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

1 wish to draw the attention of the House to the circumstance that all we have before us in the present discussion is a communication which my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) has read. We do not know the particular organization to which reference is made; indeed, we do not know any of the facts other than as represented in this message. It is somewhat difficult for the government to make a pronouncement that will cover what may be a hypothetical situation. I do not hesitate for one moment to say that if the facts are as represented in this message, and I have no reason to believe that they are other than as represented, it should be intimated to the company, and it will be intimated to them, that this parliament in the name of Canada has given its adherence to the articles of the Treaty of Versailles and the labour convention attached to it, and that one of the terms of the latter is the right of association for all lawful purposes-by the employee as well as the employer-to preserve this right is something to which we are committed and bound by that treaty. I think it will be sufficient if the attention of the company is drawn to that particular article, and to the debate which has taken place here, to focus public opinion and public sentiment upon any course of behaviour on the part of this company which may be counter to that particular article of the treaty. If that is not sufficient I shall be very much surprised if the parliament of Canada cannot find some means of satisfactorily dealing further with the situation.

Mr. L. W. HUMPHREY (West Kootenay):

Notwithstanding the remarks made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr Vien) I feel that he does not wish to have a wrong impression created in this House. He seemed to be of the opinion that an agreement had been entered into in this case between the employees and the employer stating that the former would not become members of a trade union. I feel that such is the case because my knowledge and my experience lead me to believe that the employers of labour throughout the Dominion welcome the idea of labour organizing into trade unions. During the last twenty years I have not met any employer of labour who did not welcome the principles held in mind by labour men in organizing and becoming members of these unions. The principle involved in the case to which the hon. member for Comox-Albemi has drawn attention was decided many years ago. To-day the majority of the largest employers of labour throughout the Dominion not only recognize that principle but they welcome discussions by represen-

Labour and Organization

tatives of labour bodies on industrial matters of mutual interest and even, at times, invite discussion on the management of their particular industry. In the majority of cases this policy ensures better service, a greater degree of efficiency, and on the part of the employee a feeling of contentment. The principle involved here is so important that I was disappointed the Minister of Labour could not make a more definite statement as to what action he was prepared to take. Because failure to take the right course might precipitate a very serious situation. It might involve a strike on the part of the employees of the Powell River Company, to say the least of it. So that any action on the part of the Department of Labour or of the Government in opposition to the drastic and extreme course apparently pursued by this corporation would be welcomed by the trades unions as well as by the general public throughout Canada. In my opinion the government would be well advised in taking such steps as will re-assure the employees of this industrial concern as to their rights in this matter.

Upon Mr. Neill rising to reply.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Under sub-section 2 of Rule 21 the right of reply is allowed to an hon. member who has moved a substantive motion. In this case the motion was to adjourn the House, and therefore there is no such right. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) may, however, be granted the privilege with the unanimous consent of the House.

Mr. NEILL:

I only wish to speak for a few moments.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member have leave to reply?

Carried.

Mr. NEILL:

I thank the House for permission to reply. I hope the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien), was not sincere or not correct, when he made the statement that when a labouring man leased his labour to his employer it was possible and proper for the employer to include in that contract a provision that he should not join any particular body. In that case, the contract necessarily carries with it the converse; that the employer has the [DOT] right to compel the employee to join a particular body. If the principle applies to a trade union, it would apply to every other organization. It might for instance, be a religious body. It might be

a condition of the employment that the employee should forswear the religion he had followed and adhere to that of his employer. The proposition lends itself to no end of possibilities, or impossibilities. It might also go to the extent that his employer would include in the lease or contract of labour the disposition of his vote. That might happen quite easily and it is a legitimate deduction. We would then be going back to the pocket burroughs of the feudal ages, where we had a man buying a certain seat with two or three representatives in it who had to vote the way their purchaser or employer dictated. I thought the feudal system had been done away with some hundreds of years ago, but I am sorry to see it is still lingering in certain corners. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot follow the intricacies of the debate as regards common law as against any other law, but I do know that there is a law of common sense and it is against common sense to say that when a working man sells his labour to his employer he also sells his soul to the employer. If the argument were carried out to a logical conclusion, that would be the situation.

The remarks which have been made here today, and especially the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) show that there is a real necessity for legislation dealing with this matter. If the minister cannot deal with it-and he has shown fairly plainly that he cannot deal with it formally-I might say, at this moment then it shows there is need for legislation. With reference to the question as to where the jurisdiction lies I think the power that passed the order in council, even though it was not entirely obligatory, yet was almost mandatory at any rate-has also power to deal along those lines, even in times of peace. At any rate we are aware that this parliament has passed legislation such as the Industrial Disputes and Investigation Act and provided for boards of conciliation, and so on, dealing with relations between capital and labour, and certainly those relations can well be deemed a national issue rather than a provincial one. For the rest of my remarks I might merely echo the statement of the Prime Minister. While there may be no legal way to deal with the situation, we know what Shakespeare says-"Conscience doth make cowards of us all," and there is no greater pressure on some people than the pressure of sentiment and public opinion. If the Minister of Labour were to advise this particular company of the provisions of the order in council which I have quoted, and tell them

Canada Naval Reserve

that, while it is not obligatory, as there is no penal clause attached to it, if it were not adhered to by labour on the one hand and employers on the other ,it might be necessary in the opinion of the Minister of Labour to crystallize that order in council into legislation, it would have a very salutary effect. He might also summarize the debate in the House, and say that the House has expressed strong disapproval of any company so heavily protected as they are, refusing the right of their employees to join a trades union. I think that would be more effective than putting the legal machinery at work. If he would act along the lines suggested, I am satisfied the situation would be adequately met.

Motion withdrawn.

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):

Before the orders of the day are called I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Defence (Mr. Macdonald) a question, based on a despatch which appeared in the morning Chronicle of Halifax a few days ago which reads as follows:

Ottawa, May 14-(By Canadian Press)-An official announcement to-night states that five companies of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve have been formed and others are almost up to strength.

The companies already formed are Quebec, Ottawa, Hamilton, Saskatoon and Calgary. Edmonton and Winnipeg will be ready to form their companies within a few days.

"The progress which has been made in recruiting for the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve has been satisfactory. This reserve is composed entirely of young Canadians between eighteen and twenty-two years of age. They are already showing fine interest in the work and promise to build up a highly efficient reserve force," adds the announcement.

I desire to know from the minister if this is true; and if the despatch is true, why is it necessary to recruit members for a Royal Voluntary Naval Reserve in the inland cities of Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Ottawa? I desire to know why, instead of recruiting Royal Voluntary Naval Reserve in these places, they do not go to such ports as Pictou, Sydney, Canso, Lunenburg and Yarmouth on the Atlantic coast, and Vancouver, Victoria, Prince Rupert and Alberni on the Pacific coast? Why go to the expense of recruiting these men in the inland cities, and taking them to the seaboard at a very great expense? I wish to know also if, when the naval reserve volunteers are recruited, every volunteer will be supplied with a package of Mothersill's seasick remedy?

184J

Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Acting Minister of National Defence):

I rise to make

clear exactly the position of matters in regard to the naval reserves. There are two reserves, the Royal Naval Reserve, and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. The Royal Naval Reserve is made up entirely of men who are accustomed to the seafaring profession, and whose duties upon ships would be those which would be usually performed by men who have been engaged in seafaring life. During the last year preparations have been proceeding, and it is expected, in regard to this branch of the service, that after the first of July, in the maritime ports both on the Pacific and the Atlantic, volunteers will be asked, and careful provision is being made for the inauguration of this part of the service. There is a Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, which is made up of another branch of the service. On naval vessels there are to be found men who have been engaged in almost every kind of occupation, from sailors to mechanics. Organizations for training recruits are being formed in the inland cities very largely through the influence of the Naval League.

Mr. DUFF:

Are there no sailors on the

Atlantic coast?

Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):

We will

look into that when the preparations are all made, which we expect will be after the 1st of July. In the various parts of Canada, in the interest of those who are devoting themselves to naval matters, organizations of this kind are being formed, but there are men who happen to be born inland who would be able to serve at sea, in the occupations they had been engaged in, and I think it is of interest to state that during the late war a very great proportion of the recruits obtained for the United States' naval force were drafted from the inland cities. These naval companies are made up from men of this class, who had been engaged in occupations which would fit them to go on board vessels in some capacity, and these men are trained and drilled at their own homes. Arrangements are being perfected as the force is being developed, to provide for a certain short period of training at the seaports, either on the Atlantic or on the Pacific. The difference between the two classes of people who are being recruited for the services is simply the difference between these two services.

Mr. DUFF:

How are they going to train

them? Will they use prairie schooners?

Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):

My hon.

friend is very keen and the acumen which he

The Budget-Mr. Grimmer

has been accustomed to display in the House in a good natured way, causes him to take a great interest in this matter. I have been in the department four weeks and have been devoting myself with a good deal of interest to this line of service, and I can assure my hon. friend that I will welcome his co-operation in this matter, so that we may have a service on the Atlantic coast.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I might remind hon. gentlemen that such questions must not degenerate into a debate; otherwise we shall find ourselves at sea.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Before the question

drops, would the minister tell us which of these forces it is-or is it both?-the training of which consists in learning to fish? We were told by the hon. member in the debate on the estimates, that that was the training that was to be given to one of them.

Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):

That is a phase of the subject I have not yet considered.

Mr. DUFF:

Evidently they have not given it much consideration.

BUDGET STATEMENTS On the Orders of the Day:

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

Yesterday I asked for the elements, the items constituting the revenue of the country for the preceding year. Those I have received. I wish to ask further for particulars of the appropriation credited against the National Railways this year and last year-some $92,000,000 and $97,000,000- in the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I think we should have the items that make that up, and the purpose to which each has been devoted. Some of it, of course, was in the recoupment of deficits, but a very large amount must have been in the way of advances. I think the House should have been informed of this in the budget speech itself.

I also call attention to the fact that the budget statement gives no account of our present debt. Not only should we have a statement of the present debt, but a historical account; but if the items are given, that is all I will ask for at the moment.