controversies in what might be regarded as public utilities, chiefly railroads, mining and certain municipal undertakings, and even in regard to the latter it has been found necessary to secure the concurrence of the civic authorities and the workmen before the Labour department undertakes to give assistance in ironing out the disputes.

Labour and Organization

I hope no hon. member of this House would have any doubt as to where I, as Minister of Labour, stand on a matter of this kind. I belong to a labour organization, and have belonged to that organization for more than thirty years. I officially represented a labour organization for more than twenty years and have been confronted, not once but many times in the years gone by, when acting on behalf of the employees with the statement, "We recognize no organization and do not propose to deal with anyone representing an organization". Therefore, the particular question that we have under consideration to-day is not by any means a new thought to me. However, during the past few years I believed that times had materially changed, both immediately prior to the war, and especially during and immediately after the war, and I believed that the general world sentiment conceded to labour certain inalienable rights that had been in the ages gone by conceded to the employer, to industrial captains, or others, throughout Canada-yea and throughout the world. I am not going to rely on, or to press, my personal judgment in regard to the position that I think should obtain in a matter of this kind, but I am going to refer to some decisions that have been made by higher authorities and I think it would not be improper to refer to the position taken at Versailles when the general principles were enunciated as the labour features of the Treaty of Peace. It is not necessary to read them in their entirety, but to read those principles as enunciated which bear particularly upon this question that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has brought before the House. It is stated-

Among these methods and principles the following seem to the High Contracting Parties to be of special and urgent importance:

First, the guiding principle above enunciated that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce.

Second, the right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the employers.

That is the view on this particular question before the House that was taken at Versailles when the Treaty of Peace was being dealt with. But to come more closely to home, might I suggest that in 1919 the government then in office appointed a royal commission on industrial relations, and that royal commission travelled throughout the length and breadth of Canada from Vancouver, British Columbia to Sydney, Nova Scotia, and interviewed employers and workmen and representatives of the great public interests on the question of maintaining harmony and co-operation

2S90

Labour and Organization

between employer and employee. That royal commission made a report, and I want to quote a portion of that report, as bearing directly upon the particular question that we are considering. I might say that what I am going to read deals with some other phases that we are not at the moment considering; but I think it is necessary to read it in this way so as to give the complete text and to couple up the portion that has a direct bearing upon the matter under consideration:

The chief causes of unrest may be enumerated as follows:

1. Unemployment and the fear of unemployment.

2. High cost of living in relation to wages and the desire of the worker for a larger share of the product of his labour.

3. Desire for shorter hours of labour.

4. Denial of the right to organize and refusal to recognize Unions.

5. Denial of collective bargaining.

6. Lack of confidence in constituted government.

7. Insufficient and poor housing.

8. Restrictions upon the freedom of speech and press.

9. Ostentatious display of wealth.

10. Lack of equal educational opportunities.

Paragraph 54 reads:

Employers may be divided into three classes: (1) Those who deny the right of their employees to organize and who actively take steps to prevent such organizations; (2) those who, while not denying that right of their employees to organize, refuse to recognize organization among their employees, and persist in dealing with them as individuals, or as committees of employees, without regard to their affiliation with the organization; and (3) those who not only admit the right to their employees to organize, but recognize and bargain with the organization on behalf of their employees.

Paragraph 55 reads:

There are not many employers in Canada who belong to the first class, but there are a very large number who belong to the second class. The employers who openly object to their employees organizing are not many, but, rightly or wrongly, the workers believe that numbers of employers who openly declare their willingness that their employees should organize, covertly interpose obstacles in the way of their doing so, and that employees who are active in organizing their fellows into trade unions are got rid of, or penalized in some other way. To the third class belong the great railway, telegraph and mining companies and many building trades. Outside of these, the employers of labour who recognize and deal with organized labour as such are in the minority.

Paragraph 56 reads:

The government of Canada, by order in council passed in July, 1918, make a declaration of policy with respect to organizing. One clause of this order an

council provided that "all employees have a right

to organize in trade unions, and this right shall not be denied or interfered with in any manner whatsoever, and through thbir chosen representatives they should be permitted and encouraged to negotiate with employers concerning working conditions, rates of pay, and other grievances."

There is a great deal more of this report of the Royal Commission on Industrial Re-

lations that might be read, but I think that is sufficient to indicate the position that was taken by that commission after having investigated the underlying causes of unrest, and of the dissension and disputes occurring between Capital and Labour, between employer and employee, throughout the length and breadth of Canada. As a result of that report a conference was held at Ottawa in the fall of 1919, that conference being known as the National Industrial Conference. It was made up of representatives of important employing interests and important labour organizations throughout the Dominion of Canada, and remained in session for several days. That conference appointed certain committees of employees and like committees of employers to deal with certain questions, amongst them item No. 4 of the agenda respecting the right to organize, recognition of labour unions and the right of collective bargaining. It is only proper to say that these committees of workers and of employers did not reach a mutually satisfactory settlement of their differences of opinion. In other words, the conference adopted no general declaration as the result of those two committees' meeting. But it is at least fair to read what the employers' committee reported to that conference, because, if the position taken by that employers' committee had been recognized by the paper company at Powell river, we would not at this moment be considering the particular question that is before the House. The employers' report reads:

Your committee recommend that:

(a) Employers admit the right of employees to join any lawful organization.

(b) Employers should not be required to recognize unions or to establish "closed Shops".

Employers insist on the right, when so desired, to maintain their plants as "open shops", by which they mean that no employer should discriminate against any employee because of the latter's membership or nonmembership in any organization, and no employee should interfere with any other employee, because of the latter's membership or non-membership in any organization.

(c) Employers should not be requ red to negotiate except directly, with their own employees or groups of their own employees.

This is signed for the employers' section by the three representatives of the employers who were appointed on that committee.

I do not want it to be understood in any way that I am subscribing to just what has been written, but the position I take is that even the employers at that National Industrial Conference conceded the right of employees to organize, and it is indeed passing strange that we find, at various points in Canada to-day, some four or five years after

Labour and Organization

the war, employers who still take the prewar position that employees have not the right to organize for their mutual protection. The Criminal Code of Canada has, I think, conceded that right for a number of years, as have also various combines' measures that have been before parliament on many occasions in years gone by. Might I say to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) that the Powell River Paper Company is not the only employer of labour in Canada that, maintains the position that is indicated by the reference that has been made to the Powell river situation? There are in the Dominion other employers, some of them large employers of labour, that, the Labour department has from time to time learned, have no regard for the right of labour to organize. By various methods, either openly antagonistic or otherwise they undertake to dictate to their employees what they shall or shall not do if they hope to hold their jobs. So I think that it is rather a fortunate thing, in a way, that this particular matter has come up in order that parliament might have an opportunity of learning some of the facts that are to-day existent in Canada. In July, 1918, when the Great War was possibly at its most critical stage, it was no doubt properly regarded as the right thing to concede to labour the privilege of organizing, presumably for the purpose of maintaining that degree of satisfactory harmony and cooperation between employer and employee which was necessary to carry on the affairs of Canada and assist in winning the war. It seems to me that if that was the proper condition at that time, under the stress and strain of war, it is equally necessary that the same condition should prevail now and should be recognized as applicable to afterwar conditions, when it is just as incumbent upon us to carry on the affairs of Canada with the greatest degree of satisfaction and harmony so that we may promote that agricultural, industrial and general prosperity which the Canadian people have a right to expect. I have no words sufficiently strong to express my personal view of operating officers of any particular employing company who, at this particular stage in Canada's history, yes, at this stage in the history of the world, and in view of labour organization elsewhere, take the position that they will dismiss a large number of men and turn them adrift to look for occupation in other places, unless these men turn in the charter of a presumably reputable labour organization, before Sunday next. But having said that, we have a great deal more to consider. We have come to this question: What is this House

going to do in the matter? And we find ourselves in the position of being unable as a federal government, or if you like as a federal labour department, to adopt any measure, so far as I know, that would dictate to any particular employer just what he should or should not do in a matter of this kind. In other words, this is a question that has reference to provincial rights conceded under the British North America Act, it is one of the property and civil right prerogatives of the province of British Columbia, in this particular case, and of the other provinces of the Dominion where a similar situation might develop. The provincial remedy,

I should think, ought to be available to employers of labour throughout the length and breadth of Canada, who I am sure desire a return to normal conditions in this country and that resumption of business activity which Canada is capable of. But it seems to me that these business concerns, whether at Powell river, British Columbia, or at the farthest eastern end of Canada, should realize as soon as possible that this particular method of denying red-blooded workingmen the same rights that they demand for themselves is regarded, or at least it ought to be regarded, in this country, as ancient history. Employers would complain very bitterly and make endless representations to this parliament and to the governing bodies in the provinces, if they were denied the right to organize. I think if the circumstances in regard to the situation at Powell river are as indicated by the telegram read by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), that this House is justified in feeling at least keen regret that any employer of labour in this day and age should have taken or should maintain the position that has apparently existed in connection with these workingmen.

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

There are a few points which I should like to introduce by way of supplement to what has been said by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork). Very few people who live in the East or in the central portion of the East recognize the evils that are connected with these company or closed towns. There are a few such towns I believe in the province of Ontario, but there are a number on the west coast, remote from the centres of civilization, where the employers have absolute control over the lives of their employees. Not only does the company control everything that goes on in the

4 p.m. factory, but the only house that can be rented by anyone is a com-

Labour and Organization

pany house; the only store at which anyone can deal is a company store; the only church which anyone can attend is a church maintained by the company. A clergyman who was officiating in one of these churches told me that he was practically dictated to as to what he should say in that church. The only schools to which the employees can send their children are those that are more or less dominated by company officials, and the only places of recreation to which the people can go are those provided by the company. An Englishman who was about to lecture in one of these company towns informed me that before he could obtain any place in which to lecture, the church building being the only available one, the superintendent of the company had to be consulted; and before he was allowed to stay overnight in the town he had to report to the superintendent. That is the situation that prevails in these towns; there is practically no civil liberty whatever. In some instances, even the government post office, is located in the company's store, which brings all the mail under the survey of the company's officials. If a man were suspected of receiving a letter from some labour agency he would be liable to be dismissed. I was told by an old classmate of mine, who happened to be at one time in the employ of one of these companies, that even the labour newspapers which passed through the government mails, were refused delivery to the employees. And in this case the employers were American companies. I submit that with such a condition of affairs in existence in this country we have a right to know who is going to be supreme, the government of Canada, which ought to embody the best ideals of British liberty, or some of these firms which come in from the other side of the line and attempt to administer their affairs on this side in the way in which they have done in the western states. The member for Comox-Alberni, I think, was quite right when he pointed out that perhaps there is nothing that will bring about a spirit of unrest so much as this denial to the ordinary workingman of the very first principles of liberty. The member for Comox-Alberni himself suggests that he does not very much wonder that people labouring under those conditions become restless-to use his own words, become Bolshevists. As a matter of fact, it is where these principles are denied that you find the greatest unrest to-day, and it is for the government of this country, if it would avoid these evils, to devise constructive measures which will safeguard the interests of the humblest subject in Canada. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) ought to go a great deal further

]Mr. Woodsworth.]

than he seems prepared to do at this time. He has told us of the decisions of the peace conference at Versailles and of the conference on industrial relations which took place some years ago. He has said that no words of his can be too strong to express his personal view in regard to this matter. But it is not his personal view that we want to hear; what we want to know is what the government is going to do under the circumstances. He says it is very strange that these things should take place anywhere in Capada, yet in the same breath he says it is too true that they do take place. We submit that under these conditions it is for the government to say what they shall do.

The Minister of Labour denounces those who deny to red-blooded work'ngmen the right to organize. But what is he going to do for those same red-blooded workingmen? Curiously enough, the Minister of Labour again presents us with the idea that we must not come in conflict with provincial jurisdiction. It is a very strange thing that when we ask for some provision for unemployment insurance we are told that it is a question of provincial jurisdiction. When we ask for some provision for old-age pensions, we are told that for the Dominion government to act in that manner would constitute an interference with provincial jurisdiction, and so on with measure after measure. Surely here is one case in which there can be no conflict of authority; here is one instance in which the federal government can act. If the federal government is not in a position to assure civil rights to its people, I want to know for what we exist? A few months ago, when there was some trouble down in Nova Scotia, troops were immediately rushed to the eastern coast to protect property. If it is within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament to protect property, if they can find the means so to do, surely it is within their jurisdiction to find some means to protect personal rights. It is not for members in opposition to say how this can be done. Early last session I introduced a measure to amend the civil code in such a way as to protect the workingman in his right to speak freely, That measure received its first reading, was sent to a special committee, and was reported by that committee, but we had not the opportunity to give it its second reading. Within the first two or three weeks of the present session I introduced a measure similar to that which had been favourably reported by the special committee last year, but we have not had an opportunity of getting it before the House. It is next to impossible, on account of the way the busi

Labour and Organization

ness of this House is conducted, for any private member to introduce a bill with any hope of its going through the House or even of its being discussed by the House. In these circumstances it is useless for anyone on this side to introduce legislation to meet this case. It is, however, quite within the power of the government-indeed it is their responsibility-to introduce such measures as will safeguard the rights of individuals. I am not suggesting what might be done. One member has thrown out the idea that we might very well-

Mr. MURDOCK:

May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is it not a fact that the British North America Act gives the provinces the exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I do not know that it does, Mr Chairman.

Mr. VIEN:

You ought io know the British North America Act.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I take it that the Dominion government has certain rights, and also certain responsibilities, in the way of protecting its citizens against unjust treatment. If it has not, then I repeat that I do not see why we are here. If the government were really interested in the matter it would be possible in various ways to accomplish this purpose. I know that the threat of the tariff would accomplish it, but I would like to see some better method adopted. I say that the threat of the tariff would do it if the government chose to use it-and they would use it under certain circumstances. After all, without going into a discussion of the matter, does it not seem absurd that the beneficiaries of this protective tariff on the west coast should for the most part be made up of firms financed by American capital? In other words, we are protecting the Americans, who are largely the beneficiaries. But I care very little about that part of it. I am pleading in the interests of large numbers of workers on the west coast and elsewhere throughout this country. I am asking that the government should not pass this matter by, but that it should devise ways and means of protecting the undoubted liberties of the people. I am not going to offer any threat; I do not believe in making threats. But I should like to offer a little bit of advice, if I may, to the country and to the government. Some of us have been trying to urge that the labour people act through what are termed constitutional methods. Some of us have been

trying to urge that they adopt political means of bringing about desired results. But how can wo do so with any hope of success if the government admits that under the present circumstances it is helpless to protect the men? In that case sooner or later-I do not know about the circumstances of this particular case-undoubtedly the men will attempt to protect themselves. I think such action is recognized by British law as being the right of every man. According to the older philosophers and lawmakers that was one of men's inalienable "natural rights;'' it was looked upon as deeper even than any political or government rights. Sooner or later if political institutions fail to function, men will take that view.

Somebody has just suggested to me that I make one point clear so before I sit down I should like to reiterate it, although I have already emphasized it. If this matter of civil rights and property rights is entirely within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, why, as I asked a little while ago, did the federal government last year send troops down to Nova Scotia?

Mr. J. J. HUGHES (King's P.E.I.):

Mr. Speaker, coming from the far eastern part of Canada, as a citizen of this country and a member of this House, I want to say a word or two.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) intimated in the course of his remarks that the federal government and the parliament of Canada had no power in a matter of this kind, and later he stated what is undoubtedly true, that the question of property and civil rights pertained exclusively to the provinces. Then it strikes me as a layman, not as a lawyer, why was that order in council passed in July, 1918 if 'it had no power to interfere in such matters?

Mr. MURDOCK:

Under the War Measures Act.

Mr. HUGHES:

I was just going to ask whether the government at that time was exercising the power it had received from parliament under the War Measures Act. If that was the case, I will reason this way: If parliament had the power to give the government of that day authority to act in that way, has parliament not that power at the present time? Perhaps the reply may be that we were then under war conditions. Well, Sir, if matters of this kind can go on I would almost say that we are at war now. We are under a measure of war, because this is a very serious matter. It involves not only the rights

Labour and Organization

of property-and I take second place to no man in protecting the rights of property-but the rights of man are also in jeopardy. So far as my voice and my vote will go, I will support this government, the provincial government, or any power in Canada, that will exercise every power it possesses to protect the rights of property whenever and wherever they are threatened, but I will say the same and go a little bit further perhaps in protecting the rights of man. I think this is a matter that should receive the serious consideration of parliament. We should let the labouring man and every man in this country know that he will be protected in his civil rights so far as we have the power, and if parliament has not the power it should obtain the power by some means or other. If an occasion should arise when the provincial government would refuse to interfere, what would be done then? I repeat, this matter should receive very serious consideration, and these men who are doing no wrong but against whom a great wrong appears to be contemplated, should know that they have the sympathy of this House and the sympathy of the people of Canada behind them.

Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):

My

hon. friend from King's (Mr. Hughes) has said that he has spoken as a layman. There are questions with which this parliament cannot deal unless we amend the British North America Act. When a workingman leases his labour to his employer he passes his civil contract to his employer, and that contract is subject to all the conditions that the parties thereto have agreed upon. When an employer who leases the sendees of the employee puts in the contract a condition that the employee shall not belong to a union or inserts some other condition, I fail to see how this parliament would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter of the civil rights and the civil contracts of the two parties. It is all very well to talk about sympathy for the labouring man and of protecting property, but it is talking outside of our jurisdiction, outside of our province, if the British North America Act reserves that to the provincial authorities. I beg to submit, Mr. Speaker, that the question is absolutely without our province and that the provincial authorities concerned should take the necessary steps to redress the grievance.

Mr. IRVINE:

Does the British North

America Act override the British constitution?

Mr. VIEN:

Yes. The British constitution has nothing to do with Canadian affairs. We have clamoured time and again that we are

a nation governed by the British North America Act, and the principles that are not sanctioned by the British North America Act and that may be in force under the British constitution have nothing to do with us.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Has the common

law of Great Britain nothing whatever to do with us in Canada?

Mr. VIEN:

Nothing at all. The common law of Great Britain has nothing to do with us in Canada except in those provinces that have said that their civil rights shall be governed by the common law of England. In this country the common law is left to the provinces, and if the provincial authorities, acting within the powers that are given to them by the British North America Act, declare that their civil rights shall be governed by the common law of England, then the common law of England applies, not on account of its power and authority, but on account of the fact that the provincial authority has accepted the common law of England as governing its civil rights.

Mr. MARTELL:

Is it not a fact that in all the English-speaking provinces of Canada the English common law is in force save in so far as it has been altered by statute and where it has been found inapplicable to our situation as a colony? I think my hon. friend will find that is a correct statement of the case. I think that is the principle established by the case of Uniacke vs. Dickson.

Mr. VIEN:

My hon. friend will find that the principle I have enunciated is exactly in conformity with his own opinion. The common law of England applies in provinces that have sanctioned it in their provincial law Civil rights are left to the provinces and if in the exercise of their jurisdiction the provincial authorities find that they should apply the common law of England as their civil law, they are absolutely free to do so. I grant that outside of the province of Quebec all the other provinces have done so, but this does not change the principle that I was discussing ; that is to say, whether it is the common law 0f England or a provincial statute that governs civil rights in any province, any question arising out of civil rights is left to the jurisdiction of the provinces, and we arc simply wasting our time discussing a matter which should have been raised in the legislative assembly of the province interested or taken up with the provincial government interested. For that reason I quite agree with the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock./,

Labour and Organization

and I am ready to support the stand he has taken,

Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo):

In rising to say a word on this question I might state that I have known the Powell River Company for many years, and I did not think they would lower themselves to take the stand they are taking at the present time. Surely, when the people of Canada can organize and pool their wealth in companies and corporations, the workingmen of Canada should have the right to pool their labour and organizations to deal collectively. I think that thin government, if it is possible to do it, should take some steps to bring this company or any other company to time that tries to take advantage of the workingman of this countiy.

Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):

I listened patiently during the eloquent address of thp Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) for some suggestions as to what might be done, but I was exceedingly disappointed when he sat down without having suggested anything but his inability to make any recommendation whatsoever. I think we ought to have some suggestion from the government, or from the Department of Labour, as to what positive powers the province would have, and as to how this matter can be dealt with either by the present government or by the provincial authorities. To simply sit helpless and hopeless in the face of such a situation as this seems to me to be, to say the least, most regrettable.

I have just two other very short observations to make on the situation. One is in answer to the hon. member for Lothbiniere (Mr. Vien), that we were a nation governed by the British North America Act. Well, we are scarcely a nation if we have no control over our own constitution. If such is the case, I hope the time will soon come when we shall have control in this matter. The other remark I should like to make is that the situation which has been presented to us is the natural and inevitable result of the capitalistic system in industry. We cannot help it developing, and so far as I can see we have got to face even instability, inefficiency, sabotage and bloodshed until this system is replaced by something of the co-operative nature. I hope the government will, in spite of the confessed inability of the Minister of Labour, take this matter in hand and in consultation with the province of British Columbia, do something to avoid and avert what may be a very serious thing.