Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the stoppage of work in the coal mines of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick because of the government's and company's failure to meet their responsibilities and their refusal to grant the workers' proposals which the government's conciliator has admitted to be reasonable, with the result that the people of the maritimes are threatened with severe suffering and the whole economy of those provinces with serious dislocation.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not think I can admit the motion of the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman asks for leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the stoppage of work in the coal mines of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The hon. gentleman knows that we have on the order paper a special - order for resuming the adjourned debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and at that time the hon. member and all other hon. members would have an opportunity of discussing the coal miners' strike in Nova Scotia.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Mr. Speaker, in regard to your ruling may I respectfully submit, first, that the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has been postponed by agreement with hon. members, and that should not be allowed to impede a matter of urgent public importance. If it does impede a matter of urgent public importance, then those of us who have agreed to the postponement of the debate will not be able so to agree on future occasions. That I think would be regrettable. In the second place giving precedence to certain business was passed to meet the convenience of the government itself, and does not, I submit, preclude the discussion of a matter of urgent public importance; indeed it seems to me that no motion could do that. I suggest, sir, that the hon. member should be permitted to discuss this matter of urgent public importance

and it is urgent; for the people generally and our whole economy are likely to suffer from the lack of coal.

<

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you were not aware that the leaders of the different groups in the house met yesterday and tried to arrange that there be a further postponement of the debate on the address until after February 28. If therefore Your Honour feels that this is an urgent matter it might perhaps be dealt with right away; otherwise I fear that the leaders of the groups in the house would not feel that they could adhere to the tentative arrangement that was m-ade yesterday to have the debate on the address further postponed. I think that it would be expediting the business of the house to dispose of this matter now rather than have to take it up on Monday, when it would be in order to discuss it if there is not by unanimous consent this extension of another week to deal with emergency legislation.

Without discussing the second point made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) I suggest to Your Honour that you give consideration to entertaining the motion upon the ground of immediate convenience and because of the fact which was not within Your Honour's knowledge that it is intended to take another week after this one for emergency legislation.

Mr. BRACKEN:

With respect to the

point of order raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, might I, with respect, suggest to Your Honour that, if your argument was that the matter might be discussed in the debate on the address, further consideration be given the matter. In view of the fact that the leaders and all the members of the house have voluntarily agreed to a postponement of the debate on the address in order to permit the government to advance its legislation, if Your Honour would reconsider the decision which you have just now announced, we on this side of the house would prefer to see you do so.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Hon. members will have

noticed that I did not rule that the motion was out of order. I merely called the attention of the house to the fact that we have before us an order of the house for resuming the debate on the address which I understood would come next Monday, but after hearing from both sides of the house and from the leaders of all parties I gather it is the desire of the house to have this matter considered now and so I accept the motion, which is presented in the following terms:

Mr. Gillis, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), asks leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing

Labour Conditions

a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the stoppage of work in the coal mines of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick because of the government's and company's failure to meet their responsibilities and their refusal to grant the workers' proposals which the government's conciliator has admitted to be reasonable, with the result that the people of the maritimes are threatened with severe suffering and the whole economy of those provinces with serious dislocation.

Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for your ruling. I know it is not a popular thing to hold up the business of the house, but I want to assure you, sir, and through you the house, that if this were not a matter of urgent and serious public importance I would not be discussing it at this time.

On the fourth of this month, speaking in the debate on the address, I focused the attention of the house on the situation which was developing at that time in regard to a stoppage of work in the mining industry of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I am not going to repeat this afternoon any of the arguments I then advanced. I merely wish to place the matter as it now stands in its proper perspective.

As the house will remember, the mine workers had a two days' stoppage of work. The federal government then appointed a conciliator to go into Nova Scotia to try to bring both parties to the dispute together with a view to arriving at an understanding. That in my opinion places definite responsibility on the shoulders of the federal government, because it became an active participant in the dispute by virtue of having appointed a conciliator, who has made a report to the government.

I might briefly summarize the issues in this dispute. The mine workers of Nova Scotia were demanding an increase in their wage rates of $1.40 a day. That would still leave them approximately SI .50 a day behind the wage rates paid in western Canada, which wage rates were fixed by a government board. Therefore the demands of the mine workers of Nova Scotia cannot be considered unfair or unreasonable when they are prepared to make a settlement with that differential existing between the wage rates paid between the coal industry in eastern Canada and those paid in western Canada.

In addition the mine workers are seeking a welfare plan and they have made definite proposals to the government for the setting aside of 8 cents per ton of coal produced for the purpose of instituting that welfare plan. They

have also made a proposal for the establishment of a pension plan to retire old and worn-out miners from the industry. That in my opinion is definitely a step in the right direction if the industry is to be rehabilitated.

When the conciliator went into Nova Scotia the miners demonstrated to the people of Canada that they were not desirous of precipitating a stoppage of work which would cripple the whole industry if the strike were prolonged for any length of time; for they called their strike off and. went back to work for fifteen days. Then the conciliator's report was presented to the government. It was not acceptable to the company, to the men, or to the government. It was not acceptable to the men because the one dollar per day increase in wages offered by the company was contingent upon increased production. That condition makes it unacceptable to the men and I agree with them, for reasons I shall give as I go along. The conciliator recommended that one dollar a day offered by the company be accepted, and he further recommended that the 40 cents per day be absorbed by the federal government. The federal government refused to accept that recommendation on the ground that it would not continue to subsidize inefficiency. At least that is what I understood the Minister of Labour to say. The federal government proposed an increase of 25 cents a ton in the selling price of coal which would offset the 40 cents involved. As the matter now stands all proposals made are unacceptable either to one or the other of the parties.

I am convinced that the SI.40 a day will have to be provided by subsidy from the federal government. I say that because I believe the mine workers were well advised to refuse to accept one dollar a day contingent upon increased production. If they accept that offer and go back to work on that basis it will take the coal company at least six months to reorganize their forces and get rid of all the staff which they claim is a drag on the industry. In my opinion, so far as production is concerned, it would take at least six months before the thing could be done. In the meantime by asking the workers to accept that one dollar contingent upon increased production they are asking them to sweat and toil at the expense of the hunger of the women and children who are supported by the miners who dig coal to provide that subsidy. For that reason I say that there will be no settlement possible so far as the mine workers are concerned unless the federal government is prepared to subsidize the $1.40 a day in toto.

Labour Conditions

By asking the company to increase the selling price of coal by 25 cents the federal government is placing the coal company in a further adverse economic position from the competitive standpoint. The other points at issue, the welfare plan and the pension plan, could be ironed out around the conference table. The sticking point is who is going to provide that $1.40 a day. I cannot understand the attitude of the federal government when they take the position that they will not provide the subsidy to offset the wage increase, particularly when one considers for a moment the extent to which 'the federal government is committed to the principle of subsidy.

Looking over the last report of the wartime prices and trade board, which was issued January 1, 1947, and taking the expenses of subsidies up to December 31, 1946, I happened to see a few figures dealing with the question of coal. I found that in the five-year period anthracite coal imported from the United Kingdom for domestic purposes was paid a subsidy of $3,139,380.42. Anthracite coal imported from the United States in the same period was paid a subsidy of $13,531,311.51. Coke for domestic purposes was paid a subsidy of $1,278,426.53. Other coal, I presume bituminous coal imported for domestic purposes, was paid a subsidy of $9,089,442.68, making a total of $27,047,561.60 in that five-year period. That coal was imported from outside this country. That bonus or subsidy was paid to importers of that fuel. So far as I can find out, this subsidy arrangement still prevails. If it is reasonable for the federal government to spend that amount of money bringing coal into Canada, is it unreasonable to ask at this time that they spend another million dollars or so subsidizing that wage increase in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in order to give the economy of these two provinces an opportunity to continue operating over the next six or eight months period? I say it certainly is not. I cannot understand how any hon. member on the other side of the house can take serious exception to paying that subsidy, particularly when it is realized that that amount of money is still being paid to bring coal into Canada for domestic purposes. To take that attitude certainly does not show statesmanship or government responsibility to the people and to the development of our own industries.

The report to which I have just referred shows that a further $8,500,000 was spent in rail subventions on coal produced within the country. If the federal government accepted responsibility during the war-which they

fMr. Gillis.]

did-for the promotion of that industry, it certainly must have meant something to the national economy. I should like hon. members on the government benches to remember that during our lifetime we have gone through two wars. I had the opportunity to see that Nova Scotia industry provide most of the bunker coal1 for ships from every country in the world which came into and went out of the harbours of Sydney and Halifax. Without that industry during the first and the last wars overseas trade would have been seriously handicapped in the matter of bunker coal for ships from every country in the world which used the two harbours to which I have referred. Therefore the industry meant something to us in an international emergency.

How long are we to continue to lean on the arm of the United States for our fuel supplies? We heard the emergency order read in the house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) during the war. The federal government were spending huge amounts of money trying to get production in every gopher hole in the country, which showed the lack of initiative on the part of both governments in developing our own resources. When the last coal strike took place in the United States we saw the existence of another emergency. Power was cut off in Ontario and Quebec, threatening a shutdown of most of our major industries in central Canada. At the present time there is talk of another strike in the United States. It is time the federal government gave serious consideration to the rehabilitation of our own fuel resources.

I emphasize that the federal government will have to pay the subsidy of $1.40 a day in order to get the coal mining industry operating again. I said that the rehabilitation of that Nova Scotia industry requires a large capital expenditure. The Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the other ministers who were handling the problem during the war will agree with that. There is no other agency in Canada in a position to make the necessary capital expenditure. The federal government are now recognizing the importance of that industry and the necessity for its development and rehabilitation, and should be prepared to make a large capital grant, or if you prefer, a subsidy or investment-I would say investment in that industry of Nova Scotia sufficiently large to rehabilitate it. Then a board consisting of representation from the government, the management and the men, with an expert or two on it, should be set up to see that the money allocated by the federal government is properly spent in the rehabilita-

Labour Conditions

tion of the industry, thereby looking forward to our needs in the future and getting away from leaning on the arm of the United States. This should be done immediately.

If there is a shutdown in the mining industry of the maritimes for a month or so it will seriously affect other industries in the provinces. Over the radio this morning I heard an announcement that some eighty railway men were laid off with the prospect of lay-off of another one hundred within a couple of days because of the lack of fuel. Another announcement was that merchants were reducing their staff by one-half; men and women were being laid off with a shutdown of only a couple of days. It will seriously dislocate the whole economy of the maritime provinces. This is not like an old-time strike. The present stoppage is serious because the fuel industry is interlocked with every other industry in the maritime provinces, and I think it is time the federal government stepped in and settled the question. There is only one way in which it can be settled, and that is the way I have indicated, namely, by a subsidy from the federal government, because you cannot sell the mine workers on accepting an increase in wages and tying it to production. If it is true, as the company claims, that within a year they can get back to the 1939 production and be able to absorb the increase in wages, and if the federal government grants by way of subsidy $1.40, and the company is successful in stepping up production, then as production is stepped up you can knock off the subsidy until it disappears.

In the meantime, however, I seriously challenge the coal company in their assertion that they can get back to 1939 production, for the reason that the figures placed on the record by the Minister of Labour only yesterday show that in 1946 as against 1939 there were 500 less men actually loading coal. That means that the man who is loading coal has 500 extra men on the end of the shovel. These are not voung productive men. Most of the 500 are old men who are worn out in the industry and who should be receiving an adequate pension from the industry. Until such time as they can solve that problem by an adequate pension plan for the retiring of the older men who have given their lives to the industry or broken their backs, there is a factor which will seriously affect production.

I do not believe that the equipment which the company has at the present time is equal to handling increased production. If they are going to mechanize the mines, as they say, it can be done only on a small scale in the

present operating industry of Nova Scotia, and I make that statement without fear of contradiction.

I am also seriously questioning the company's statement that they can place 500 more men at the working faces. I know the industry from colliery to colliery in Nova Scotia, and there has been no development work going on in the last ten years. Whether they can find places for 500 more men remains to be seen, but so far as tying increased wages to increased production is concerned, I submit that it is unreasonable to expect the men to accept that kind of proposal, and it is unreasonable to expect to increase the selling price of coal. That was done on four different occasions during the process of fighting the war, and every time the selling price of coal has been increased the effect has been felt by everyone else in the community-old age pensioners, war pensioners, people on mothers' allowances, and everyone else. They all suffer a decrease in the standard of living every time the selling price of coal is stepped up.

That is no solution. It merely places the responsibility of some governmental agency on the backs of people who can least afford to bear it.

I wanted to be as brief and as explicit as possible on this question. I understand there are members of the workers' executive board still in Ottawa, and I am in hopes that members of the cabinet will realize the urgency and the seriousness of the present situation in Nova Scotia. Hospitals will be affected; every industry in the two provinces will be affected because of the shortage of fuel, and now is the time to settle the matter. The Minister of Labour a few days ago said that it was a local problem and would be a matter for the provincial government. It is not going to be a matter for the provincial government and the provincial goernment is not able to handle it.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I did not say it was a matter for the provincial government.

Mr. GILLIS:

The minister said it was a local matter.

Mr. MITCHELL:

The hon. member has been arguing from the standpoint of the economy of the province.

Mr. GILLIS:

I am telling the minister now that it is a national responsibility and not a local problem at all. There is no local agency that is in a position to handle it because of the money involved. The only agency that can cope with it is the federal government, by way of subsidy. If the minister will read

Labour Conditions

the record with regard to subsidies that are paid in respect of everything else in the country today, I do not think he will raise any serious objection. I do not think any serious objection can be raised by any government agency to spending another million dollars to subsidize the wage increase asked for by the mine workers at this time so as to give someone an opportunity of working out this production problem and having a thorough understanding on it.

I am going to leave the matter there, and I would seriously urge the cabinet to try to get together with the members of the mine workers' union with a view to having the question straightened out before they leave Ottawa to go back home. I do not want to see a prolonged strike in Nova Scotia. I have seen too many strikes in my lifetime and I know how easy it is to have a strike, with all the difficulties there are in the way of settling it. The mine workers in this particular stoppage did everything they could to avert it. They have gone through such stoppages before; they do not want to go through one again, and therefore they are looking for some agency here that *will come to their assistance.

In my opinion the operating coal companies in Nova Scotia at least have been absolutely unreasonable in the matter. It would seem that they are getting back to the old system of using the stick, wringing it out of the hides of the workers, cooperating with no one, taking the attitude, "We are the boss in this field and we will run the show to suit ourselves". Well, in the last thirty years they have made a sorry mess of running the show themselves, and now it is time for the agencies representing the custodian of our national resources in this country to take immediate and effective steps to see that the problem is solved in the best interests of all concerned.

Mr. McIVOR:

Are the coal miners down there paid less per day than those in the west?

Mr. GILLIS:

Yes. Even if this increase were granted they would be paid less. They are $2.50 a day behind the western miners now, and if they got the $1.40 it would leave them SI.10 behind.

Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):

As the minister responsible for coal control throughout the war years, I think I can give hon. members a little information about the subsidy situation, which has a definite bearing on the settlement of this coal dispute on lines asked for by the workers.

[Mr. Gillis.J

I have said in this house several times that the consumption of coal is made up to the extent of about 17 million tons of production in Canada and about 25 million tons of importations from the United States. Of the 17 million tons produced in Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick contributed last year about five and a half million tons. Subsidies to the Dominion Coal Company alone in the year 1946 amounted to about $8,600,000, or roughly $1.60 per ton of coal mined.

My hon. friend has said casually that if we put in another million or so we could pay the S1.40 a day that the miners request. May I point out to him that the production of coal per man in Nova Scotia at the present time is around 1-50 tons.

Is that the man on the face of the seam, or does it relate to the total number employed?

Mr. HOWE:

That is the man who will get the $1.40.

Mr. COLDWELL:

I mean on the face of the seam.