Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I think, Mr. Speaker, that whether or not the hon. gentleman was in order, it helps to clarify the situation to have this statement before us. I would also like to refer very briefly to the statement made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) with regard to what my colleague said respecting the situation in 1919 in Winnipeg. It may be true that no troops were taken into Winnipeg from outside, although a very large number of troops returning from the Old Land came in at that time. It is true, however, that troops were there; it is true that they were called out; it is true that the Royal Canadian

Nova Scotia Miners

Mounted Police, acting under the direct control of the Dominion government, were there; it is true that the officers were very active at that time in enlisting citizens and in generally carrying forward operations: it is true that there was shooting on the streets. There were two deaths and about one hundred casualties. It is true that an agent of the then government-

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the militia were shooting on the streets?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

No.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The hon. member should

make that clear.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I think it is clear.

I think the words used by my colleague were to the effect that people were shot on the streets. I did not hear the words, but I understand that that is what was said and I want to make that clear. Men were shot on the streets by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who -were, as I understand it, under the direction of the government. It is quite true that there may be some distinction, that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may be said to be a civil force and may not be called troops. These fine distinctions are sometimes not very clearly recognized. Generally the police force were spoken of as a troop, and I have no doubt that it was in that sense my colleague used the term. Further than that if was true that a member of that government, the Hon. Gideon Robertson, was at that time in Winnipeg with very considerable authority. It is true that an agent from the Department of Justice, Mr. A. J. Andrews, appeared to have a great deal of authority at that time. In fact, he and Hon. Gideon Robertson practically established themselves as dictators in the Royal Alexandra Hotel. These things are true. Further than that, it is true that if it had not been for the interference of the Dominion government at that time the provincial government was very close to a settlement of that strike. It is clear that there was a distinct invasion by the federal authorities of the provincial jurisdiction even although a weak provincial government permitted it. It is true, further, that at that time legislation was rushed through this House in the course of a very short time -which had the effect of taking away from BritiSh-bom citizens the right of trial by jury.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Will the hon. gentleman permit me? Did not the provincial government prosecute, immediately subsequent to

the settlement of the strike, certain of the offenders?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Yes, and the gentlemen acting in the carrying forward of that prosecution were legal gentlemen appointed by the federal government, with their service* paid for by the Dominion.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The hon. gentleman is

entirely mistaken. This government did enter prosecutions for offences against the Criminal Code, and the sections under which the charges were laid had been in effect for decades. We appointed our own counsel to carry on these prosecutions, all of which succeeded with the exception of one. The provincial government carried on certain prosecutions itself, and appointed its own counsel. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) should be most familiar with these prosecutions because, if I am not mistaken, he was one of those prosecuted by the provincial government.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I am familiar with this question; I know it very well. I am not worrying -about my own case, because I was arrested and charged and the government had not sufficient evidence to go on with the case and it was withdrawn.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

We did not arrest the hon. gentleman.

Mr.WOODSWORTH: The man responsible for the arrest was Mr. A. J. Andrews, who was acting under instructions from the Department of Justice.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Not at all. The provincial government alone had to do with my hon. friend.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I would say further that when we tried to get very definite evidence with regard to certain proceedings we found documents missing from the files in the department here. In extenuation of my colleague having introduced this question of the ti-oops, I may say that he also was one of the men arrested at that time,-arrested under this law that was rushed through, which provided for the deportation of British-born subjects. My colleague happened to be bom in Great Britain, and the conspiracy-for I can call it nothing else-was to deport a number of those men at that time without trial. The law was passed to deal with men who could not be reached under existing legislation, and I should like to say here that although that law was put on the statute book by the government of my right hon. friend now on

Nova Scotia Miners

the other side of the House, it has been kept on the statute book by this government during its term of office.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Might I remind hon. members generally who take part in this debate that the acute distress is supposed to be in Cape Breton.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Mr. MEIGHEN:

That is not quite right. What I said was this: An order is not an order if the control of the price remains in the hands of the purchaser.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Then we will put

it that way; an order is not an order if the control of the price remains in the hands of the purchaser. That seems to be a fair thing in bargaining, but I would like to suggest that that is not always carried out when it comes to other relations. For example, I note in the report of the commission brought down recently that there is a provision for revision of the wage scale at intervals of six months, based on the coal company's ability to pay. This is entirely in the hands of the employers, and over that the employees have no control whatever. I say that if we are going to accept the rule laid down by the leader of the opposition-I am not questioning it at the moment-we should go a great deal further

and recognize that the report, of that commission is absolutely one-sided in its character and will not solve the situation. Again, the rule was laid down by the leader of the opposition that law and order must under any circumstances be maintained. If that is true -and again, I am not questioning it-I urge that the rule is worked in a very one-sided way. A year ago we called attention to the serious condition of the people in Nova Scotia; we called attention to their rights, and the government refused to recognize any responsibility to deal with those rights. If law and order should be maintained, it should be maintained when people are in distress and are not receiving adequate justice; but action is not taken at such a time; it is delayed until such time as there is some danger to property.

The commission has reported-a commission appointed by the Nova Scotia government- but I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the report of that commission gets us a very little way towards a solution. There are some minor recommendations of value, but the report of the commission does not at all touch the deep, underlying difficulties which confront us in Nova Scotia. I have already mentioned the recommendation that wages be revised, not in accordance with the cost of living but merely in accordance with the earnings of the company, which is a different matter altogether. Nothing whatever is said in the report about the capitalization of the company. I presume that the dividends are to be a first charge. We know nothing about that as far as the report has come to us through the press.

Further than that, I think we ought to recognize that of much greater importance to the miners of Nova Scotia than wages is regularity of employment. We were told a year ago that if the price of coal could be raised a little, the miners would be assured of regular employment, and yet there is absolutely nothing in the report of the commission, and nothing in the present situation in Nova Scotia, to indicate that the miners are going to receive any more regular employment in the future than they have had in the past, and one of the first things that happened after the report was handed in was the dismissal of a large number of coal miners. That is the situation we face at- the present time, and what I would urge is this: that since the government, through the Minister of the Interior, has to-night frankly conceded the principle that the government has certain duties in this regard-and I am glad we have had no more nonsense about the British North America Act-I do hope the govern-

Nova Scotia Miners

ment will go a little bit further. I would like to see what we have asked for again and again, that this government appoint a commission-even though the ink of the report of the provincial commission is hardly dry-which will not limit itself to certain matters with regard to tihe miners but will go into the whole question as to the finances of Besco. That is what needs to be investigated. If, as a good many men, even hon. members of this House, have confessed to me, the coal mining industry of Cape Breton is not capable of being carried on at a profit, we ought to know it. If Besco is so over-capitalized that we cannot possibly hope it will pay dividends on its capital, we ought to know it. If the business can be carried on profitably only by continual subsidies from this government, in one form or another, we ought to know it. I urge that the sooner an independent board investigates the whole question, not merely minor questions affecting wage scales and that kind of thing, but the underlying, economic questions, the better it will be for all concerned.

One other word and I am done. If such an investigation would prove, or failing such an investigation the events prove, that there is to be continued trouble between the operators and the miners; if there are to be continual appeals for help to this government, then I would suggest we ought to come to the point of seriously considering whether those coal properties ought not to be brought under public control. If we are to subsidize the industry by increased duties or by giving contracts to the Canadian National railway, and perhaps dragging the Canadian National railway into deeper debt-if we must do these things let the government itself own and control the mines. If it should be urged that they are under provincial control, I would say there can be an arrangement as between the two governments, federal and provincial, but surely under the existing circumstances, with appeals continually coming in to this government-appeals for troops, appeals for relief and help of various kinds-it is very necessary that a great corporation of this kind should be thoroughly investigated and the industry placed upon a permanent basis.

Mr. CAHILL:

Does my hon. friend contend that this government should interfere m a controversy in a province without consulting the government of that province? Should this government grant assistance to any party to a controversy in a province without first consulting the government of that province?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I would not say

that. There may be certain courtesies owing to the province; the province may have certain rights, but I would say that a year ago the province was not asserting its rights to refuse any relief from the Dominion government.

Mr. CAHILL:

Are they doing anything

now?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I could not say

what they are doing at the present time.