[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT McCUBBIN (Middlesex West) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
5S0
Labour Conditions


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.


James Horace King: 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.


Clarence Gillis: 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.


Clarence Gillis: The minister said it was a local matter.


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


Clarence 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?


Clarence 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.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Is that the man on the face of the seam, or does it relate to the total number employed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the man who will get the $1.40.


Major James William Coldwell: I mean on the face of the seam.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It refers to the man who will get the $1.40, which is important in the matter of subsidies. Every man I refer to is a man who expects to get the $1.40. My hon. friend will find, by doing a little arithmetic, that to pay that man $1.40 means a further subsidy of about ninety-six cents per ton of coal. If we call that roughly a dollar, it is not a matter of one million dollars; it would require five and a half million dollars, added to the $8,600,000 that was paid last year, to make that increase.
What has been the history of increases in pay in this particular coal field? In 1939, at the outbreak of war, the production per man was about 2-7 tons. Several increases in pay took place. It was the policy after 1942 to hold the line on all prices, and for two or three years increases in pay were taken care of by subsidies. That is the manner in which the present production subsidy structure of the country was built up. But while pay was increasing, the production per man was dropping. After every increase in pay there was a drop in production, and after every increase in pay there was an increase in absenteeism. The present situation is created by a drop in production, and the greatest contribution to the drop in production is absenteeism, which has risen to the extraordinary level of thirty per cent of man hours on the payroll.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Is that on the basis of a six-day week?

Labour Conditions


Clarence Decatur Howe: A five and a half day week. It means that the average man, instead of working five and a half days, works only a little more than four days.
This is not an insoluble problem. That subsidy of $8,600,000 could be eliminated completely if the production per man day could be restored to the level at which it stood in 1939. Not only that, but the earnings of the company, with that production restored, could include the $1.40 per day that is being asked for at this time.


Clarence Gillis: Why was that production not kept up during the war if it can be kept up now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure you that I made every effort I could make to keep production up, but the coal just did not come to the surface.


Clarence Gillis: You are blaming the drop in production on the men, when in reality it rests on management.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not placing the blame. I am stating the fact.


Clarence Gillis: You are placing the blame.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the situation. We had the report of the Carroll commission, which spent two years studying the coal problem, with particular attention to the maritime provinces. We have before us the recommendations of the commission. We have an exhaustive report bearing on all aspects of this situation. What was the majority recommendation of the Carroll commission? It was that production subsidies should be dropped. Mr. Justice Carroll and Mr. Justice McLaurin, who joined in that majority report state that there is no justification whatever for production subsidies now that the war emergency has passed. It is true that Mr. Justice Carroll appended a note over his own signature saying that there should be a tapering off of subsidies in order that there might be time to have prewar production restored. The minority report, signed by Angus Morrison, also recommends that production subsidies be abolished. But Mr. Morrison recommends that in the Cape Breton field and in other maritime province operations, the subsidies should not be ended abruptly but should be tapered off.
The government has taken no step to end subsidies. The subsidies are still being paid at this moment at the rate of $8,600,000 per annum to the Dominion Coal Company alone. My hon. friend, I thought, rather suggested in his speech that the government had become very penurious and had abruptly cut these 83166-38
subsidies off. That is not so. The subsidies are being paid at this rate, but the government has reached the point where it must find a means of bringing an end to all production subsidies. The government is instructed to do so in the royal commission report, and common sense indicates that production subsidies paid under the emergency of war cannot be carried on indefinitely in times of peace.
Who is going to pay the equivalent of the production subsidies when the subsidies are ended? Of course it must go into the price of coal. There is no other place it can be obtained. We have seen coal strikes in the United States settled by sharp increases in wages. Who pays these increases in wages? It is paid by the buyers of the coal. Who paid for the increase in wages in western Canada, which was a very substantial increase? It was paid by the buyers of western coal.
The government has not increased the rate of its coal production subsidies during the past eighteen months. The point had been reached where it was felt that the government was no longer justified in paying out of the public purse the large sums required for adjustments of wages. Since then the policy has been to insist that wage adjustments must be borne by the coal industry.
Returning to the Nova Scotia situation, the men originally asked for a S2.50 increase, eight cents per ton for a welfare fund, and provision for a pension fund. After discussions with the coal company these demands were scaled down to $1.40 per day, eight cents a 'ton for a welfare fund and provision for a pension plan. Mr. Justice Carroll, who acted as arbitrator for the government, found that an increase of $1.40 is justified. The government does not in any way quarrel with that decision. The company offered to provide a dollar of that amount pro rata as production was stepped back to the 1939 level. Mr. Justice Carroll recommended additional subsidies to cover the additional forty cents. In the face of his report written three months earlier, recommending that the subsidies should be decreased, the government was not able to accept a recommendation from the author of the report that they should now be increased. It is not reasonable that the government should do so. It had not been the practice of the government for some eighteen months to take care of wage increases by increased production subsidies. The government expressed willingness to follow the policy that had been followed recently in western Canada in taking care of wage increases in other coal fields. It offered to

5S6
Labour Conditions

increase the price ceiling and allow coal to carry the additional forty cents per day. Mr. Justice Carroll, in his report, recommended that the proposal of the company with respect to the extra dollar be adopted; that the $1.40 depend, as far as the forty cents is concerned, on the price of coal, and as far as the one dollar was concerned, on restoring production to its pre-war level.
As to the welfare fund, no one has quarrelled with the principle of provision for such a fund. It was included in the last settlement in western Canada, and it was thought that the price per ton of coal that was allowed for a welfare fund in western Canada should be allowed in eastern Canada to provide a welfare fund in that area.
As to the pension fund, no one could be more cordial than the government toward the establishment of such a fund. But it is obvious that some time and study must be given to determine the basis of such a fund for so large an industry, and the commissioner recommended that this particular request be left over for study. It is my view that whatever is done in the maritime provinces, no time should be lost in establishing a pension fund for these men. In this day and age, I think it is a poor industry in this country that has not provided a pension fund for its employees.
That is the position today. No one is more concerned that I am at the loss of this production, which is a. serious matter. Coming at a time when the shortage of coal in the United Kingdom has practically paralysed the old country; when a shortage of coal on the continent is causing starvation and demoralization in man}' European countries; when this continent is making every effort to ship coal overseas to make up the deficiencies in Europe, it seems to me the workers in Nova Scotia were very badly advised in closing down that production which is vital in Canada's economy and to the economy of the world at this particular time. However, that action has been taken. At this time I am simply trying to place the facts before hon. members. I think each hon. member must analyse them and decide for himself whether or not all that reasonably could be done by the government has been done in an attempt to bring this dispute to a close.
At the end of 1946 the government found that the coal situation in this country was well in equilibrium. Opposition members, particularly those of the official opposition, have been reiterating their demand that controls be abolished, and it seemed an opportune time to bow to that demand and abolish coal

control. The result is that there is no coal control in this country today, nor is there wage control. Both have been abolished. This dispute, therefore, is in a somewhat different position from the dispute in western Canada, which was carried on under both wage and industry control. The government is less able to intervene in this work stoppage than it has been in the past. But knowing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) I am perfectly sure he and his department will be just as active in trying to bring this dispute to a close as would have been the case had the controls I mentioned still been in effect.


Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: The minister said1 the workers in Nova Scotia were ill advised in going out on strike. Obviously that is not a fact but a matter of opinion, and an opinion with which many of us differ. Men do not go out on strike lightly or quickly. Workers go out on strike only as a last desperate effort to get what they consider to be justice. They know that when they go out on strike they are perhaps imperilling the well-being of their wives and families; and to a worker a strike is tremendously serious. As I say, they take that action only when they are pressed by a very obvious feeling of injustice.
The right hon. gentleman seemed to be in a chastened mood today. He seemed to consider that the payment of five and a half million dollars, the subsidy suggested to be given the coal industry of Nova Scotia, was something the dominion treasury should not stand; yet I can remember that not so many months ago the right hon. gentleman rose in this house and said, "What is a million dollars?" It depends upon the time and place. Only a short time ago we were told that one company, Crane Limited, had received the sum of $400,000, I think it was, in order that the construction of houses might be continued without delay. I am not going to try to draw any comparison between the coal industry and housing; each is equally important in its own field. I do think, however, that by inference if not directly the minister did place blame, rather unfairly in my opinion, upon the workers in the coal industry.
He went on to comment upon absenteeism. The union themselves are not too proud of the record in that regard; they admit it. The union themselves have said they are willing to do everything within their power to cooperate with management to reduce absenteeism ; but there is a reason for it. Absenteeism is frequently engendered by the conditions under which men work. Further, when we examine the figures in connection with absen-

Labour Conditions
tees we find, or at least I am so informed, that men sick and in hospitals are marked off as absentees; that veterans who had to leave the pits for medical treatment are marked as absentees. I am told that men who turned up for work and found they could not carry on at their daily task because of breakdowns are marked off as absentees; and I also know that if a man is absent for more than two days he had to produce a medical certificate. If he did not he was suspended for another two or three days, and during that suspension was marked as an absentee. So when the minister talks about absentees let us remember that the absenteeism was not always voluntary.
Then there is this matter of the drop in production. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) presented to the house certain figures which were given yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). In 1939 there were 3,300 men working at the face, actually producing coal, as against 11,300 non-producers. Last year there were 2,800 men at the face, as against approximately 11,300 non-producers. In other words there had been a drop of 500 in the number of men actually producing coal. Obviously, unless there is some counterbalance by mechanization, there is going to be a drop in coal production. And when we consider the decrease in production we should remember that these mines are becoming more difficult to work. Many of the seams are running down. There is no shortage of coal there but the seams on which the men are actually working are becoming less accessible every day, and the coal they take out is more difficult to bring to the surface. We must remember, too, that among the non-producers there are many men-I am told as many as four hundred-who should have been retired because of age; yet they continue to work because they have no other means of subsistence. I am told of one case, of a man eighty-four years of age, who resigned last year, after having been with the company sixty-five years, without receiving any pension or other aid from the company.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Are these facts you are giving the house?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: These are facts I have been given by officials of the mine workers; and they also tell me that in many cases in the pits as they are at present constituted, mechanization is not possible.
As a result of this strike it is possible some pits may close. As I have said, the seams are running out in some cases. But we do know that a strike in that area for any length 83166-38}
of time at all is going to bring tremendous tragedy to many hundreds of innocent people, for those who always suffer most when strikes occur are the women and. children of those engaged in that industry.
The point has been made that this is a national industry, and of course it is; but if there is any danger of a shortage of coal in the country, then obviously it must become a national problem, and. equally obviously, the parliament of Canada must tackle the situation in a more forthright way than it has done up to the present. We are faced with the fact that the strike is on. We know that the company claim that they cannot pay the SI.40 a day which is regarded by the commissioner as reasonable. Simply to increase the price of coal is not the answer, because that would merely put the maritimes behind the eight-ball when it came to keeping their coal markets. Another answer is a subsidy, and that subsidy would have to come out of consolidated revenue of this country. The real answer that this house will have to face is the answer which we have suggested on more than one occasion-the nationalization of the mines. However I am not going to press that solution just now.
Obviously the industry in Nova Scotia needs reorganizing. Obviously new mines should be opened, but equally obviously the companies cannot afford the capital expenditures to do this. Therefore, for the sake of that industiy I submit that the government of Canada will have to take over the coal mines and open up new seams and new pits.
If we grant a subsidy in order to keep up production, as I feel we will have to do, then in order to protect the people of Canada the government should appoint either an administrator or, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South has suggested, a board made up of workers, management and representatives of the government to see that production is as efficient as possible. The people of Canada want to see some return for the millions which have been poured into that industry.
Above all let us remember that the union has always said that it is willing to cooperate in every way with the management to bring about increased production, but in view of the fact, which has been stated in this house, that increased production is impossible-and I doubt if it is possible to get it even with mechanization.-we are faced with the stark reality that there must be nationalization of the mines. It is the responsibility of this government to face that fact and get this matter settled as rapidly as possible.
Labour Conditions


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: 

IS, 1947

[Stage Direction]
Labour Conditions
gathered information all across the country, but with what result? They simply said that what is wrong with this mine is one thing, and what is wrong with the coal situation in another district is another thing. They offered no solution of these problems. I have received a letter from one of the coal operators in my province who says that so far as the Minto area is concerned the Carroll report, which has cost this dominion $282,374.16, is absolutely useless.
I have nothing to add, Mr. Speaker, beyond this. If the men are entitled to an increase of $1.40 a day, surely there is some department of government or someone somewhere who can determine that they are entitled to that increase. If they are not entitled to it, then say so frankly. If it is because of income tax or some other factor that we are not getting the production from these men, again I say the remedy lies in the hands of the government and it can be very easily applied.
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, while this coal strike in Nova Scotia does not directly affect western Canada, many of us who come from the west have large coal mining areas within our constituencies where conditions prevail similar to those found in the coal mining areas in eastern Canada. This coal strike is confined to eastern Canada, but the coal mining picture generally concerns all of Canada.
I do not think there is as much difference of opinion as to the reasonableness of the requests of the mine workers' union in Nova Scotia as one would think. It is generally conceded that their request for a welfare fund, which has been agreed to by the operators and has the government's approval, is a reasonable one. As we are all convinced that a welfare fund is essential, we need not discuss the merits or demerits of that proposal.
The miners are also asking for the establishment of a pension fund. I think we are all agreed that that is necessary, and it has been accepted by the company.
The great question outstanding in this coal mining dispute seems to be whether this country can afford to pay a decent wage to miners who are digging coal in coal mines. *While I have never been a coal miner myself, and I do not know that I want to be one, from what I have seen of the industry, and I have had considerable experience in visiting coal mines and talking to miners, I do not know of a more hazardous or more tiring job. I know of no occupation that draws on a man's vitality more than does coal mining, and I have lived in coal mine areas practically all my life and know the hardships of the miners through my association with them.
When we look at the coal mining problems in Canada we must all be greatly concerned. The minister has just pointed out, as was stated in the Carroll report, that we produce in Canada approximately 17,000,000 tons of coal and import something like 25,000,000 tons. It seems to me that in a country as vast as Canada, so rich in this great natural resource of coal, we should not be dependent upon importations to the amount of 25,000,000 tons. That was brought home to us strongly during the war when we were in dire straits in Canada because of the great coal strike in the United States. Now is the time when a national fuel policy should be framed so that we shall not be dependent upon importations of coal to the extent we are now. The Carroll report discusses this question at great length. The report consists of a tremendous volume which has recently come into the *hands of members of the house, and while I have spent days studying it I have not nearly got through it yet. But I have read the recommendations of the majority and the recommendations of the minority, Mr. Morrison, representing the men, and in my opinion the recommendations of the majority report are not adequate to solve our coal problems in Canada.
The minister has pointed out that the Carroll report recommended the discontinuance of a production subsidy, and I am inclined to agree with that. The report does advocate the continuance of transportation subsidies, and in the notes appended to the recommendations it is proposed that the subsidies should not be done away with immediately. I think that is sound. Under our present economic set-up I say without hesitation that you cannot get along without subsidies. There is, however, a solution, but if I endeavoured to tell the house what it is, I am afraid the speaker would call me to order. As time goes on, however, and the debate on the address is resumed, I think it will be made quite clear by this party how the coal problem can be handled in a more practical manner than it is being handled now under our present economic set-up.
One of the things pointed out in the Carroll report was the condition of the mines in Nova Scotia. The minister went to great lengths, I think, in putting the blame entirely, or at least to too great a degree, on the men. That was not my view of the recommendations of the Carroll report. It pointed out most clearly that one of the troubles in the mines of Nova Scotia was the inadequacy of the machinery used in the mines. If that is true, and I do not think we can question the commission's finding in that regard, no one has the right, as was
Labour Conditions

pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, to blame labour for the lack of modem machinery in these mines. It has been found necessary to subsidize the coal mines in eastern Canada ,to a greater degree than the coal mines in western Canada, largely because of the obsolete machinery being used in the mines in eastern Canada. That is something which I think the government should investigate immediately. If we are ever to solve the national coal problem we must insist that the companies modernize their mines to the point where production can be increased.
The company has offered an increase in Wages of one dollar per day based on production, the other 40 cents to be made up by subsidies. I think that that is basically unsound. With this country importing such a tremendous amount of coal, not only from Great Britain but from the United States, and paying subsidies on it, it seems to me that it would be good business, even under our present economy, for this government to give the $1.40 asked for by the miners by way of subsidy, thereby increasing production in this country so that our coal mining industry will become more stable and its production more assured.
I quite realize that a subsidy can be obtained under the present set-up-and I emphasize this most emphatically-through increased taxation, as was pointed out by the minister. That means that if the increased subsidy is given it will definitely increase the price to the consumer. If it is a production subsidy it increases the price of coal directly; if it is given in another way as a transportation subsidy it comes out of general revenue; therefore it comes back to the consumer in the long run. Any increase in price will definitely increase the cost of living of the people, and every hon. member knows that the cost of living is increasing rapidly enough without any additional increases of this kind.
There is no solution that the government has in mind at the moment-if they have a solution-other than the paying of this $1.40 by way of subsidy. That will not settle the problem from the long term point of view. It may get over the difficulty which faces us at the present time, and probably that is what we should pay attention to nowT.
The Carroll commission recognized that these subsidies should be decreased as time goes on, but if we are to decrease the subsidy we must have something else ready to take its place unless it is the intention to lower the standard of living of the miners, and they would not be content with that.

Some hon. members have seen fit to criticize the government because of their policy in regard to this particular problem. They say that it will mean an increase in taxes. One hon. member suggested nationalization of the mines. I do not think that is the solution, but at least it is a suggestion. Some other hon. members who have spoken have condemned the increased taxation, but have offered no alternative. We of the Social Credit party do not believe in the nationalization of the mines. We do not think that will solve the problem, but at least we have a solution. Through private control and price discounts this matter can be taken care of. As I said a moment ago I am not going to labour the point at this time; in the near future a thorough explanation will be given of the application of the principles of social credit to the mining industry. But something must be done at the moment. I suggest to the minister, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) did, that the government pay this subsidy and get the mines into operation lest we have a crisis here such as they have in Britain.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I
should like to bring out one or two points, and I shall be brief in doing so. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) brought up the problem of subsidies as applied to the coal mines of Nova Scotia; he pointed out that the government was paying several million dollars at the present time, and that it would be uneconomic to add further to that bill. At the present time the Canadian people are paying these subsidies. If we do not pay the subsidies or even increase them we shall have to pay them anyway because we shall have to import more coal from the United States. It is a well known fact that at the moment our position is becoming critical so far as United States dollars are concerned; therefore we have to decide which will be the less costly-fewer United States dollars, or further subsidies to the coal mines of Nova Scotia.
The minister also brought out the fact that at the present time the dominion government is more or less helpless because it has no coal policy or no national wage policy; that we have done away with the controls, and that therefore we cannot handle this problem in the efficient way in which we handled the problem of the western strikes. He also pointed out that the official opposition are firmly opposed to controls and that the government has removed them. I should like to remind the

Labour Conditions
Minister of Reconstruction and Supply that the quickest way to commit political and economic suicide is to follow a Tory policy.
This problem is becoming a national one. It is applicable not only to Nova Scotia but also to the west coast. The only two coal fields that we have on the coast are being rapidly depleted. The Nanaimo field contains a ten-year supply of coal at the present rate of production. In the Cumberland field all the available commercial coal seams have been exploited, and this with no over-all policy of the government to open up new coal fields. There is a field within 150 miles of the coast in which there are over one billion tons of anthracite coal, and yet because of the tremendous investment involved and the low retui'n, capital will not invest and open up the new fields. We are rapidly getting into the position in which the British government found itself, that is being handed mines that have been completely exhausted,
The minister brought up the problem of absenteeism. In Great Britain absenteeism is being solved by the nationalization of the pits because the workers know they have an interest in the fields, and they are going back on the job; but so long as they are treated as a piece of scrap machinery they will not have the esprit de corps that they should have. Therefore I say to the government, do not listen to the official opposition because it is political and economic suicide. Step into this coal picture and solve the problem before it becomes critical for the whole economy.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in 1923 I introduced a resolution stating that in the opinion of the house the time had come for Canada to have a national policy in relation to its coal supply. That resolution envisaged the development of the coal industry of the maritime provinces, Wales and Alberta. What was that policy? It was a national policy which would ensure that the coal and coke of the maritimes-and maritime coke is the best in the world if you have the proper furnace

would be marketed in central Canada. There was a long discussion in the house. I suggested that all coal under the British flag should be mined so that over a period of years at least we would not be dependent on the United States for our coal supplies.
We have an abundance of coal in Alberta and in Nova Scotia, and also in Wales. Over four million tons of coal could be brought, from Wales, I said then, with the aid of the government lending the merchant marine and the national railways.
In 1923 I moved this motion:
That, in the opinion of this house, the time has arrived for Canada to have a national policy in relation to its coal supply and that no part of Canada should be left dependent on a United States coal supply. That further in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately consider the initiation of an all-British and Canadian coal supply and that such a policy is both a social and economic necessity and in the best interests of the future of Canada.
I proposed that a system of bonuses and subventions should be given regarding transportation and a national coal supply. For five or six years that plan was not adopted, but finally in 1930 before the election the Liberal administration which was then in office, undertook to pay a dollar a ton to the head of the lakes, and a bonus, a subvention or a subsidy was paid to the railways to move the coal by all rail and water and all rail to the head of the lakes. So far so good. In the text of this particular motion I proposed that we should have not only a federal subsidy on coal, but a bounty as well. During the last war we exported large quantities of asbestos, pulpwood and other raw materials to the United States. It gave work to 36,000 asbestos workers in the United States, while our own people were suffering for the want of coal, so much so that there were cartoons in the New York Times depicting Canada as a Lazarus endeavouring to get a lump of coal here and there with which to heat his home. The bounty on asbestos would have provided a fund to give a bounty thus to maritime coal and labour.
The conditions in the coal mines of Nova Scotia should not be as they are because of the failure of the government to meet its responsibility. I have always urged upon the government the establishment of a proper national fuel policy and, together with that, improved working conditions for the miners. The conditions under which the miners have to work at low wages the world over are simply deplorable. I have been a consistent friend of labour and I suggest that there is a right as well as a wrong way of bringing about relief in labour disputes of this kind. Certainly the wrong way is the way that has been adopted in England. I am not in favour of nationalizing the mines in Canada. We have only to look at the deplorable conditions in England today to see what the people over there are suffering as a result of the totalitarian socialist policy that has been put into force by Mr. Shinwell. Why, in the old country, according to pictures I have seen in the newspapers, they have had to hold public meetings by candlelight.
Labour Conditions

Surely we do not want that sort of thing in Canada, a country with the vast coal resources that we have. There is no reason why Alberta coal could not be supplied to the people of the central provinces. There should be some way of getting together with the coal miners on this question, and finding some solution for this labour problem. As long ago as March, 1923, on my national coal supply motion, I made this statement, which I should like to submit once more to the house:
The question may be asked, where would we find the money for the adoption of such a national fuel subsidy and bounty policy, money to pay bounties on the production of coke from Nova Scotia and to adapt our systems^ of land and water transportation to the delivery of Welsh anthracite? I reply that we should extend the principles of protection, apply the good old national policy, and so secure a supply of fuel coked and mined under the British flag as a substitute for the 12,249,055 tons or $56,348,548 worth of anthracite and bituminous coal now purchased in the United States and burned in Canada every year. I would take the money not out of the pockets of Canadian coal consumers, but out of the pockets of the American consumers of newsprint. Canada's pulp resources are almost entirely in the hands of Americans. The last pulpwood lands of Canada have become the happy hunting-ground of United States operators. All Canada gets out of her enormous pulp resources is the price of the comparatively ill-paid labour employed in converting the pulpwood into paper. These wages are almost as low as the conditions of the labour market will permit.
I would supply the bounty for the production of coke and the importation of Welsh anthracite by putting an embargo of ten per cent on the newsprint exported to the United States. According to a return laid on the table of the house the other day our newsprint exports in 1921 reached a total of $62,860,142. A duty of ten per cent ad valorem on this value would yield $6,286,014 per annum. Therefore the proceeds of that export duty would supply a yearly bounty fund of over $6,000,000, from which could be drawn bounties to encourage the production of coke from Nova Scotia coal, and to aid in the freighting of Welsh coal, or of our eastern and western coal to Canadian markets.
During the last war many industries in Ontario engaged in the production of munitions and war materials would have had to shut down had it not been for the development of cheap electricity in the province, with happy labour cooperation and good wages since 1911. What has been accomplished in Ontario in cheap labour, light and power can, I suggest, be accomplished throughout Canada so far as coal production is concerned by the establishment of a proper national fuel policy such as I have always advocated.
Socialism, as exemplified in the Shinwell policy in England, has proved a complete failure and we do not want similar conditions in Canada. Far from it. I have always been a protectionist and I believe that, if we

applied the principle of the old national policy to the mining of coal, we would get satisfactory results, and hundreds of thousands of tons of coal could be taken to the head of the lakes from the maritimes, from Alberta to Ontario and brought from Wales. The money could be provided along the lines that I have suggested, by protection, bonuses, bounties and subventions, and the miners, the men who work so hard underground, would enjoy real labour protection as well. The workers in the Hydro Electric system in Ontario were paid the highest rates in that particular industry on this continent with better modern labour conditions, and that resulted in a benefit to the consumers. Lighting rates were cut throughout the province. There was hardly a kitchen in our cities and towns that did not have cheap light and heat, one third of what it used to cost.
I hope there is a better day dawning for the miners of the maritimes, and also for the coal producers and owners because there is no nation in the world today where providence has done so much and man so little in the way of coal, wood, power and other heating fuels. We have great natural resources and we have done little to develop them. While I cannot agree with the full text of the resolution, I am in sympathy with everything that can be done to improve the labour conditions of those who serve in the industry and to bring capital and labour together to aid a national fuel policy. I repeat, we do not want to imitate the policy now in force in Britain and conscript untrained, unfit young people, who should be in school, to work in our mines. The condition in the coal industry in England today is due largely to the brand of socialism they have had there.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: I rise
at this time not simply for the sake of talking. I rise because I believe that a national emergency does exist with regard to the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I listened with rapt attention to the speech of the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) as he was replying to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and I must say I was disappointed that he had not a better case in answer to the mover of the motion now under discussion. One thing I noticed particularly was that he did not deny that the demands of the coal miners in Nova Scotia were just and reasonable. If they were just and reasonable, then why do they not get their demands? As far as I could see, the minister had only one answer, namely that the coal mining industry itself could not stand the increase, and that

Labour Conditions
to carry on any further subsidies would be too much of a drain on the public treasury. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly where he is up against a brick wail having regard to the solution of tliis problem, and he is stopped dead in his tracks in the solution of almost any problem along the same lines. Where is the money to come from?


Mr. JAQUES:: The old question.


Ernest George Hansell: I know it is not the intention to open up this debate to give us an opportunity to tell the minister where the money can come from. If he came to me and asked me, while I know where the money can come from, I do not know whether I would tell him.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Stingy.


Ernest George Hansell: In the first place, I do not think he would accept my advice, and yet he has no solution of that one question. That, to my mind, is the crux of the problems which Canada faces, not only in respect of the present debate but in respect of almost any great national problem.
The minister has said that acceptance of the demands would mean an increase in subsidies. Well, we have been paying out a good deal of money in subsidies over the past years. Why do we do that? Do we do it just for the fun of spending money? As far as my reasoning takes me, I think we do it in order to keep an industry on its feet. A businessman does not put money into a business which he knows is going to fail. He does not put his money into a business which he knows will go broke in a few years. If he has in mind that he is likely to fail, he does not put his money into a bag with holes in it. If we consider this matter along these lines, Canada has put into her coal mining industry millions and millions of dollars, which money has come out of the public treasury. Surely that should be regarded as an investment in the coal mining industry in Canada.
What will happen in the. coal mining industry in Nova Scotia? Is it going broke? It certainly will if the minister cannot get any farther than he indicated in his speech this afternoon. We have on our desks the report of the royal commission on coal. When the minister announced a year or so ago that a commission would be set up, everyone in this house was delighted. If my memory serves me aright, he said, in making the announcement, that the commission would be set up to recommend an adequate national coal policy for Canada. Of course we were all glad to hear that, and the commission
started its work. I have no criticism of the kind of work it did. I think it did good work, but I believe that some of us who have scanned through that report, particularly some of us who represent coal mining areas, are sadly disappointed that the commissioners ware unable to present to the government an adequate national coal policy for Canada. As far as solving the problem of the coal mining industry on the basis of an adequate national coal policy is concerned, we are no nearer it today than we were before the commission was set up. That is my honest opinion.
There is another little matter which has been touched on; it is the matter of absenteeism. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) in what they had to say about absenteeism, and I compliment them upon it. It is an alarming admission when- the responsible minister rises and tells us that absenteeism has risen to thirty per cent of the man-hours of labour in the coal mining industry. That is an alarming admission. Let him rise and tell us why that absenteeism has taken place.


Norman Jaques: He did not do that.


Ernest George Hansell: Surely he must recognize that he has some responsibility with respect to it. Are the records right when thirty per cent of the man-hours are put down as lost through absenteeism? If the records are right, then there must be some reason for it. Surely a man will not be absent from his work if he is going to be adequately paid. That is a certainty; and they are not adequately paid or they would not be going on strike. So that there must be some other reason. I think we know the reasons, to a very large extent. But it is the minister's responsibility to tell us what those reasons are and to tell the house what he is doing to correct that absenteeism.
In speaking of the coal commission report, I said that we were sadly disappointed. I have read a good deal of it, particularly focusing my attention on the recommendations, and I wish to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the minority report which was brought in by Commissioner Morrison. I value that report to some extent for this reason; and let me say that I am not depreciating the value- of a judge's decision. But both Mr. Justice Carroll and Mr. Justice McLaurin are judges, and perhaps they look at bold, hard, cold, constitutional facts. I am not saying that they have not arrived at what they may think is a proper conclusion. But Commissioner Morrison is a man whose background is
Labour Conditions


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is that I have been referring to a production subsidy only. No great sums are paid in the way of subventions during the war years, for the reason that production in the maritime provinces barely supplies the needs of those provinces.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The subvention provisions are still in force, are they? Mr. HOWE: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You have paid up to $2,000,900 a year in subventions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, about that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I intend to take a position which is not very critical of anyone. I am going to endeavour to point out where I think the great difficulty lies in having any ordinary member such as myself come to a reasoned conclusion as to what further subventions, if any, should be paid the mines in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
In the first place I wish to say a word or two about absenteeism. I know that a few years ago we had something called absenteeism which was largely accounted for by the sixth day of working; and I say that because of an experience I had on Vancouver island. I am not being critical of the miners in that area. They were only going to work five days a week, and that is what they did. But if the members of this house worked on their knees, lying on their sides, and so on, mining a three-foot seam of coal on Vancouver island, perhaps they would think five days of that sort of work made up a fairly good week; and those were the facts at that particular place.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And they are elsewhere.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Archibald) told us about the seams approaching exhaustion. The information I obtained at that time, when I was in the company of Doctor Gray, then chief geologist, and in going over maps with him and in the company's offices, would make me believe that the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena are pretty accurate, because that was the best judgment I could form at that time.
I do not know the answer, but I am convinced that absenteeism in the mines is closely linked with the income tax. At this time I am not debating the matter of income tax; this is neither the time nor the place for that. However, I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) will agree that it is an important element in this matter of absenteeism. Last year, when talking about milk we heard of the dairyman who said, "Why in the world should I milk cows for Ilsley?" The miner wonders why he should go underground and mine coal for-we have a new minister, but at that time it was the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley).
I said at the outset that until one question is answered, which unfortunately the coal commission did not answer, I do not see how the government or parliament can with reason make up its mind as to what should be our position with respect to subsidies to that industry. I am going a long way with my hon. friends to my immediate left, because I think

Labour Conditions
the government has gone a long way in subsidizing the coal industry in Nova Scotia and, with respect to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), his seven hundred men in New Brunswick. So that the first thing we must do is determine whether or not it is in the public interest that the burden necessary to operate an industry, which under present conditions at least, is uneconomic in itself, should be borne by the public treasury. May I say that within limits-and what I am seeking to do is to find those limits-I agree with that. It seems to me that it would be a terrible thing for Nova Scotia if the mines of that province should close. Nova Scotia has not been well treated since confederation; the terms of confederation were not lived up to, particularly having regard to railways, the old Intercolonial and later the Canadian National. But on the one side we have the minister giving us some formidable figures, roughly speaking two and a half tons per man and now one and a half tons, wTith a decrease from 1944 to the present time, so that today we find the industry in its present position.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has said that those men work just as hard as do persons engaged in the industry elsewhere. That I do not know. I do know that men working at the face do not shovel nearly as much coal, but I know also that they are doing that job under much more difficult conditions than the men in the province from which I come. One cannot just say that the work of a man at the face is simply to take his flat shovel and load so many pounds of coal on to cars, because many other things enter into the work. I have no doubt that there they set their own timbers. Perhaps the hon. member for Cape Breton South can tell me if that is right. I assume that the men working at the face set their own timbers, or are there special timber men?


Clarence Gillis: They set their own timbers.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I understand that more timbering is required there than in some of the other places. In the west we have stripping operations. I hope there are some Manitoba members here because this was confined mainly to operations in southeastern Saskatchewan and across the Manitoba boundary. They were mostly mining water because it ran as high as twenty per cent.


Mr. GARDINER:: Thirty-five per cent.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Apparently they are getting deeper into the water because now it is thirty-five per cent, whereas a number of years ago it was twenty per cent! That is the situation there: You are not digging
coal and freighting coal; you are largely freighting water which is not of much use when you want the heat to come on.
I rather like a story which concerns my father who was a coal merchant many years ago, among many other things. He received a shipment of coal containing many rocks. He complained to the people from whom he had bought it that there were a lot of rocks in it, but the man who had sold the coal said, "That is all right, J. W. Smith, when those rocks get hot they stay hot a long time." He sold his coal.
I come now to the question which I think must be determined and which we must know. On the one side there is falling production. The statistics which the minister gave us go to show that in various places in Canada an increase in the daily or hourly pay has been followed by a decrease in production. In this particular instance, the company in effect says, through its proposition for greater production, that the men are not working hard enough. On the other hand the men say, "Your machinery is antiquated and we cannot do better than that with the tools and machinery we have." We have had a coal commission sitting and they have pointed out this decrease in tonnage per man. They have pointed out also that the machinery is not modern.
It seems to me that, until we find out which of those statements is correct, we shall be unable to form any proper judgment as to where the fault lies. No doubt the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has been down these mines many times, although I do not think he could get through some of the entries they have there, those air holes the men have to go through sometimes in order to get to work. Until that simple problem is solved, I for one do not know whether we should grant subventions or whether we should approve the principle that increases should be based on increased production.
Perhaps there is some one in the government service who knows, although it may not be answered at the moment. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has spoken once and I suppose that ends him if I know the rules correctly, but he can whisper to his eloquent colleague on his right who is always ready to be an authority on most anything. Can someone solve that problem? If he can, then I will know whether on this occasion I am on the side of the men or on the other side.
Returning to the question of wages, I understand that the daily rate there is $5.85, whereas in Alberta it is $8.30 or something like that. If these men are doing equal work, then the
Labour Conditions

miners of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are being treated very badly by somebody. I have no hesitation in saying that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Like other hon. members, the hon. member has stated that the principal cause for absenteeism is the income tax. Is he willing to accept the corollary that a further increase of $1.40 a day would cause further absenteesim?


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, I would not accept that corollary. The minister produced figures showing that increased rates of pay does cause absenteeism, on account of the income tax. I am sure that in many cases we can put the increase up sufficiently that the income tax would not bear as great a proportion to the whole. In that case I do not think it would increase absenteeism. In fact you cannot increase it much beyond what it is now because they are really on a five-day week basis. That is all they are working and that is all they are going to work even if they get more money. I do not think they will stop working at four days, if that is what the minister means.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, during the past few months I have visited the coal fields on Vancouver island, in northern Alberta, in New Brunswick, on Cape Breton Island and on the mainland of Nova Scotia, and in all those districts I was told by parents who work in the coal mines that it is their hope that their sons will not be coal miners. It is quite apparent from the discussion this afternoon that the problem in Nova Scotia is a national one.
Those of us who plan on living in this northern climate will have to decide whether or not we wish to have coal available. If we wish to have it available we have to find out somehow or another the technique whereby the job of mining will be made more attractive for those who do that work. I think it is recognized that the coal miners in Nova Scotia have handicaps not found in other places on this continent and I think it is unfair to compare production in that province with production in northern Alberta, for example.
I think the impartial observer will agree that the coal miner in Nova Scotia is a good average citizen who is willing to make a fair contribution and who expects nothing more than a fair share of our national income.
This afternoon the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) seemed to be worried over having to find another $5,500,000 a year to meet the demands of the workers, but I would remind the house that just two

or three years ago the minister was able tc find $5,500,000 a day with which to carry out a programme he had been able to organize. The people of Canada were willing to cooperate with him in carrying it out. At this stage I think we must decide whether or not we want the people who live in the maritimes to be a part of our Canadian economy. I do not think it is feasible to depend upon the United States for our supply of coal, and I do not think it is feasible to depend upon Alberta to supply coal for all parts of Canada. That being the case, I think we have to establish the principle that those who do the job of mining coal in Nova Scotia should have sufficient take-home pay to enable them to meet their commitments.
Hon. members will have observed the answers given in the house the other day to the question asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) as to the costs involved in setting up the royal commission on coal. It is obvious that preparing a report for a royal commission is much more remunerative than producing coal for the nation. I find that the two judges who gave their services were paid, one of them $17,000 odd, and the other $24,000. One of the technical advisers was paid $100 a day, another, $100 a day, another, $35 a day, and assistants were paid $25, $30, and another one, $40 a day. Their expenses ran up to $2,000, $3,000 and $5,000 in addition to their daily allowances. The total cost of the royal commission report was $282,000. If the taxpayers of Canada can provide $282,000 for compiling the information contained in the report of the royal commission on coal, 1946, we can find the $5,500,000 a year which has been suggested to have the production of coal in Nova Scotia established again and to enable the people who live in that part of Canada to feel that they are a part of this great country.


Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I represent the county of Cumberland in Nova Scotia, the second largest coal field in eastern Canada. The mining of coal is an important industry from the point of view of our county as well as from the point of view of eastern Canada generally. We have a great tonnage of coal reserves in the county of Cumberland. In .the town of Spring-hill we have one of the finest coal fields that there are anywhere, except that the mining is carried on under very hazardous conditions. But the quality of that coal is equal to any produced anywhere in Canada.

Labour Conditions
The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) spoke of the difficult conditions under which the miners work in western Canada. He spoke about three-foot seams. In the Joggins-River Hebert area in Cumberland county the ordinary thickness of the seams where the miners toil varies from eighteen to twenty-four inches or thereabouts. I am proud to say that even under these conditions the tonnage produced per man day in that area is, I think, the highest in all eastern Canada.
I have had contacts with miners and mine workers over many years in Nova Scotia both in a personal way and in connection with my public responsibilities. I have been very glad to be of assistance to them and to cooperate with them whenever I could because they had my sympathy in nearly every instance when they made a request for improved mining conditions and increased remuneration, and I am very glad that over the years they have succeeded in most particulars. I have been in sympathy with them. I have worked in close association with the heads of the mining organization and I have found them to be reliable and to be good Canadian citizens.
When it came to the question of enlistments in the two wars the miners of Cumberland county and of Nova Scotia enlisted in perhaps larger numbers or percentages than any other class of people in all Canada. It is not to the credit of the government, however, because I believe the government should have recognized that the first duty of these miners in fighting the war was to remain at the coal face. Production in the coal fields of Nova Scotia has suffered and still suffers on account of their heavy enlistments.
The miners in the county of Cumberland do nrt want, a stoppage of work. They will make any reasonable sacrifice to prevent a stoppage of work, particularly at this time of year, when so many people would suffer. But they will suffer themselves, and they have proved this over many years, before they will submit to what is recognized as an injustice being imposed upon them.
That they have been reasonable and sound in their requests for increased wages and other concessions at this time in respect of mining operations is proven by the findings of the commissioner, Mr. Justice Carroll, who has, in the main, recognized that their requests were reasonable, as he has made recommendations to that effect. I would like to see the recommendations of Mr. Justice Carroll carried out by all concerned for another reasonable period. If the representatives of the workmen believe that, under existing conditions in the war and the post-war period, that
is an unreasonable demand to make of them, then, in view of the large sums of money now being paid out by the government by way of subsidies, on imported1 coal and otherwise, I believe that the government should go farther and meet these additional requirements so that the men can go back to work immediately. Millions of dollars have been paid out in subsidies in Nova Scotia in recent years, and that was necessary. I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) and the government for recognizing that those subsidies were necessary. Personally I am sorry that conditions were such that it was necessary to pay those subsidies in order to carry on production.
I am going to make an appeal to the government to meet the requests of the miners so that they may go back to work for another period, for six months or three months or some other term, even if it does increase the subsidy payments.
I am also going to make an appeal to the workmen. I say it in the interests of the miners themselves in my county; I say it in the interests of the domestic householders;
I say it in the interests of industry; I say it in the interests of power plants operated by coal, in the interests of hospitals and everybody down east. I am going to make this appeal to the miners. If the government in their judgment and within their rights find that they cannot grant the request of the workmen I am going to make a public appeal to the men to go back to work, under the conditions recommended1 by Mr. Justice Carroll, at least for a certain period to enable the company and the miners and the federal and provincial governments .to decide on what is a sound policy with respect to coal operations in Nova Scotia. I do not want to see production decreased. I do not want to see the costs going up. I do not like excessive absenteeism. We in Nova Scotia have been under obligation to the federal government and to the people of central Canada in normal times in providing an outlet for our surplus production. We still want those outlets for the years ahead and we want to retain the good will of the coal users and the taxpayers of central and of all Canada so that we may be able to look them in the face when we ask for any subventions or assistance that are necessary in order that there may be a continuation of steady coal production in Nova Scotia, and that the workmen be enabled to work under proper working conditions and receive a fair remuneration for their hard toil.
It is true that they received some increase during the war, but the wages paid to the working men in the hazardous coal mines of
Labour Conditions

Nova Scotia were not comparable with those received by many of those working in war industry. While production has gone down and costs have gone up, there is much more to be said from the point of view of the miners in Nova Scotia. Coal is a great national asset. It is very important and necessary to the economy of Nova Scotia. I want to see it put upon a sound basis; I want operations carried on; I want this present crisis met and overcome for the time being in order that those who are responsible for operating the coal mines in eastern Canada may have a chance to sit down with their fellows and decide what is desirable and necessary. When I say that I mean the operators. Who are the operators? The operators are the people who took over the coal mines back in 1893. The Hon. C. H. Cahan, who was leader of the opposition and his associates in Nova Scotia at that time, warned the country and the company that it was taking over too big an area then. That company have since taken over the Nova Scotia Steel company in North Cape Breton: the coal fields of Pictou county, and they have also taken over the extensive coal areas in Springhill in my county. They have assumed great responsibility with respect to the operation of these great national resources, and a duty is incumbent upon them to make that industry worthy of the people of Nova Scotia and a great asset to all Canada.
Not only have the operators a responsibility; the workmen also have a responsibility to sit down with those in authority and see what is wrong with the coal mine operations in Nova Scotia and remedy it so that the production per man may not be T50 or 1-60 tons or less per man-day, and to see that working conditions are made satisfactory and that the operations are creditable to them. The federal government has a responsibility and a great responsibility today to see that the present trouble is settled. It is the duty of the federal government to bridge this difficulty. The provincial government and the province of Nova Scotia which owns the coal areas have a responsibility as well. The miners are reasonable people. The heads of the mine organizations with whom I have worked all the years I have been in public life are reasonable people prepared to carry responsibility. They may have their own ideas; they may not always agree with my views, but they are reasonable men and good citizens. I believe that they will assume their share of the responsibility and sit down with others in authority to put the coal industry of Nova Scotia and eastern Canada on a sound basis. It is their industry. There-
fore I make the first appeal to the government and my second appeal, even as a sacrifice, to the working men, and I believe that public opinion will justify me in Nova Scotia and in all Canada, and the workmen will benefit now and in the future years.


Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: 
Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask one question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would that be because of better machinery at the face? Would that be the answer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. I am told that it is due in part to the difficulties of carrying on the work at the face, and in part to the condition of the men. Many of them have grown older, and because there are no adequate pension plans they are not able to carry on some of the heavy work at the face, but these men for whom that kind of provision has to be made are included in any figures on the basis of which we are given production statistics.
The other factor in addition to the ratio of datal men to miners at the face is that of inefficient methods, which includes two in number, namely, the failure to open new pits and the failure to proceed in some measure at least with mechanization. These two factors, which, as I say, account for more than eighty per cent of the decline in production are obviously managerial matters and should not be laid at the door of the men. To be fair, I think the hon. member for Calgary West has a point in saying that this matter should be gone into and that we should have some independent body finding out the facts of the case. For my part, I believe that the miners who have done the research know what they are talking about. My reason for presenting it is that too often in the course of this discussion reference has been made to absenteeism, and I do not think it is fair to the miners to leave the question hanging in the air. In my view, the men are not to blame.
I move on to refer to the objection which the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply raised with respect to the increased cost to the public treasury of subsidizing the $1.40 increase. Speaking of costs, may I draw the attention of the house to another cost. Every million tons of coal mined in Nova Scotia cost the lives of five miners, not to mention those who are crippled and injured in various ways, and it seems to me that that should be thought about in relation to any costs which are mentioned in terms of dollars and cents.
With regard to the $5 million, I need not go into the details. Other members who have spoken have indicated that this raises the whole question as to whether the industry is an important one that should be kept going in the economy of Canada. That point is one which we in this group support, and incidentally I may say that the report of the royal commission on coal supports that position at page 582. I need not quote from it, but the position is taken by the commissioners that the coal industry in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is important not only to the economy of the maritimes-that is set out at another page of the report-but also to the economy of the country as a whole. It is on that basis that we feel justified in asking that the subsidy be paid.
I do not feel any obligation to defend Mr. Justice Carroll in reply to the charge of inconsistency which the Minister of Reconstruction levelled when he said that in the report of the royal commission the recommendation was that subsidies be taken off, *whereas in the report that Mr. Justice Carroll made as commissioner under P.C. 4020, he suggested that the forty cents be provided by subsidy. But I would point out that the recommendation in Mr. Justice Carroll's report under P.C. 4020 was for that subsidy for one year. It might be necessary to carry it on longer than that, but it is consistent with the whole position which the hon. member for Cape Breton South has placed before the house, namely, that something should be done along this line to get the industry on its feet in the belief that it would be possible, with the mechanization and development of the industry, to taper off in due course some of these subsidy payments. In any event, it seems to me that this question should not be treated as something from which to scare us away by way of throwing out the figure of
Labour Conditions

five and a half millions. Rather, it should be regarded as a national responsibility with which the government must deal without further delay.
May I drive home the point that other hon. members have called to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is now on the lap of the government. The owners say: that they cannot pay these increases; the men insist that they are not going to continue to work at the low wages which have been theirs. The only answer is either an increase in the price of coal, which no one on the floor of the house has supported, although the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) recommended it in his telegram in reply to Mr. Justice Carroll-


Humphrey Mitchell: And I still approve it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, the minister is consistent with himself on that. The other possibility is a government subsidy. The minister says he still approves what was in his telegram to Mr. Justice Carroll under date of February 12. I wish sometimes the Minister of Labour could take a look at himself and see-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish sometimes my hon. friend could take a look at himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There isn't so much of me.


Humphrey Mitchell: You don't look so hot yourself.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Shall we take this beauty show outside?


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of the major recommendations made by Mr. Justice Carroll was that there be an increase of $1.40, $1 to be paid by the company contingent on increased production and forty cents to be given by way of government subsidy. That is not acceptable to the men, but the reply of the Minister of Labour to Mr. Justice Carroll, in his telegram dated February 12, is one step worse, for it states that the government rejects the proposal to pay the subsidy, but that the wartime prices and trade board would agree to an increase in the price of coal to provide for the implementing of this recommendation, provided that the men agreed to the proposal that the SI be given them only when production was increased. Honestly, I cannot imagine a suggestion of less value to the situation than that contained in the minister's telegram of February 12.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is the same recommendation as Mr. Justice Carroll's, outside of the forty cents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


Humphrey Mitchell: Apart from raising the price of coal between thirty and forty cents to take care of the forty cents, it is the same as recommended by Mr. Justice Carroll. I have been sitting here all afternoon.


Major James William Coldwell: We have been waiting for the minister to say something.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would point out that one on this side and one of the Conservatives spoke; two of the Social Credit party spoke and four of the hon. gentleman's group have spoken. I have been waiting and it is now twenty minutes to six.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member has not finished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Labour says that his recommendation is the same as that of Mr. Justice Carroll.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, substantially the same.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The result to the men is the same.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. Well, the minister makes a recommendation which, if it depends on an increase in the price of coal-which Mr. Justice Carroll recommended against-he knows will not help the situation at all. It will not help the mining industry or other industries of Nova Scotia depending upon it, nor will it help the general economy of Canada; and he knows that if it depends upon the men accepting a $1 increase contingent upon increased production there is no chance of its being accepted. That is why I characterized the suggestion as completely without value. The minister has simply made the situation worse.
I am not at all satisfied with the way in which the Minister of Labour has handled the matter in the house since the session started. When the hon. member for Cape Breton South raised it on the second day of the session the minister said it was a Nova Scotia problem. He has admitted today that it is more than that. The other day, when he made his statement on the results of the negotiations last Saturday, he ended by saying that the parties had not been able to come together, but that his department and he himself were still available to them it they wished to meet further. He also indicated that the owners had already gone back to their head office, which just characterizes how

Labour Conditions
little help these people are getting from the government in this crucial situation. I am glad to know that the minister is waiting to speak and that he may get the floor when I sit down. I hope that he will realize that this matter rests in the government's lap, and that they owe a responsibility to these miners really to do something about it without delay.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have been waiting for the last two and a half hours to rise in my place, and I wish to say to the hon. member who has just spoken that I have nothing to take back from that telegram. I was shooting straight from the shoulder and he is playing politics.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. minister has no right to impute motives. I am not playing politics. I was stating the facts as I see them, and he will have to acknowledge that as my motive in characterizing that telegram as being no help whatsoever.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, politics is the science of government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did my hon. friend mean to pay me a compliment?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend pays himself enough compliments. My hon. friend was thinking of his kind of politics, you understand.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: You mean the science
of good government when you say, "his kind of politics"?


Mr. IRVINE:: That is why the minister does not play it. because it is the science of good government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you will show this telegram to be worth something, I will accept your remark.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The distinction between a science and an art.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have only fifteen minutes before six o'clock, and I shall do the best I can in that time. The issues in this dispute are well known to myself. I was not briefed on it this morning or yesterday.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Or today.


Humphrey Mitchell: Or today, for that matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has not been briefed at all.


Humphrey Mitchell: This dispute came under my jurisdiction about three weeks ago, and I immediately took action by the appointment
of Mr. Justice Carroll as commissioner in the dispute. The men said they were going to strike on February 1, I think it was, but I was able to prevail on them to continue working until Mr. Justice Carroll was able to bring down his recommendation. Let me say this about Mr. Justice Carroll: I think he is a friend of the miners in Nova Scotia; he is also a friend of the industry and he is a native of Nova Scotia.
As I have said before about other arbitrators and conciliators, it is the easiest thing in the world for people to rise in the places in the House of Commons and. criticize, but it takes some courage to be an arbitrator or conciliator in a dispute of that description. Some of my hon. friends have criticized this report of the Carroll commission. The commissioners are well known to responsible members of this house. In addition to Mr. Justice Carroll, there was Mr. Justice McLaurin from Calgary and my good friend, Angus Morrison, also from Calgary. In my judgment, Mr. Angus Morrison is one of the ablest men in the mining game in Canada.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) mentioned the western situation. I have a clear knowledge of that. I appointed the commissioner there. He must remember that at that time the national war labour board and the regional boards were in existence.
My right hon. friend, the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) this afternoon said that we had abolished wage control in December. That was done largely, although not altogether, upon the advice of the labour organizations in this country. I said this morning to another delegation of employers and employees in the greatest basic industry in the country, that we may live to regret that very necessary control being abolished; but it is done and we are back to where many people in the labour movement of this country, and many of the employers wanted to be, namely, back to the position of direct negotiation one with another. I set in motion the very necessary machinery for that negotiation. As a matter of fact, on two occasions I myself sat as mediator in those negotiations.
We have had many arguments here this afternoon. Some have criticized this report. Some think they have a better answer than this commissioner had to the problem of the coal industry, but if they have it, let them stand up on their hind legs and say what it is-


Clarence Gillis: We have told you many times.
Labour Conditions


Humphrey Mitchell: -because the people of this country are looking for that.


Clarence Gillis: You have been told many times.


Humphrey Mitchell: We have had the suggestion of socialism. But you cannot dig coal by making speeches. The only way to dig coal, as they are finding out in Great Britain, is to dig it.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: And they are doing that.


Humphrey Mitchell: They are doing it. But their production has gone up per ton per man.


Major James William Coldwell: It has gone up.


Humphrey Mitchell: The exports of British coal have dropped from thirty-eight million in 1939 to four million last year.


Major James William Coldwell: Because private enterprise wore the mines out.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friends do not need to go any farther than this chamber if they want to look at socialism. It all comes back to the question of subsidy. In the parliamentary restaurant you can get a two-dollar meal for one dollar-


Major James William Coldwell: We do not.


Humphrey Mitchell: -and the taxpayers pay the difference.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You have not had many two-dollar meals, if you call that one.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is a matter of opinion.


Clarence Gillis: I do not believe that should get in the press.


Humphrey Mitchell: The issues in this dispute are clear. The men have asked for SI.40 a day. The commissioner recommended that forty cents of that be paid by the government and the remainder assumed by the company. I think that is substantially true, and I am not going into the details of the dispute. I have long held the opinion that the whole policy of subsidy is unsound. That is a matter of opinion. I have long held the opinion that the people in Ontario and Nova Scotia should not be subsidized, we will say, for inefficiency in British Columbia. Where will you end if you are going to subsidize every inefficient industry in this country?
Someone raised the question of income taxes. Where do you think subsidies come from if they do not come from taxes? My hon. friends down in the southeast corner are more honest about the matter. They have a different theory of money, though I do not agree with it. But that is where the subsidies come from.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But they do not themselves take that kind of money.


Humphrey Mitchell: You can bet your life they do not take that kind of money. It looks like money but it does not act like money.
Let me say that this matter is not on the doorstep of the government. If you want straight negotiation between employer and employee, that is just what has taken place. I have no brief for Dosco. Anybody who knows my background and record will know that I have always gone down the line for the miners in this country; and any man that did not, in my judgment, needs his head read. But to single out the company and the government for blame is, I think, unjustified. I know the effect of that, Mr. Speaker, in the little red schoolhouses and on the soap-boxes. I know what it is done for. It is an easy thing to do. It is an easy way out.
Let me read some quotations from this document which is the result of what I consider courageous action on the part of the British government. In cooperation with the British trade union congress and the equivalent of the manufacturers' association there, the lord president of the council and the minister of labour recently issued a statement on the economic considerations affecting relations between employers and workers. This is almost identical, though in different language- I mean the thought and the driving force of this very able document-to a statement issued by the government of New Zealand and written, I think, by a gentleman named Walsh, who was secretary of either the New Zealand labour party or the trade union congress. This is what they say:
3. It is clear that we must-and, indeed, very quickly-begin to maintain and seek to improve our standards of living entirely by our own efforts.
That is the British government talking.
We cannot continue indefinitely to meet our deficits by external credits.
You can change the word "credits" to "subsidies", if you wish.


Clarence Gillis: No relationship there.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not worth commenting upon.


Humphrey Mitchell: I say it is a pretty close relationship.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister a question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes; anything.


Major James William Coldwell: When is he going to tell us what he is going to do about this matter?

Labour Conditions


Humphrey Mitchell: If I may say this to my hon. friend, I have had fifteen minutes-


Major James William Coldwell: All you had to do was wink at the Speaker and you could have had the floor.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not interrupt my hon. friend.


Major James William Coldwell: I have not spoken at all.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not interrupt any of my hon. friends, then; put it that way. I believe I have as much right to build up a case as they have, and I think I can build up a pretty fair case. This statement goes on:
4. The fulfilment of this policy requires improvements in the efficiency and the productivity of British industry, and these are not the responsibility of the government alone-
That is a direct answer to my hon. friend, who places this problem squarely on the lap of the government.
-but of industrial management and workers alike.
Then paragraph 24:
This means that provided our prices are right the old fear of prolonged bad trade and unemployment should be a thing of the past. Bad trade and unemployment in the interwar years led to cutting of wages and prices and losses to all concerned. The problem today is to increase production to fill in the gap between the quantity of goods on the market and the amount of purchasing power available to buy those goods. We must remove the idea of spinning out production in order to avoid unemployment, or of restricting output in order to safeguard earnings. On the contrary, industry, employers and workers alike, must be ready to adopt every possible means of increasing production . . .


Major James William Coldwell: Is the minister implying that the miners of Nova Scotia are doing all these things?


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, no; you are not
going to put my neck in that noose.


Major James William Coldwell: It is there already.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, no, it is not. I
have been in this game long enough to know that sometimes pie in the sky is the safest thing, but I do not think it is honourable if you do not tell your people the story straight. On the question of absenteeism, management and the union agreed without equivocation that there is undue absenteeism. In 1939 it was three per cent; today it is thirty per cent. That is a problem, and you cannot laugh it off by making the kind of speeches some hon. members made here this afternoon.


Clarence Gillis: Would the minister just let
me say that in 1939 the mines were working only two or three days a week.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am just stating the
problem; I am not placing the blame on either management or labour.


Major James William Coldwell: Let us have the policy.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just wait a minute;
I have just stated the problem.


Major James William Coldwell: You have only another minute; that is what we are worrying about.


Humphrey Mitchell: The only answer of
my hon. friends is a subsidy.


Major James William Coldwell: What is yours?


Humphrey Mitchell: The only difference
between the unions and the operators is a difference of principle. They will get this extra dollar a day. The judge recommends that it be on the basis of production, and the operators say the same thing. The judge thinks that production can be made up in three months. I do not know whether it can or not; I am not as expert as some of the hon. members from the prairies who spoke this afternoon, and who probably never saw a coal mine in their lives. I do not know; I cannot express an opinion on that. As to the other forty cents, I do not believe there is any great disagreement with the suggestion that this should not go on the price. Whether we like it or not, Mr. Speaker, sooner or later that industry should stand on its own feet, as it did in 1939. I think it is inevitable. The subsidies paid down there since 1942 amount to nearly 828,000,000. That is the picture. I can remember the day, as I am sure the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) can remember, when we put on campaigns to sell Nova Scotia coal in Ontario because there were no markets for it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We bought a lot of it,
too.


Humphrey Mitchell: And I tell you it does
not matter whether you are a socialist, a capitalist or a communist, money is the most timid thing in the world. It is not the banker's money, or the insurance man's money; it is your money and mine. The consumer calls the tune. At the present moment I am given to understand that United States coal is in a straight competitive position with Nova Scotia coal as far east as Truro. It does seem to me that it is no use raving about the operators or raving about the union when it comes to production. It is a joint responsibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget the government.
Labour Conditions


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says,
"Don't forget the government." He could not run a peanut wagon, let alone a coal mine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very smart.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just want to say one thing more in reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, because I know he would not want to place a wrong interpretation on my statement the other day when I spoke about a board of conciliation. I felt that a board of conciliation sitting in Nova Scotia would have been a much better and much sounder way of dealing with this dispute than having a board sit here in Ottawa. After all, they are the people involved in the economics of this whole business. I do not think anything better could be done from an educational point of view, which is the very genesis of boards of conciliation, than to go down there and have this dispute ironed out in public, with all its implications and so on.


Major James William Coldwell: If I may ask a question, what about the union's proposal to the government and the country that one day a month should be set aside when the union, the operators and perhaps a representative of the government could get together to discuss how to lift production?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am all for it.


Major James William Coldwell: Can the minister help that along? I think there is something in it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am an old trade unionist, and I believe the further you can keep the government away from your affairs, the better off you will be.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, somebody must take the initiative.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I know the united mine workers they do not need any leadership in these matters. As a matter of fact I am sure they would permit me to say that this suggestion was made by the united mine workers themselves during a private conversation or conference. I think I know enough about their ability to negotiate agreements to say that, when this matter is settled, that will be in the agreement.
In conclusion, I wish to say that, as far as my department is concerned, based on the law as it is at the moment, all our facilities are at the disposal of both sides to this dispute. One of my hon. friends across the way smiles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; it adds up to nothing.
	,


Humphrey Mitchell: And my hon. friend looks like nothing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is very smart, too.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. I do not think the minister should be allowed to do this sort of thing in the house, even though he is a minister.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: Who started it?


Major James William Coldwell: Personal remarks should not be made in this house about the appearance of an individual. In spite of what the minister has said, my hon. friend has a good appearance, one which will compare very favourably with that of the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was raised in the labour movement, and I am not going to stand here and be trampled upon by any hon. member.


James Horace King: I am sorpr to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but it is six o'clock.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The business for
tomorrow-


Major James William Coldwell: The motion has not been withdrawn.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes it has; it expires
with the adjournment of the house.


Clarence Gillis: I do not want the record to show that we have withdrawn the motion.


James Horace King: I would direct the attention of the hon. gentleman to citation 250 on page 74 of Beauchesne's, second edition. A debate on an urgent matter referred to in this rule cannot be adjourned because the motion actually before the house is "that the house do now adjourn". Once the house rises, the motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 20, 1947