1903-07-22

Mr. COLIN F. McISAAC (Antigonish) moved :: That the petition of R. T. Heneker and others, presented this day, praying that leave may be granted to the Keller Heater Co., of Canada, Limited, their petition for a private Bill, notwithstanding the expiration of the time for receiving such petitions to be read and received forthwith and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Explain.


Colin Francis McIsaac: The Keller Heater Co. of Canada became incorporated by letters patent issued under the Ontario Companies Act. They purchased the rights of certain parties in a patent granted by the Dominion of Canada, issued on the loth of July, 1S97, on a certain invention for improvement of feed water heaters, condensers and hot air blast devices. The right to extend the patent, on payment of a fee of $20, expired on the 15th instant, and by inadvertence, the date was allowed to elapse without the fee being paid. The company was incorporated solely for the purpose of manufacturing and introducing this invention in Canada, and has expended large sums of money in preparing to carry on this business. They will suffer great lull'd ship if they are not allowed to make good the inadvertence which allowed the time for extension of the patent to expire without payment of the fee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and petition received.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROCHE (Halifax)-by Mr. Johnston (Cape Breton)-asked:
1.	Did the present government find in 1896, on assuming office, in any of the public departments, a contract signed by the government, or any minister on its behalf, and the Messrs. Allan, for a twenty or twenty-one knot steamship service between Canada and Great Britain, for a subsidy of $750,000 by Canada, and $375,000 by the Imperial government, annually, or for any other sum ?
2.	Did the present government find any bona fide, definite offer to provide the above-named [DOT]
Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: service for the sums stated above, without any modification or reservation ?
3. What were the reservations, if any, stated in the tender ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The government did not find in 1896, on assuming office, in any of the public departments that a contract had been signed by the government or by any minister on its behalf, and the Messrs. Allan for a 20 or 21-knot service between Canada and Great Britain; nor had any Order in Council been approved authorizing such a contract. A tender for a mail service had been made by the Messrs. Allan, but they placed a construction upon the terms and conditions of the tender inconsistent with the public advertisement, as follows .-
1.	That steamers are to be provided ca-. pable of performing voyages at an average speed of 20 knots per hour, and that the voyages of each vessel are to be completed within the shortest possible time consistent with prudent navigation; but that penalties will not be exacted for reduction of speed1 during fog, snowstorms or heavy gales, when slowed to avoid danger in the vicinity of ice or land.
2.	That temporary delay or disturbance to sailings due to such causes, or to serious marine disaster, strikes of workmen, or other causes which contractors could not avert or control, shall not involve the contractor in penalties, nor be regarded as breaches of contract.


CENSUS, 1891 AND 1901.
Mr. CALVERT asked :: 
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) :: Real estate, orchard products. nurseries, vineyards
and market gardens	....	1	23Farm products	
1	30
Live stock, animal products, home-made fabrics, furs
and farm labour	 1	27
Industrial establishments.. ..1	23
* Forest products	 1	22

Kind of Schedules. No. of No. of Schedules. Questions.
1891.-Con.
Shipping and mining	
1	23Fisheries	
1	30Totals	
9	216.	1901.
Population-
General -schedule	 1	34
Temporarily absent schedule
(A)	 1	3
Personal schedule (B).. ..1	34
Buildings and lands, churches
and schools	
1	35Deaths	
1	15
Agriculture-
Farm land, fruits and plantations	
1	37Field products	
1	37
Kind of Schedules. No. of No. of Schedules. Questions. 1901.-Con.
Agriculture-Con.
Live stock and animal products	1	26Vadues	
Manufactures-	1	25General schedule	
Butter and cheese schedule	1	67(C)	1	30Clay products schedules (D)	1	29Forest products and furs ....	i	51Fisheries	i	130Mines	i	104
Totals		15	657
3.	Number of answers of persons enumerated on each schedule required in the aggregate for each schedule of each census respectively.
Kind of Schedules.
1891.
Population	
Deaths and public institutions	
Agriculture-
Real estate, orchard products, nurseries, vineyards
and market gardens	
Farm products	
Live stock, animal products, home-made fabrics,
furs and farm labour	
Industrial establishments	
Forest products	
Shipping and mining	
Fisheries	
Totals.
1901.
Population-
General schedule	
Temporarily absent schedule (A)	
Personal schedule (B)	
Buildings and lands, churches and schools.
Deaths	
Agriculture-
Farm land, fruits and plantations..
Field products	
Live stock and animal products	
Values	
Manufactures-
General schedule	
Butter and cheese schedule (C)	
Clay products schedule (D)	 ,
Forest products and furs	
Fisheries	
Mines	
Totals.
Number of answers required in			Total answers required.
Cardwell.	Hal ton.	Peel.	381,550	549,550	386,650	1,320.7502,132	3,666	2,691	8,48066,148	96,968	70,840	2.33,95672,390	83,670	59,220	215,28068,715	86,481	62,073	217,2695,865	13,823	6,164	25,85237,598	. 31,042	20,900	89,540637,398	865,200	608,538	2,111,136444,040	664,530	465,358	1,573,928243	300	252	7952,210	2,550	2,040	6,800100,310	155,435	106,500	362,2452,100	4,455	2,220	8,77588,800	111,814	71,484	272,09874,592	78,033	64,676	217,30159,540	69,992	53,040	182,57266,525	93,225	64,300	224,0501,876	1,608	4,288	7,772.160	96	128	38493	31	62	18676,500	63,440	32,691	172,6311,430	850	2,080728	1,560	624	2,912917,717	1,248,499	868,313	3,034,529


INDEPENDENCE OF PARLIAMENT-
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: said Loy and the said Archambault will have no right to claim any compensation whatever.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: What date is this ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is in the terms of sale of the 4th of January, 189S.
It is understood moreover that in case there is an execution of the said contract or sale it will be inserted therein, that the said Amddee Archambault in case he should die, will allow a loan of $4,000 to be made in order to pay the mortgage, reference to which has already been made, and the balance will be paid to the said Loy towards acquitting the price of sale. The said Loy will consent to the lender of the said sum, that there will be a hypothec on the said piece of land. The said Loy obliges himself to pass a deed of sale according to the conditions hereinbefore set forth to all persons that the said Amedde Archambault will indicate to him as being in his lieu and place. If the purchaser sells a part of the property he will pay to the vendor in case there is still something due on the price of sale, in the following proportions : For lot 78 the part occupied by the stone building, one dollar a foot on a depth of 100 feet, and on the other part of the said lot seventy-five cents a foot on a depth of 100 feet; and in case the depth would be more than 100 feet the sum of fifty cents a foot on the additional depth; the whole to the acquittal of the price of sale according to the conditions of the present deed.
Now, Sir, I have mentioned that this transaction between the member for Beauliarnois who was not at that time sitting as a member for this House, and Mr. Archambault, was not registered. No effect was given to that promise of sale, and fifteen days after the first of June, the date of expiry of the delay, another deed intervened between Archambault and Mr. Loy completely re-siliating the previous contract between the parties, and the property passed into the hands of the present sitting member for Beauliarnois, who on the same day made a loau and granted a mortgage for the amount of that loan upon the said property. It is proper that I should mention that during the delay between the 4th of January, 1898, and the 1st of June following, a man named Leduc, a contractor, acting under the instructions of Archambault, I presume, moved the building which was on the front part of the property towards the back part, and the amount of about $800 became due to the contractor in consequence of this work. He sued Mr. Loy at that time for the amount due him for the work he had performed upon this property, and the defence was that the property did not belong to the defendant Mr. Loy, but that the owner of that property was Mr. Archambault. The contractor had failed to comply with the provisions of our Civil Code under the terms of which he might have secured a privilege upon the property; he had failed to give notice to the defendant as by law he was obliged to do. and failed to fulfil other formalities, and his action was dismissed upon a demurrer. My Information is that since that judgment the amount due to Mr. Leduc, the contractor, Mr. MONK.
has been paid by the sitting member for the electoral district of Beauliarnois or by other persons on his behalf. The claim has been satisfied, from which I think there is a reasonable inference, that although upon a question of law the action brought by the contractor was dismissed, nevertheless there is in that an acquittal of the debt by the sitting member or by other persons on his 'behalf proof that he recognized that even from the 1st of January, 1898, to the 1st of June following (from the time that the deed was resiliated) he was in reality proprietor of that property and bound for the improvements made to it. Now, Sir, in the month of October or November, 1902, as I am informed, an Order in Council was passed authorizing the purchase by the Dominion government of this property. These two sites belonging to the Dominion government where a post office might have been more conveniently erected than upon this site, were set aside. 1 may mention that my instructions are, and I believe that We will be able to establish it, that of those two government sites one was unnecessarily since 1S98, leased to a private individual for a term of 99 years. I refer to the site situated on the north side of the canal in the immediate vicinity of the cotton factories of the town of Yalleyfield. I have said that an Order in Council authorizing the purchase of this property was passed in the month of October or the month of November, 1902. A discussion upon this subject took place in the month of March in this House in Committee of Supply and the Minister of Public Works is my authority for that statement. He is reported at page 473 of ' Hansard ' :
An Order in Council passed on the 22nd November, 1902, authorizing the purchase from R. B. Johnston for the sum of $10,000. The land is 77| feet by 160 feet deep.
I believe the date is correct. I think there is no doubt that the authorization for the purchase of this site was adopted in council in the fall of 1902, and I believe the date given by the Minister of Public Works is the correct date. But at that period, in the month of November, 1902, my hon. friend from Beauliarnois was the owner of this property, because we find that it was only on the 1st of December, 1902, that by a deed passed before R. A. Dunton, notary public, he sold to R. B. Johnston- whoever he may be, I have not been able to discover-this very property for the sum $9,700. That deed was duly registered on the 12tli of December, 1902. The purchaser, R. B. Johnston, on the 20th of January, 1903. sold this property to the Dominion government by a deed passed before the same notary, R. A. Dunton, of Montreal, for the sum of $10,000, or $300 more than the price mentioned in the deed of the 1st of December, 1902, between the hon. member for Beauharnnis and R. B. Johnston, and the deed was duly registered on the 4th of February, 1903.

Now, Sir, I have every ground for stating that this Mr. Johnston acted as the prete-norn of the hon. member for Beauharnois. In reality, as I think the evidence will establish, it is the sitting member for Beauharnois who. from the 1st of January, 1898, without any intermission whatever, has been the owner of this property ; and resort was had to Mr. Johnston in order that the property should not pass directly from him to the government and in order to avoid those very stringent provisions of chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. I therefore submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a question into which it is the duty of this House to inquire.
As I stated in opening my remarks, there is no more precious privilege among the many privileges which this House enjoys than the privilege of the absolute independence of its members. The history of the House of Commons of England discloses that whenever there have been parliaments the members of which were dependent upon the Crown for offices of emolument-and there was, as members of this House are aware, a dark period in the history of that institution when almost three-quarters of its members did hold positions under the Crown-or whenever members of the House of Commons have had transactions of this nature with the government, that House has failed to fulfil the high function assigned to it. 1 believe therefore that we cannot guard too carefully against even the slightest suspicion of want of independence on the part of members of this House.
I hare placed a resumS of these facts in a motion which I now have the honour of placing in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that the question which I have brought to the attention of the House be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I may state that I have followed in this the procedure adopted in 1891, when under circumstances of a similar nature the matter brought to the attention of the House was, after discussion, referred to that committee. Allow me to state this additional fact, that the property in question, as I am informed, was not all sold to the government, but that a lot with the buildings erected thereon, was reserved, and also a lot at the back part of the property. I move :
Frederick Monk, the member representing the -electoral district of Jacques Cartier in this House, having declared from his seat in the . House that he is credibly informed and that he believes he is able to establish by satisfactory evidence :
That on the first day of July, 1897, George Loy, member representing the electoral division of Beauharnois, was the proprietor of a property in the town of Valleyfield, known as lots 78 and 100 of the official plan and book of reference of the town of Salaherry of Valley-field.
That on the 4th January, 1898. the said George Loy handed said property above described by rand virtue of a promise of sale to one AmSdee
Archambault, advocate, of Valleyfield aforesaid, for a sum of $8,000.
That it was agreed by said George Loy that the sale would he completed by a title in due form on the first of June then following.
That by the terms of agreement between said George Loy and said Amedee Archambault it was agreed that if at any time during the existence of the promise of sale in question, said Archambault disposed of said land in favour of any other party, he, the said George Loy would be obliged to give a title or conveyance in favour of such other or third party.
That the said promise of sale of 4th January, 1898, was never registered or completed, but was rescinded on the 15th June then following.
That on the first day of December, 1902, by deed before R. A. Dunton, notary, said George Loy, member of the House of Commons of Canada, representing the electoral division of Beauharnois, purported to sell said property (lots 78 and 100 of Valleyfield) to one Robert Brice Johnston for the sum of $9,700.
That on the 20th January last, 1903, said Robert Brice Johnston, by deed purported to sell said property to the government of Canada for the sum of $10,000.
That from the time the said George Loy handed his said property to Archambault up to the day of the sale of said property to the Crown or government of Canada, he never ceased to be the proprietor of said property, and that at the time of the sale of said property on the 20t'h January, 1903, said Robert Brice Johnston was merely acting for and on behalf of said Loy, who in said manner did indirectly sell his said property to the Crown or government of Canada in violation cf chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes of Canada ' An Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons.'
That the said property so sold to the government of Canada was sold at a price exceeding its real value, the assessed value of said property being $5,800.
That at the time of said sale the government of Canada possessed at Valleyfield various properties available for the same purpose for which it acquired the property in question, to wit : the erection of a post-office.
That it be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to inquire fully into the said allegations and especially, but without limiting the scope of said inquiry, to investigate all circumstances connected with the acquisition of said property by the government of Canada and all matters mentioned in the statement hereinbefore made with power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses upon oath or affirmation; and that the committee do report in full the evidence taken before them and all their proceedings on the reference and the result of their inquiries.


Mr. G. M. LOY (Beauharnois).: Sir. Speaker, in answer to what has been said by the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) I beg to make the following statement of
facts
The property in the town of Valleyfield chosen as a site for the post office, and to which reference has been made, did at one time belong to me. About the end of July or beginning of August, 1902, a man named R. B. Johnston of Montreal, came to me at Valleyfield and asked if my property was for sale. I told him it was, and thereupon 1 he asked me if I would give him an option

for a few days. This I consented to do. Immediately afterwards, I went to Montreal to consult my business advisers, Messrs. McIntosh & Hyde, accountants. I asked Mr. Hyde if he knew Mr. Johnston, and whether he was a responsible party, and if I was safe in giving him an option. Mr. Hyde inquired of Mr. Dunton, the notary, who reassured him as to Mr. Johnston's position; and about the same time Mr. Dunton and Mr. Johnston called at Mr. Hyde's office, in the latters absence, and made a payment on account of the purchase price. Time was taken to inquire into titles, and I understand that a search was made as far back as 1840. In any event, the purchase by Mr. Johnston was completed about the end of November or beginning of December, 1902, when the balance of the purchase price was paid me by Mr. Johnston. The price paid for my property was about its market value, at the time. The property had been held in my family for over forty years. When Mr. Johnston secured an option on it, I did not know that he intended to resell it to the government; and in so far as I am concerned, I received from him merely its market value and no more. The money I received was paid by Mr. Johnston to myself.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: When this matter was brought to my attention a short time ago, not being familiar myself with what had taken place, I asked my deputy to give me a memorandum from the particulars in the department, and he furnished me with the following :-
I have examined all the papers in the department having reference to the acquisition of the site for the construction of a public building at Valleyfield.
The Order in Council giving authority to purchase a lot of land 77J feet on Victoria street and 163 feet on Ste. Cdcile street from Mr. Robert Bruce Johnston, was passed on the 22nd November, 1902, the consideration money being $10,000.
The deed of sale was made before R. A. Dunton, notary, on the 20th January, 1903, and was registered on the 4th of February of the same year. The negotiations for the purchase were primarily carried on by Mr. U. H. Dandurand, real estate agent of Montreal, who was entrusted with the duty of procuring the property by the former minister, Hon. Mr. Tarte.
The property was examined by Mr. Routhier. an officer of the chief architect's branch of the department, who reported that the lot owned by Mr. R. B. Johnston would be a most suitable site, the drainage and water being available on both front and rear, the lot being nearly level. The officer further reported the price ($10,000) to be reasonable considering the location and the scarcity of sites available in the centre of the town. This officer at the same time reported a lot in close proximity only 53 feet by 150 feet put up at a price of not less than $13,000, this lot being No. 68, corner of Nicholas and Victoria streets. [DOT]
The chief architect having approved of the report of his subordinate, the ordinary report to Council was made for the acquisition of the property. The title was looked into by the Mr. LOY.
Department cf Justice and the deed was obtained as above stated on the 20th January, 1903.
I was verbally informed by Mr. Dandurand that he was the person who procured an option on the property from Mr. Johnston. There is no information in the department as to the manner in which Mr. Dandurand procured that option.
(Signed) A. GOBEIL, Deputy Minister.
After having heard the statement made by the hon. member, and in view of the facts as they appear in the records of the department, and in view also of the statement made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) I think that it is beyond all doubt that the property bona fide belonged to Mr. Johnston months before its purchase or the Order in Council was passed. Everything goes to show that such was the case. There was delay, as reported from the Department of Justice, in completing the papers with regard to the title, even after the property had been offered for sale and the department had agreed to purchase it. I am satisfied, from everything I can find out from the documents and facts, that there was no collusion between the department and the other party to the transaction, that Mr. Johnston was the bona fide owner, that there was no knowledge whatever by the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) of the intended purchase by the government, and no arrangements between the hon. member for Beauharnois and the department. So far as I am concerned, I have no doubt that the facts have been fully placed before the House by the hon. gentleman.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The negotiations which led to the purchase of the property under discussion were initiated by me. During the session of 1901, parliament authorized the placing of the sum of $10,000 in the estimates for the erection of a public building in the thriving town of Valleyfield. During the summer of 1902, although I know Valleyfield very well. I took the trouble of visiting that town. Several representations had been previously made to me regarding sites. I thought it my duty to go to the spot myself once more. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has just mentioned that, according to the information he has received, there were three available sites-the one acquired and two others. He added; that since 1898 one of these, which was formerly the property of the government, had been leased :	Let
me tell my hon. friend that that property belonged to the Department of Railways and Canals, and when I went to the town of Valleyfield I was confronted by the fact that the only site which perhaps might have been considered had been leased for ninety-nine years. It therefore was out of the question, but in any case I would not have recommended that site which is located just opposite the bridge. If my hon. friend, when he next has the pleasure to go to

Valleyfield, will look at that site, he will find that it .is a narrow strip of property and could not possibly have been chosen for such a building' as the one we intended then to erect. It was too narrow. The other site, to which my hon. friend has alluded, is on the other side of the canal. It is not located in the centre of the town, as everybody who knows Valleyfield will admit. It therefore was also out of the question. I say without hesitation that the only available site for a public building was that which then was the property of my hon. friend (Mr. Loy). I felt the great difficulty in which I was placed. I knew very well that Mr. Loy could not sell to the government, as that would be a breach of privilege, not only on his part but on mine. If the sitting member for the riding of Beauharnois has been guilty of any improper action, I am more guilty than he. And if he is to be punished, I must suffer the same punishment, because I am the only guilty man, if there be any. Let me explain how the whole transaction was conducted. In my opinion that was the only site available. On that point I challenge investigation by any impartial man. Without saying a word to the sitting member, I instructed Mr. Dandurand, a real estate agent to acquire Mr. Loy's property. Mr. Dandurand has been for years the trusted purchasing agent of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
He has purchased for them hundreds of thousands of dollars worth, if not millions of dollars worth, of property. He is one of the best known real estate agents of the city of Montreal. I told him the facts and circumstances. He then arranged with Mr. Johnston, who, as I understand, is another real estate agent, to go to the town of Valleyfield, and, without making known the object of the purchase to the sitting member, to take an option on the property at the best possible price. Mr. Johnston represented to the sitting member, I believe, that some Montreal merchants intended to establish a large store in Valleyfield and that in view of this that he wished to purchase the property. I think. Sir, that I have not been guilty of any impropriety in purchasing the site under these circumstances. If I had to do it again, I would certainly do it as I did it in this case. The property was the only one available, the only one on which the building could be erected. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has alluded to the purchase of the property by the Hochelaga Bank. He has gone, on occasion to the town of Valleyfield, not to examine propei-ty perhaps, but on some other errands. He has not failed, if he has looked about him to locate the site on which the Hochelaga Bank has erected a branch. It _is far from the site on which the public building is to be erected. The two sites are not to be compared. I do not know the price that was paid by the Hochelaga 223
Bank ; ali I know is that Mr. Dandurand is one of the ablest real estate agents, 1 instructed him to pay the market value of the property of the sitting member for Beauharnois, I gave him positive orders not to let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Loy) know the object of the purchase, and I know that Mr. Dandurand carried out my instructions to the very letter. If there is an inquiry, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier will find out that what I am stating represents exactly the real facts of the case. The hon. gentleman from Beauharnois is put to annoyance for a thing of which he has not been guilty. I place myself and my position in the hands of parliament. The expedient, if I may so call it, to which I resorted was the only one left. The whole matter was conducted in a thoroughly businesslike manner. The deeds have been examined by the Department of Justice. I initiated the negotiations and am responsible for the first part of the bargain. But I take full responsibility for the last part of it. My successor has confirmed my action, and I say without any hesitation that he has acted rightly, that he has done the right thing by the town of Valleyfield and by parliament. My hon. friends who do not know the town of Valleyfield may perhaps think the price a little high. Let me remind the House that, during the last five or six years the population of the town of Valleyfield has about doubled, and, with the increase of population there has been an increase in the value of property in even a greater ratio. It would be impossible to buy any site similar to the one my former department purchased for the same price. The figures that have been given by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, have been given to me. I have inquired personally and carefully into the circumstances of the case, and. so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to repeat under oath what I am saying now. And I know that Mr. Dandurand, the trusted real estate agent, whom I charged with the negotiations, will confirm every word I have stated on this occasion. The hon. member for Beauharnois has done nothing wrong. We carefully concealed our steps from him. As I say, Mr. Johnston went to the town of Valleyfield under the pretense of buying a site for a large store. It is under these circumstances that the government has become the owner of the property referred to in the motion of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier.


The PRIME MINISTER. (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I must say to the House at once that I never heard of this matter until a few. minutes before the opening of this sitting, and, up to this moment, I do not know the particulars. Of course, when an hon. member of this House takes upon himself to make an accusation which involves not only the seat, but the honour of a fellow-member, and when he does that, deliberately, as has been done by the hon.



member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. .Monk), the rule of the House is that, under such circumstances the inquiry is generally granted. I followed the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) as carefully us 1 could, and I think I represent exactly the effect of what he said when I say that he based his case mainly upon the fact, as he stated, that the sale which took place last fall from the hon. member for Beaubaruois (Mr. Loy) to Mr. Johnston was not a bona fide but a colourable sale, that the hon. member for Beauharnois knew that Mr. Johnston was not the real purchaser, but that the government of Canada was the real purchaser. Of course if such were the ease, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier would have reason to bring the matter to the attention of the House. If the sale was a colourable one, as is alleged by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, instead of being a real one, the case would be a very strong one. But my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has heard the statement of my hon. friend from Beauharnois. I believe there is no man in this House who would not accept at once the statement of the hon. member for Beauharnois that when he made the sale to Mr. Johnston, he had no intention of making a colourable sale ; he had no reason to suppose that Mr. Johnston was not buying for himself ; he had no reason to suppose that Mr. Johnston who is a business agent, was not buying in the ordinary course of his business. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has also heard my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) who informs him that the statement made by the hon. member for Beauharnois is true to the letter in every particular, that the hon. member for Beauharnois had no notion that Mr. Johnston had been sent there at the instance of Mr. Dandurand who was acting at the request of the Minister of Public Works. Under such circumstances I think the hon. member for Jacques Cartier will perhaps hesitate to persist in the statement which he made a moment ago, that the sale from the member for Beauharnois to Mr. Johnston was a colourable one, that it was, to use his own words, a sale under what we call in French a pr?te-nom. Under these circumstances, I hope my hon. friend will see the advisability of not pressing his motion any further.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In answer to the right hon. leader of the House. I am bound to say that the information I have received is of a very reliable character, and I weighed it very carefully before I decided to bring this matter to the notice of the House. I do not question the good faith of my hon. friend from Beauharnois. but it may be that, not being a lawyer, nor accustomed to weigh judicial circumstances, he was led to believe that the transaction, so far as he is concerned, was absolutely in conformity with the law, and that he did not evade the


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: provisions of .the law relating to the independence of parliament. In the motion which I have placed in your hands. I have summed up the facts, and alleged that this was a colourable sale. It may be a colourable sale, and still my hon. friend from Beauharnois may be in perfect good faith when he, appreciating the circumstances from his own point of view, thinks it is not a colourable sale. Members of this House who are members of the bar know that matters of this kind are appreciated differently according to the standpoint from which one looks at them. But I believe the circumstances of the sale, if they were fully disclosed to a committee, would lead the committee, not to the belief, but to the conviction, that the provisions of the law relating to the independence of parliament-had been violated, and that it is in reality what the hon. gentleman calls a colourable sale. I think I may make that assertion without in any way reflecting on the credibility of my hon. friend from Beauharnois. I therefore find no reason for not proceeding with this resolution, which I beg you to believe I did not bring before the consideration of the House without weighing every circumstance connected with the transaction. I am convinced that when these circumstances are fully disclosed before a committee, the committee will arrive at the conclusion that the privilege cf parliament has been violated. Under these circumstances, I cannot recede from the position I have taken, and I must persist in my motion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: As the hon. gentleman takes the responsibility of the grave charge which he has made, of course the committee will have to go; but he takes his own risk in the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. H. LENNOX (South Simcoe).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the fact that on Monday last the leader of the opposition referred to the promise of the Minister of the Interior to place on the Table of the House certain papers in connection with the sale of land to the Saskatchewan Land Company. The Minister of the Interior said then, that the papers would be down immediately, but we have not got them yet. I trust the minister will be able to assure the House that they will be down immediately, as it is- very important for us to have them at this time.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I inquired about them this morning, and find they are in course of preparation. If I cannot lay them on the Table of the House this evening, I will do so to-morrow.


REPORT OF SALMON COMMISSIONER, B.C.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) moved that an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the Salmon Commissioner for British Columbia.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish again to direct the attention of the government to the very great delay which is taking place, in announcing to the House that no such policy as that which has been discussed in the Address will be brought down, or in bringing it down forthwith without any further delay. It .is well known to all who have followed the course of public affairs in this country that the question of a transcontinental line was engaging the attention of the government during the past session, and in the interval of the recess, after that session had come to a close, the subject was discussed by different members of the government throughout the country, and particularly by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. If I remember correctly, it was announced by one of the members of the government during' the past autumn that negotiations were even then going on between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, as it is called now, and that the company was possessed at the time of the views which the government entertained with regard to any arrangement that might be made. The question of transportation was brought prominently before the House in the speech from the Throne, and as I have pointed out before, the government then announced, as part of its policy, the constitution of a transportation commission, which should make a report, to be laid before this House, with regard to certain matters which are intimately connected with the project of a transcontinental line. Now we are at a period which should be very closely approaching the end of this session, if the length of the session is to be brought within any measurable limits. We have had announced through the press of this country, and through correspondence between members of the government which has been submitted to parliament, a project which is probably of more importance to the future welfare of this country than anj'- matter which has engaged the attention of parliament during the past twenty years, but we are not able to get any pronouncement from the government on the subject. My right hon. friend stated to us on Fi'iday last that the proposal would be brought down during the present week, 223J
and probably, as he stated, very early in the week. We are now in the third day of the week, and no notice of any resolution has made its appearance in the usual place, in the Votes and Proceedings, and ike days are slipping away. We are in as much ignorance as ever we were as to the actual intentions of the government, except in so far as we know them from the utterances of the press and from the correspondence, which has been brought down, between the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals' and the Prime Minister.
Now, it does not seem to me that this is a satisfactory condition of affairs. I will not refer to the rumours which are prevalent, not only around the corridors of this House, but throughout the press of the country, of differences of opinion between the members of the government who still remain in the cabinet in regard to this question, but I say in passing that these differences of opinion, if they do exist, are not sufficient to justify the government in keeping members of parliament here week after week and month after month waiting until the government can come to some conclusion upon this all-important matter. I would like, in that connection, to point out to the government, and particularly to my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads the House, some very significant language which has been addressed to him by his late colleague, the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair). That language seems to indicate that the government has decided upon a policy and that that policy is of so definite a character that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has found it necessary to withdraw from the government, because that policy, being of a definite nature and being opposed to his views and judgment, he could not see any other course to take at the present time. I will point out to the right hon. gentleman who leads the House this language, referring to the letter of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals of the 10th .Tuly, 1903 :
It further appears to me that if I had declared my intention of withdrawing from the cabinet while there wias still a prospect of this policy not being adopted, you would have considered I was endeavouring to accomplish by threat what I had failed to effect by argument.
The direct statement is that there had been a definite policy decided upon by the government in consequence of which the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals found it necessary to withdraw from the government. He states the same thing in the most explicit language further on. He says :
The action which has been taken since Saturday last, In submitting to a caucus of supporters of the government in parliament the transcontinental railway propositions, identically in the form in which they were adopted by coun-

ell, assures me that the government was fully resolved to take the responsibility of asking parliament to approve them.
That is not a vague rumour. That is not the utterance of any individual member of parliament. It is the utterance of the late colleague of my right hon. friend, and it is an utterance which shows that this policy was not only decided upon in council, but it was submitted to a caucus of the supporters of the government. That letter bears date 10th July, 1903, nearly a fortnight ago ; therefore, the policy itself must have been submitted to the caucus more than a fortnight ago, and yet, the House and the country are kept in ignorance of the actual details of this policy which it is proposed to bring down to parliament, as it is said, during the present session. Then, the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals says further :
In case you may think the action which has been taken is not irrevocable, and to avoid any possible misunderstanding on the question, I feel I ought to repeat to you the conditions upon which I would be disposed, if you so desired, to further consider my action in this matter.
Then he sets forth the conditions, which I need not read to the House, in order to indicate that there was a definite policy proposed by the government, adopted in council and submitted to the caucus.
Now, if we turn to the letter written In reply to that by the right hon. leader of the government, we find no denial whatever of the fact that a policy has been formulated by the government, adopted by council and submitted to the government supporters. On the contrary, we find language in the letter of the right hon. gentleman which indicates that the view expressed by the , ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was exactly accurate in that regard. He says in his letter, dated the 14th of July, more than a week ago :
With regard to the charge that negotiations with Mr. Hays made progress and were well advanced, before I considered it proper or necessary to acquaint you with the facts, I have only to remind you that I thought advisable at first, to retain in my hands the negotiations of this important subject, keeping the Council constantly informed, until I referred the matter to a sub-committee, of which you were one. Moreover, far from admitting the charge, 1 claim that since you entered the government, at its formation, I have always extended to you the frank, loyal and cordial support which X consider is due by the Prime Minister to his colleagues.	[DOT]
As to the reasons which you put forward for your dissent from our policy, this is not the time or place to review them.
I may observe, however, on the two main points of your objections :-
Then the right hon. gentleman proceeds to details which indicate that this policy down to the minutest details had been formulated by the cabinet, that it had been


Robert Laird Borden: 
An hon. MEMBER.: What was the date ?


Robert Laird Borden: The publication is on the 13th of July, but the date of the telegram is the 12tli of July. I call attention to this date, because it so closely corresponds with the date named by the exMinister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair), on which he said that this project had been adopted toy the cabinet and had been submitted to a caucus of government supporters. On the 10th day of July the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) declares that this is the case, and under date of a telegram on the 12th day of July the announcement is made toy this prominent organ of the government. The telegram is dated the 12th of July. It does not imply that the cabinet met on Sunday, tout on Saturday, and on the 13th of July, 1903, the Toronto ' Globe ' announces :
There was a meeting of the cabinet yesterday, when the Grand Trunk Pacific project was finally passed upon, and' it is expected that an announcement of the government's policy will be made in the House early this week. While there have been some minor changes in the agreement between the government and the company since the details of the undertaking were given in this correspondence, they are not of material character. Whatever alterations have been made are in favour of the government. As there has been some criticism of the best mode of dealing with the eastern section. that is from Moncton to Quebec, it may be said that there is no change in this regard, and that the decision remains to have a government-constructed road from Moncton to Winnipeg. As the name of Sir Rivers-Wilson and others connected with the Grand Trunk Company have been added to the directorate, it may be inferred that the company is taking a still greater interest in the scheme. After disposing of the Grand Trunk Pacific business, the cabinet

took up the supplementary estimates for the current fiscal year, and made good progress with them.
Under these circumstances, some explanation is certainly due ; some better explanation than which we have had to the present-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Some better explanation is due as to the reason why the government should delay in bringing down this proposal to parliament, if it purposes to bring it down. We should know why the anticipation of my right hon. friend on Friday last, when he said he expected the proposal would be laid before parliament early this week, has not been fulfilled. Here we have the details settled, approved by the cabinet, submitted to a causus of government supporters nearly three weeks ago. Here we have the announcement made in the organs of the government, first on the 3rd of July as to the details, afterwards on the 12th of July that the matter had been finally concluded ; and yet we are here on the 22nd of July without the government proposals before us, without any opportunity to consider them or to deliberate upon them, and that after we have been in this session of parliament since the 12th day of March last, or four months and ten days. The question of transportation has been before the government for more than a year with regard to this matter, and yet we are supposed to deal with this subject in the closing days of the session, because if rumour is to be trusted, the differences which have led to the resignation of one member of the cabinet are not the only differences which exist ill the cabinet on this subject, and up to the present time they are unable to make up their minds to bring down any proposal to parliament on account of these differences, which are keeping us here during the entire summer. I trust that my right hon. friend will be able to give some assurance to the House to-day more satisfactory and more definite than any he has yet afforded, and that we may not be kept here day after day and week after week, marking time as it were, and waiting for the announcement of a policy which should have been made in the early weeks of the session. Mr. Speaker, X conclude these remarks by moving the adjournment of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, I doubt not that it would be more agreeable to my hon. friend, as it would be to myself, if he and I could slip away to the seaside rather than to remain in this sweltering atmosphere. But I have been prepared for a long session ever since we assembled here four months ago or thereabouts, for we heard it from gentlemen on the other side, -that before prorogation day would come the snow


Robert Laird Borden: would cover the hill tops, and consequently we are still in the early days of this session.


Some hon. MEMBERS: .. Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I knew it all along, but I did not expect to have it admitted by the leader of the opposition, that we had been marking time. Whether we have been discussing estimates from day to day, or talking about small matters, or asking little questions about petty details, ail this was simply to mark time, because we were to have a Redistribution Bill, and that has been the reason why we have been marking time for four months or thereabouts.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I did not say we had been marking time ever since the commencement of the session. I said we were marking time at present, and I refer to the incident of yesterday as one of the examples of it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend had better confine his remarks to his own side of the House. If the hon. gentleman says that yesterday we were marking time, I have only to refer him to the remarks which he himself made in discussing, with some interest and some profit to the House I must say, the question that was brought up by a member on this side of the House. If the hon. member believed that that question was brought up in order to kill time, I do not suppose that he would have favoured the House with the remarks which he did on that occasion. If he has followed, as I have sometimes done, the discussions which have taken place on the estimates, he will agree with me that we were marking time on those occasions. But the statement was made at the opening of this session that the snow would fly before the sesision was over, or before the Redistribution Bill would be accepted by that side of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Who made that statement '!


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman's friends.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name, name.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think it would be invidious to mention any names, but, if anybody says that I am not correct, I am willing to be corrected.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to state, that, so far as I am concerned, the right hon. gentleman is absolutely incorrect, because I have stated over and over again, when the inquiry has been made of me as to the probable length of the session, to hon. gentlemen on that side of the House as well as to hon. gentlemen on this side, that I saw no reason why we should not conclude our labours by the 1st of August at the latest.


Tlie PRIME MINISTER.: Before we can conclude our labours, my hon. friend will agree with me that we have to pass the Redistribution Bill. If the Redistribution Bill were put over to another session, the session would be very short-I think I have heard that stated on the other side of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Though we have had it before us three or four months, we have not yet passed the Redistribution Bill. For that I do not blame the members of the committee who have been struggling with it; I suppose they have not been marking time; but have done good work. But my hon. friend will agree with me that we have to stay here until we dispose of the Redistribution Bill, and therefore my hon. friend is quite in error and without justification in saying that the government have been remiss in regard to bringing business before the House because we have not brought down a certain important measure. We have been supplying business to the House from day to day. If I look at the Order paper of to-day, I see that there are several measures of great importance still to be discussed and disposed of before we could take up the railway policy of the government, even if it were introduced to-morrow. First of all, we have the Railway Commission Bill, a most important matter, which lias been partly disposed of, but to which some further labour is to be devoted ; we have the resolutions concerning the judges, important resolutions relating to a bounty on lead, also important resolutions relating to bounties on steel ; we have still to vote the railway estimates ; and we have some other matters to dispose of. Under these circumstances, we have plenty of labour supplied to us by the government in the form of legislation, and I think it is not fair for the hon. gentleman to say that we have not been attending to the duties required of us, and certainly not fair to say that we have been marking time. We have been disposing of the business of the House as spee'dily as it has been possible to do so. I have been in the House for more than twenty-five years, and I remember that one of the leading parliamentarians of that day, Mr. Holton, used to say that a four months' session was not long enough to do the business of the country. Since those days the business of the country has doubled, the revenue has more than doubled, the country has grown much larger ; and if four months was not long enough for the business of a session twenty-five years ago, my hon. friend has no reason to complain if we have not disposed of the business of the country in a session of five months. We are in the fifth month of the session, and a good deal of business yet remains to be disposed of ; and even if we brought down the railway
policy to-morrow, we would still have to dispose of that business. But, I can assure my hon. friend that the government has no intention at all of delaying that matter or wasting one single moment of the time of the House. We want to dispose of the business as soon as we can ; but my hon. friends must not be surprised if we do not bring before the House all our measures at the same time. I hope we shall have the report of the committee on the Redistribution Bill soon, perhaps to-morrow. Then we shall be in a position to take up that question and I hope dispose of it. I can only repeat that the policy of the government with reference to the railway question will be brought down, I hope before the end of this week. I hope that we shall be in a position to invite my hon. friend to discuss that measure at an early date next week; and, if I may judge from the applause which greeted his statements to-day, we can rely upon the support of the hon. gentlemen opposite to that measure, because they already relish the great boon that this policy will be to the country. However, Mr. Speaker, I cannot be drawn into making at this time a more formal Statement of that policy than I have made already. We are working on that policy, but it is a policy which is not at all an easy one to adjust. There are certain questions which have to be determined and adjusted even after the principle is settled upon. The details of this matter are as important as the principle itself. We are working at it, however, and if my hon. friend will only possess his soul in patience for a few days more, he will be gratified perhaps more than he has reason at the present time to suppose.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: The hon. First Minister's observations largely consist of hope ; but a good judge of human nature, looking into the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite, would conclude that their consciences were greatly troubled with despair. They have been vac-cilating between hope and fear and despair for many weeks, and have not given this House the information it was justly entitled to, nor the country their decision which they ought to have come to long ago. The right hon. First Minister asked, who prolonged this session ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Yourself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: An hon. member says ' yourself.' The hon. member cannot have given very much attention to the work of this session during the last three or four months, or he would not have made that statement. We have been jollied along from week to week without any government policy, without any definite principle laid down, without any important measure of the government before ns ; and we have been obliged to decline voting the estimates, on

the strict constitutional ground that we must have the government's policy before we vote the money to carry on the affairs of the country. That is the right of the opposition ; that is the function of the opposition, and we are endeavouring to discharge that function to the best of our ability. But we have been deprived of the government's policy, and we have been jollied along without any sincere desire on their part or on the part of their friends to bring the work of this session to anything like a speedy conclusion. The Prime Minister says that twenty-five years ago it was believed that the work of parliament could not be done in less than a session of four months. Why, thirty-three years ago, when the sessional indemnity was fixed, it was fixed on the basis that a parliamentary session would last only thirty days ; because it was provided that in the event of a session lasting less than thirty days, the indemnity would be $10 a day, but that if it lasted more than thirty days the indemnity would be $1,000. I give that as an answer to the observation of the Prime Minister. Now, I say that the opposition could not properly let the work of the session go on unless we had the government's policy. The House has been sitting for a little over four and a half months. In the speech from the Throne at the beginning of the session the government definitely' outlined a policy. Why have they' not brought down that policy and pressed it ? During these four and a half months they7 have been hatching half a dozen policies, not one of which has been brought to fruition and presented to this House and the country. But we witness the unseemly spectacle of the government hatching out a policy7 while the House is in session, instead of having it ready and bringing it down when parliament opened. That is the reason we are kept so long, that the government have not reached a definite conclusion in regard to their policy.
We have the very unusual spectacle of a government frittering away the time of parliament while wrangling among themselves over a question of policy. Can that be denied ? The other day one of their ablest ministers resigned because he disagreed with the policy they had hatched out about ten days ago. Evidently up to that time they had not concluded on any policy ; and just as soon as they7 come to some determination and were about to present it to parliament, we had the resignation of one of their most important ministers. Since then they have been in a condition of statu quo. They do not know where they are or what to do. This policy, for the presentation of which we have been so long waiting in vain, should have been decided on before parliament was called together. I can understand the government not being prepared at the opening of parliament to meet some grave question arising Mr. SPROULE.
during the session, something not previously anticipated; but that is not the present case. We had an intimation more than a year ago of the policy which the government were contemplating, but during all the intervening time they7 have not succeeded in putting it in such a business shape that they can present it to parliament. I protest against this frittering away the time of parliament. I protest against the great expenses with which this government is saddling the country, by thus unduly prolonging the session, through their own lack of business capacity. Let them bring down their policy so that we may deal with it, or acknowledge their incompetency by resigning office. At the rate we are going, we shall probably be here six months before this session closes. To what must we attribute this delay ? To nothing but the vacillating unbusiness like course of the government. It is due solely to the fact that they had not their work prepared to be submitted to parliament. The right hon. the First Minister tells us that he hopes to present iu a few days the railway legislation of the government. But he expressed the same hope last week, and several weeks ago, and we are still living on hope. It may7 be weeks yet before we will see that measure brought down. On behalf of the people of this country I protest against the inaptitude and utter lack of business capacity displayed by this government during the last four months and a half. We have here 213 members kept in session month after month, kept away from their business, and all for no other reason than that the government is incompetent to deal with the business of the country. How much longer we may be still kept here because of that government not being ready with its policy, it is difficult to say. All the indications are that the government has as yet no settled policy on this railway question. They are evidently fighting among themselves and may fail to pieces any day. One day we hear that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is going out because he cannot agree with his colleagues. Another day it is the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) who is about to resign in disgust. Then we are informed that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is away sulking in his tent. He is said, in this the hottest season of the year, to be suffering from an attack of grip. I should be inclined to think the cause of his malady was rather the choice between losing his grip or silently endorsing a policy which he condemns. Other members of tlie cabinet are also said to be at cross purposes, and in fact no one would be surprised to hear at any moment that it had fallen to pieces and was unable to come down with any policy. In the opinions of many, the only thing that holds them together is the spoils of office. That is the general impression throughout the country. They

dare not dissolve this House and appeal to the people, because if they did they would not come back with a baker's dozen. We are told that growls of discontent have come from the Upper Chamber, that the newly appointed senators have been sending in letter after letter telling the right lion, gentleman that his policy is ruinous, unwise and unsuitable to the wants of the country, and that in consequence of these representations the right hon. gentleman is at his wits' end to discover some compromise that will get him out of his present difficult position. This is why we are being bumped along from day to day waiting for some definite policy to be submitted to us. On account of its vacillating and helpless condition, the government have been consenting to the violation of every sound parliamentary rule. To-day we had another private Bill introduced.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman has no right to refer to a previous decision of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To what do you refer, Mr. Speaker ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman was referring to a Bill which has been introduced to-day and a motion passed by the House. If he had any reflection to make on that motion, he should have made it when it was moved.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am referring to the constant violation of the rules laid down in the British North America Act for the direction of this parliament, and I am drawing attention to the fact that although the British North America Act limits the time within which certain legislation may be presented to this House, we have been violating from week to week this rule, because the government are hopelessly at sea and unable to control the House. They are, in sporting parlance, sparring for wind and jollying the House along until they can reach some decision and some policy. I am entitled to draw the attention of the country to the hopeless condition in which the government find themselves. I challenge them to resign and to appeal to the country. If they did they would be relegated to that obscurity from which they should never have emerged.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the reply made by the right hon. gentleman to the very well grounded complaint of my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, on the unwarranted delay of the government in submitting to parliament the most important business of the session. The right hon. gentleman displayed a great deal of tact, cleverness and ingenuity in avoiding the point. He gave no satisfactory answer to account for the amazing delay which has occurred in submitting to parliament a measure involving, so far as we can judge,
a liability for the Dominion amounting to something like $100,000,000, by far the most important measure that has been submitted to parliament since the day of the resolution in reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway was submitted. And what is the reply of the right hon. Prime Minister S He says, with the utmost bonhommie and kindliness, that he long ago made up his mind to a long session, that he came here with that expectation, having gained it from a remark made by a gentleman on the opposition side mat the snow would whiten the hill tops before this parliament would see prorogation. The right hon. gentleman has not been kind enough as a rule, in the past to take the days for the opening and prorogation of parliament from this side of the House. And, if on this occasion we find him saying that the cause of the very tedious manner in which he is proceeding with the business of the session is to be found in a remark, probably of a jocose character, made by a member of this House, we may doubt if he is giving us his sincere idea on the subject. I would remind the House that the condition of business of itself calls attention in a most marked manner to the failure of the government in the performance of its duties, and one of those duties is to conduct the business of the House of Commons. There can be no question that, while it is the duty of every member of the opposition to participate in the discussions which take place in this House, and to give to every discussion which arises his best attention and his best efforts, yet the conduct of the business is entirely in the hands of the government of the day, and the government of the day is solely responsible for the manner in which that business makes progress, unless they can fairly show that the opposition are factiously obstructing. I am sure it would be impossible, in the case of the present session, to point to any evidence to show that the opposition has obstructed the business. They have discussed the estimates at considerable length, it is true. But the right hon. Prime Minister himself has to-day given us what he considers to be the sole reason why the business of parliament is in the backward condition it unquestionably is in, and that is that until the Redistribution Bill is submitted to parliament and disposed of we cannot see prorogation. And that Bill has not been submitted to parliament at the end of nineteen weeks of sitting. Who is responsible for that delay ? Is the opposition to be held responsible for it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Certainly.


Adam Carr Bell: A motion for the introduction of that Bill was given notice of by the right hon. Prime Minister at an early day, and when the measure was introduced it was re-


Mr.  E. B.@: OiSnLK (West Toronto). I was much surprised at the reply which the Prime Minister gave to the leader of the opposition, when taunted by the leader of the opposition that he was delaying the business of this parliament in failing to bring down a measure which is recognized by all as the most important measure1 that has come lie-fore parliament since this government came into power, to say the least. The only reply the Prime Minister made to the leader of the opposition was to take up the Order paper and say : There is no need for us now, Mr. Speaker, to bring down any more resolutions, because we have something left on the Order paper still. Is that a reply to give to this House when we press for the submission of a scheme which is to add to the debt of the country 25 per cent of its
present debt ? Because this proposed scheme will increase the debt of the country by 25 per cent, leaving out all the responsibility of the guarantee. Yet the only answer the Prime Minister makes is to say, forsooth, that there is still somq business before the House, still a little readjustment of the steel bounties, a little readjustment of the lead bounties, and that as long as these comparatively trifling measures are before us it is not for the opposition to ask for any further business. Is it the intention of the government to weary out this House before they bring down a measure involving an expenditure of $100,oO0,000, in the last weeks of the session ? This is a measure that should be submitted to us at a period when: there will be ample time to consider it. Is it not due to the country that we should have ample time to discuss a measure of such importance ? I say it would be an outrage to bring down such a measure without giving us three, or four, or five weeks in which to consider it maturely. But if the reply of the Prime Minister to the leader of the opposition means anything, it means that he wishes to bring down this measure at the last moment when he thinks it will be discussed in a hurried manner, when he thinks he can pass it through this House without proper consideration. The answer of the Prime Minister is not worthy of the government. If the measure has been agreed to in a general form, it is due to this House to submit to us at least its outlines, so that members of the opposition may have ample time to discuss it intelligently.


Mr. O. B. HEYD (South Brant).: I have been frequently asked why this session is so prolonged, and I invariably answer that the opposition are prolonging the discussions. Up to the present time I had been under the impression that we have been engaged in doing some work. I notice that all the ob* struction that has been made in this House comes from the other side. I notice that when the estimates are brought before us there are half ai dozen men on the other side who spend hours .and hours in discussing a matter that does not involve twenty-five cents. Now, it strikes me that if the government intended to prolong this session for their own purpose they had willing instruments in our friends on the other side, who have readily fallen into the trap. It strikes me that after getting off the work that is on the Order paper, and when there is nothing more to do, then they can say that the government are not ready with their policy and they will be, justified in complaining of the delay. But I will guarantee that weeks have been consumed during this session in discussing the estimates, and our friend from Grey (Mr. Sproulel said they were holding up the government because the government were not ready to bring down its railway policy. Now. if I were on the other side, and my policy was to shorten the session, I would pass the


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: If the argument of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) is absolutelycorrect, why then, I think he ought to be very grateful to the opposition if, as he alleges, they have held up the estimate's so as to give the government an opportunity of doing that which they said they wished to do : that is to bring down the transcontinental railway policy this session.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: You have given us half it day to-day.


Albert Edward Kemp: If the opposition allowed the estimates to slip through without that right amount of criticism to which they are entitled we might have been away from here perhaps a'month ago. Then, how could the government have brought down a transportation policy when they have no policy yet to bring down ? I think it is a mistake to suppose that the government have only been considering this great transportation question since this session commenced. It seems to me that the government have had almost a year in which to consider this transcontinental railway scheme. I find on looking up the records that Mr. Hays made his statement in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific on the 24th day of November last, and I assume that previous to that time the Grand Trunk Pacific had approached tlie government and discussed with them this great project. On December 4th Mr. Hays came and it is reported that he saw the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce took the ' Globe ' into his confidence and I infer from what be said Mr. HEYD.
in the interview which he gave that he made known to Mr. Hays even at that date what the policy of the government was ill regard to the question. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said that the views of the government had been given to Mr. Hays. That statement will be found in an interview with the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce published in the ' Globe ' on the 4th December last, and therefore, it seems to me that the government had a policy at that time. They had ample time before this House met to perfect that policy and to be ready when the House opened to say what that policy was. I believe they had that policy in view when they made the statement in the speech from the Throne to this effect :
The great influx of population into our North-western Territories and the very large additional areas of fertile land which are being brought under cultivation combine to further press upon us the need for increased transportation facilities for the forwarding of our grain and other products to the markets of the world, through Canadian channels. The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
What does it mean when they say ' the whole question of transportation ?' Does not that include the transcontinental railway proposition? That commission was to lie appointed at once, but it has not been appointed yet; and I take it, in view of the statement of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce on the 4th December that the government's policy had been made known to Mr. Hays, that they then had a policy and that their policy then was that they were going to refer the whole question of transportation to a committee to report. The government have evidently sinee that changed their minds. They have decided not to refer the question to a commission and they have decided since the House met and since this statement was made in the speech from the Throne to work out this -transcontinental railway project within the cabinet. I take it from what has transpired during the last few days that there is little hope of any policy coming from this government. We are kept here and the charge is made by the right hon. Prime Minister that we are being kept here by the obstruction of the opposition. The right hon. gentleman seems to be anxious to get the estimates and the small Bills out of the way. What does that mean ? Does that not mean that in the last days of this session the greatest project that has ever been before this country, or, if not the greatest project, perhaps, second only, second in importance to the Canadian Pacific Railway, is to be brought before this House ? I consider that the right hon. gentleman is quite wrong in saying that the estimates and these Bills

of minor importance should be put out of the way before this important project is brought before the House. Now, I wish to say that the government have no mandate from the people to push through this House any such important project as that during this session, and I hope that the government will not force that measure upon this House. I merely rose to emphasize the fact that was brought out by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) that public life in this country becomes a burden which I charge to the responsibility of the government in conducting the affairs of the country in the manner in which they do, and I say it is too bad that we should be kept here the year round while the government are framing such an important policy as the transcontinental railway policy.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (South Leeds).: Mr. Speaker, it was the proud boast of the right hon. Prime Minister that if the people of this country returned him to power he would surround himself with a lot of capable, honest, business men. He formed his government and when it was formed a great portion of the people had confidence in a number of his colleagues. But, where are they now? The people had great confidence in the late lamented Sir Oliver Mowat. The cabinet had hardly met when Sir Oliver Mowat was found to be troublesome and he had to be moved. Who filled his place ? We had an hon. gentleman from Quebec that the people had confidence in, and who was regarded as an honest, able business man. I refer to Sir Henri Joly. He was found to be another troublesome man. He was promptly transplanted, removed from the government and given a position. Then, we had another gentleman from Prince Edward Island that the people of that province had great confidence in. They said : Here is a poor honest man and as long as he remains in that government the business of the country will be conducted on right principles. But, he was transplanted. I refer to Mr. Justice Davies of the Supreme Court. There was another honest man, the late lamented, Hon. David Mills. He was found to be a troublesome member of the government and he had to be pushed out and placed on the Supreme Court bench in order to give place to one whom the right hon. Prime Minister could control. We had another gentleman that the people of Ontario said was the big policeman, and they believed that things would be all right as long as he remained in the government. I refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). He got troublesome but a delegation went to him and said : You keep that office. There is no work in it. You are an old man now, you have a lot of sons. Draw your salary, and we will provide for your sons. Stay there and keep your mouth shut. He is there today. He is not in his place in the House
at the present moment but he is there in the department drawing his salary. The right hon. Prime Minister made a proposition in the letters which have been read before the House to the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) that it ought to be beneath the dignity of any hon. gentleman to make to any colleague in the government. It was on the same lines as the proposition that was made to the right hon. Minister of Trade-and Commerce. Swallow your convictions, sit there, be a looker-on, swallow this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme,
I have started the scheme, I have kept it in my own hands, I have carried on the negotiations, I did not consult you because you were a man of honest convictions, but I consulted some of my other colleagues. All you have to do is to swallow this hundred million dollar scheme and get the rake off. You sit there, I will take your portfolio and push the thing through the House. With a rake off of a hundred million dollars he could afford to sit with his supporters behind him, vote this thing through the House and give his colleagues $5,000 each to run their elections on. It is easy to say that. With this hundred million transaction, the right hon. gentleman could easily say :	Sit there, keep your portfolio, I will
see it through the House, swallow your convictions. If there is a man in this country entitled to the respect of the people it is the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals who refused to accede to the proposition which was made to him and which the right hon. gentleman admits in his letters he made. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals would not sit down and be a looker-on and swallow his convictions. Still there are other men who are in the cabinet and they are swallowing their convictions. Perhaps they may oppose the government yet, for there is a lot of kicking going along. Where are the business men of the government ? Why, one of the first men taken into this cabinet who had any business about him was the Hon. Mr. Tarte, and we know that the Prime Minister said : when Tarte goes I'll go. He put out Tarte because he had too much business about him, and he filled his place with whom ? A gentleman of the same ability ? Ask the people of the province of Quebec that ? -


Some hon. MEMBERS: Come on.


George Taylor: I am coming on, and I will give you enough before I get through. To-day the Prime Minister says that we are to be here until the snow flies. This business government met on the 12th of March, and we were hardly here a day when they piled blue books upon the Table prepared by the officers of the government, but that is all they have done since. Those of them that are left in the cabinet now have their palatial residences in the city of Ottawa. They came here poor honest men, and now

they have their palatial residences. G/o down the street and ask any citizen of the city of Ottawa, if you look at the palatial residences of these gentlemen that came here poor men-we had a discussion last night about it-and they will tell you that some of these ministers are living on $15,000 or $20,000 a year, which they made out of stock, and drawing a salary of $7,000 or $8,000 a year.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order.


George Taylor: I withdraw that.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In addition to the hon. gentleman being out of order on that point, his discussion is not germane to the question that has been brought before the House [DOT]by the leader of the opposition.


George Taylor: I am referring to the statement of the Prime Minister that he expected to be here until the snow flies. I am showing that the government has not brought down the measures announced in the Speech from the Throne, and yet we are here four months and a half, and the reason for it is that they are living here in their palatial residences drawing their $7,000 a year from the money of the people, besides $1,500 sessional indemnity, and they can afford to stay here till the snow flies. But this House is composed of business men like myself, who have business to attend to, and if the government had gone on with its business we would not be here now. They blame the opposition, but if you take ' Hansard ' you will find that the government supporters have occupied more space than the members of the opposition. The Prime Minister referred to the Redistribution Bill, and when he introduced that Bill you would think butter "would not melt in his mouth, and he told the people of Canada they were going to have something that the country had never seen' before.


Mr. COCHRANE.: So they have.


George Taylor: He was going to have a consultation between gentlemen on (both sides of the House, and he asked that three men on this side of the House be named, and they were named the next day, but the" government did not name their men and get down to work. They called in the members of every constituency in the province of Ontario and asked them what they wanted, and they drew the map and had everything prepared before the committee met at all. Ontario was selected as the province that had to be slaughtered. That was cut out before the census was taken. I have a letter in my desk that I will read at the proper time, wherein one of the census commissioners accuses the minister for not publishing a full report. I say that the census was practically stuffed, so that Ontario might be lessened in its members, because Ontario sent the largest delegation here to oppose this government. They applied the Mr. TAYLOR.
census first and then they applied the Redistribution Bill to cut Ontario down. Has the Redistribution Committee been a consultation ? Not at all. They had four government supporters and three opposition member's, and the government members spent three or four months consulting their friends in the country as to how they could cut and carve the constituencies to give the best political effect to the government. We will see when the Bill comes down whether it is the fail', honest measure that the Prime Minister promised. The Prime Minister told us to-day that there was a lot of stuff on the Order Paper, such as the bounty on steel, the bounty on lead and the bounty on binder twine. Well, these should have all been mentioned in the budget speech, because there were delegations here asking for relief for these interests ; but the government were then fighting as they are fighting now. We hear of two ministers having a scrap in one of the departments yesterday. We hear that one minister caught another by the throat and held him up against the wall because he did not pay the census accounts ; and blamed him because it was the cause of the loss of a lot of seats in the Manitoba provincial elections. It may be true, or it may be a rumour, but it appears to be all right, for judging from the looks of the Minister of Agriculture to-day, he looks as if his throat had been squeezed. The Minister of the Interior blames him for not paying the census commissioners and the census enumerators all they asked for, and that had led to one trouble in one wing of the cabinet. Here we are kept day after day, simply beating time, waiting for the policy of the government at an expense of $4,000 or $5,000 a day for paying the officers and printing, outside of the indemnity to the members. This country now finds that this government is not a business government, and that it has retrograded, because the men of the best calibre in it have left it. The vacant seats have not been filled by business men or men equal in ability to the men who left. There is a process of weeding out going on. Those that are remaining ; whether or not it is that they cannot agree to the rake-off or their share of this $100,000,000 that is coming from the people of the country ; we know that the fact is that there is a big fight on, and that they had one man strong enough not to accept the invitation of the Premier : look on and let me run this thing through the House for you, and you say nothing.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: The leader of the opposition would have been remiss in his duty if he had not taken the opportunity which presented itself this afternoon of again reminding the right hon. Prime Minister of the obligation which has been specially imposed upon him during the past week by the resignation of his colleague the Minister of Railways, to lay

before the House at the earliest possible moment the particulars of a measure of such vital importance as that which caused the rupture between the right hon. gentleman and his colleague. It has been pointed out two or three times this afternoon that the question of transportation is the most vital one affecting the interests of the people of this country. It has also been pointed out that more space was given to that subject in the Speech from the Throne than to any other. It has Deen pointed out that the government declared that the matter was of such great importance that a commission of practical, experienced men would be appointed forthwith to examine into and make a report, not only on the question of transportation, but also on the question of terminals. Nearly five months have elapsed, and not one step has been taken towards accomplishing what the government declared was a matter of vital importance to Canada. The commission has not been constituted yet; experienced men have not yet been found, notwithstanding the fact that more than four months have elapsed since the announcement was made. Experienced men have not been found who are willing to take their places on that commission and make a report on a matter of such great importance to the people of this country. Why has that commission not been filled ? There has been no satisfactory explanation given to us why that part of the government's programme has not been carried out. Does my hon. friend think the hon. leader of the opposition has been unreasonable in drawing attention to a matter of such great importance, and in pressing the right hon. gentleman to let the opposition and the country, the people most concerned, know what he proposes to do at the earliest possible moment ? The charge has been made that the opposition have been obstructing the business of the House. That charge is not well founded. The opposition would not be discharging their duty to the country if they allowed all the estimates to go through before these matters were laid; before parliament. If they adopted that course, the weapon would be taken out of their hands. When the right hon. gentleman charges the opposition with delaying the business of the House, he must forget the statement made by his own late Minister of Railways and Canals in giving his reasons for withdrawing from the cabinet. That hon. gentleman stated that he could not concur in the policy of the government, and he expressed his regret that his resignation from the cabinet would prolong this session for some weeks. The right hon. gentleman referred to the fact that a number of measures yet remain on the Order Paper to be disposed of, among them the resolution respecting the lead duties, the resolution respecting the steel duties, and the Railway Commission Bill. But he did not
state to the House that last session the House had the Railway Commission Bill before it and that it was withdrawn, so that this year it is practically an old measure. Therefore the government cannot take any credit to themselves for having introduced that measure this session. If the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues had any definite or fixed policy with reference to the tariff, the resolutions respecting the steel duties and the lead bounties and binder twine would have been disposed of long ago. The very fact that these resolutions are now on the Order Paper is the most striking evidence that could be presented of the vacillating policy of this cabinet; and it is very unfair and unjust to hold us on this side of the House responsible for the undue length of this session. If the government had brought down the measures foreshadowed in the speech from the Throne, I am sure	that they
would have received the most intelligent consideration the opposition could have given to them; and we would have cooperated with the government in bringing the session to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion. The session has been prolonged because of the unreadiness which has characterized the methods of hon. gentlemen opposite. A measure involving suc.i an immense expenditure as the government's railway scheme is one that should! receive the most searching criticism at the hands of the members of the opposition. After four and a half months of the session we are told by the hon. gentleman primarily responsible for the transportation policy of the government, the late Minister of Railways and Canals, that notwithstanding the magnitude of the proposition which is to be presented to us a few days hence an undertaking involving an expenditure of probably seventy or eighty millions of dollars, not one single survey has yet been made of the country through which it is proposed to carry this transcontinental line. Does my right hon. friend think that the opposition would be doing their duty to their constituents and to the country if they allowed that measure to pass this House without giving it the fullest consideration they are capable of ? Is it not right that the hon. leader of the opposition should take advantage of every opportunity to draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the responsibility that rests upon this government, and to demand that a matter of such vital importance to the people of this country should not be haggled over or delayed any longer, but should be brought down at once, so that the people of the country may know what its merits are ? The late Minister of Railways and Canals stated the other day that the question had been submitted to the cabinet and had been approved by it. Under these circumstances, what are the causes of delay ? Have we not a right to insist that this matter, which is of such vital importance

to the country, shall be placed before the House, in order that its details may be fully discussed at the earliest possible moment ?
Mr. SEYMOUll GOURLEY (Colchester). Mr. Speaker, I repudiate the charge that has been made that this session has been prolonged by any gentleman on this side of the House. X think it ill becomes men who have raised every possible issue to delude the people, to attempt at last to raise that issue. No men have ever been so successful as the hon. gentlemen opposite in raising false issues to delude the people of Canada. But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, and these gentlemen that the day is past for deluding the people of Canada with false and specious propositions. The people of Canada supposed that these gentlemen had been in opposition so long that they had probably learned wisdom, and that when they came to govern the country they would govern it on commendable principles. But that expectation has been entirely disappointed. I do not desire to be unkind in speech to anybody. If these lion, gentlemen, when they came into power, had made an honest confession that they had been attempting to mislead the people with regard to their policy-if they had said, ' we are unable to carry out the policy we propounded in opposition, we confess that you gentlemen were right, and we are going to steal your policy liolus bolus and adopt it '-if they had done that, I would have said that there was some good in those wrong and sinning souls, and I would have been glad to have extended a hand of fellowship to them when they were deep in the mire. But these gentlemen have not done this; but while professing to be free traders, they have mangled the national policy. They were not satisfied to accept the national policy as a great gift to Canada and leave it alone; but they approached that sacred shrine; and when they approached it, if they had a bit of conscience in their carcasses they would have been stricken to the heart for the sin they were committing, and would have gone back and left that shrine untouched. But instead of that, they stabbed it, as Brutus stabbed Caesar.'and to-day they are as unrepentant as Brutus was. These gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, came into power under circumstances which afforded them such a splendid opportunity for statesmanship that I expected at their hands a bold policy. I admired that word of the Prime Minister the other day-a bold policy. 1 wanted to say to these gentlemen, throw away this timid, shivering policy; throw away the Conservative clothes that you have worn so long. And I am bound to say that they have worn them without any grace. Their figures are too small to look well in the magnificent garments that Sir John and Sir Charles wore like giants. After masquerading in them Mr. CLARKE.
for a while, they said, we have got on our feet, and, we think we have some understanding of the interests of Canada. If they had then thrown off their stolen clothes and shown the little animals inside, and said : we will do the best we can, we will be natural, honourable and honest, and exhibit ourselves to the people as we really are, I could have forgiven them. Never did a government receive so magnificent a heritage as did this government. Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper had worked for years to build up Canada. When they came into office they found an opposition which was decrying Canada and they set about endeavouring to create a national sentiment and make a nation of these scattered provinces, which until then had solely cultivated sectional spirit and provincial ideas. For twenty years after confederation these men laboured with the people of Canada-a people who had been trained in the narrowest school and ideas. For twenty years these eminent men devoted their great intelligence and energy to the development of a national sentiment, which would enable them to develop Canada. During all that time how were they met ? Instead of having to face an opposition who were proclaiming, as we do, the necessity of a national sentiment, of union, they had to meet an opposition which stirred up every provincial, narrow feeling, in the vain effort to break down these men in the splendid task which they had set themselves to perform. I have sat here and listened to the little men on the other side, who have forgotten the history of Canada, rising in their places and making the pretense that they are the authors of Canadian prosperity. Why. Mr. Speaker, they had as little to do with the present prosperity of Canada as the timid rabbits running in our woods and forests. The swallows that fly over these parliamentary walls have had more to do with our prosperity than hon. gentlemen opposite. I never could understand how any hon. gentleman opposite who had any respect for himself could listen to such utterances without a blush or a protest. These hon. gentlemen, sir, had nothing to do with the development of Canada. They came into office at a most favourable time, when the work of these great Conservative statesmen had borne its proper fruition, when the narrow provincial sentiments which had existed and benumbed Canada for years had been entirely dispelled, and a broad national sentiment prevailed all over the country: when the North-west had been brought into confederation and our Dominion extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific. When Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper took office we had but a few Atlantic provinces, but these statesmen were strong enough and patriotic enough to see that we never could make a nation out of these alone. They therefore set to work and embraced the

whole of this British North American continent' into one great confederacy, so that we could have a great field in which to build up a nation, that would compete successfully with our neighbours to the south, for the dominion of this continent. They built that great national route the Canadian Pacific Railway; they inaugurated the policy of protecting our national industries wrhich has since become firmly fixed in the affections of our people; they laid the foundation of our public laws and administration. Everything was matured by their policy. The splendid edifice of Canada was completed by hands other than those we See opposite. All that these hon. gentlemen opposite have done with this magnificent edifice is to tear down a pillar here and take down an ornament there, and replace them with some botchy patchwork. That being the state of affairs, I am surprised at the assurance of hon. gentlemem opposite in undertaking to charge the opposition with not performing their duty according to the practice and rules of British parliamentary procedure. I propose to fully discuss this great question. I stand perhaps in a different position from any man in this House ? I am a railway man. I want railways in this country, and I am prepared to oppose any plan tnat is going to mar the prosperity which is now at hand.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Motion (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to adjourn, negatived.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 104) to incorporate the Brockville and Sault Ste.
Marie Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment.
On the preamble,
George Taylor: It will be within the memory of members of the Railway Committee that this Bill, together with two others came before the Railway Committee -this Bill (No. 104) to ratify the purchase by some Americans of the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, another on behalf of the creditors in Montreal and elsewhere to incorporate a company with the right to purchase this road, and another from the promoters of the present Bill, asking for further powers. These three Bills were referred to a subcommittee. Before that sub-committee appeared a great number of creditors having claims against the original company, the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie 224
Railway Company. That company was chartered some fifteen or sixteen years ago to build a railway from Brockville to Westport and on to Sault Ste. Marie. The company that was formed consisted chiefly of Mr. ,R. G. Hervey, of the town of Brockville. He organized a construction company which took the contract for building the road. The railway company applied to parliament for a subsidy which was granted -$3,200 a mile for forty-five miles from Brockville to Westport. They also applied to the town of Brockville 'and different municipalities through- which the road was to run, and subsidies were granted by these municipalities to the amount of something like $116,000. The road was constructed so far as to gain a permit from the government allowing them to run trains and carry passengers, and a portion of the subsidy was paid over. The subsidy from this parliament was pledged to the late James Coopgr, in payment of the rails, spikes and tie plates. The government approved of that, and the money earned under the subsidy was paid to the late James Cooper on account of these rails. Some $38,000 of the subsidy granted was not paid, but that sum has lapsed owing to the road not having been completed up to government standard within the time allowed. A great number of people had claims against the road for work done under contract, for supplies furnished, or for right of way, and these parties appeared before the sub-committee. The sub-committee heard these people, and, as I understood from the members who I was allowed to nominate to serve on the sub-committee, it was agreed by the members of the sub-committee that no attention should be paid to the other two Bills, but the committee would simply recommend the ratification of the sale that had been ordered by the court. I may say that there is a lawsuit pending involving the question of the jurisdiction of the court in Ontario that ordered the sale of this railway. It is contended that, as this railway was named in its charter as a railway for the general advantage of Canada, it is not within the power of the courts of the province of Ontario to order its sale. However, the road was sold under an order of court, and the suit now pending is to test the legality of that sale. I have given notice of several amendments which I shall ask the House to approve, and I am quite sure that when the hon. members have heard the statements that will be made by myself and others interested, they will accept these amendments. I shall move these amendments as the different clauses to which they relate come up. But in the meantime I may read and explain them. The first is :
To section 1. That the word * North-western ' be struck out and the words ' Sault Ste. Marie ' be'substituted in lieu thereof.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Mr. Chairman, is it the purpose to deal with each of these proposed amendments as they affect different clauses to speak at this stage ?
Mr: DEPUTY SPEAKER. Yes.


William Alfred Galliher: Because, if it is, I do not propose to speak at this stage.


George Taylor: ' Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. You are speaking now on the preamble. The clauses will come up in order and as each section is called the amencEment will be made to the section.


William Alfred Galliher: I will only then state generally, speaking on the preamble, that I was a member of the sub-committee of the Railway Committee which sat on this Bill. The Bill having been referred to the subcommittee they met several times and discussed it. Finally the majority of the committee agreed to a report which was afterwards submitted to the Railway Committee and endorsed by the Railway Committee. That, for all practical purposes, I think, disposes of the question as to whether or not this Bill has been fully dealt with by the sub-committee and by the Railway Committee. The sub-committee, upon going into this matter, concluded that they would recommend that the other two Bills be not accepted and that this Bill in so far as ratifying the purchase of this road is concerned should be adopted. Further, it was agreed by all the members of the committee that the bonding privileges of $25,000 per mile asked for by the company should be cut down to $10,000 a mile. Two members of the committee, or what we may term the minority portion of the committee, wished to include it in a clause to the effect that the proceeds of these bonds should be expended upon the forty-five miles of railway already built. However, the majority of the committee agreed upon submitting the report as it now stands which was adopted by the Railway Committee and which does not contain that limitation. The sub-committee also recommended that the words * Sault Ste Marie ' be struck out and that the company should be named the Brockville, Westport and North-western Railway Company. The reason of that was that the extension asked for to Sault Ste. Marie was not granted by the committee and there was therefore no necessity for retaining the words ' Sault Ste. Marie ' and it was thought it would be more applicable to the road to call it the Brockville, Westport and North-western. That was agreed to, I think, I am safe in saying, by all the members of the committee. I do not remember that there was any objection to these words being submitted, from any members of the committee. This being done, that also was adopted by the Railway Committee when the report of the sub-committee was brought in. We also considered the question as to whether that sub-committee should deal with the claims of the creditors that were being pressed, and we came to the conclusion that we would not touch upon that question, that we were merely going to deal with the question of ratifying the sale to the present company, and with the question of giving them bonding powers to the extent of $10,-

000	per mile on the forty-five miles constructed, in order that they might be able to put the road in proper repair and also earn the remaining subsidy.


Mr. PRINGLE.: I was not present at the final meeting of the sub-committee which considered this Bill, and therefore,
1	cannot speak with precision as to what
occurred. However, at the last meeting at which I was present there was a discussion as to the sub-committee recommending simply a Bill ratifying and confirming the purchase of the Brockville and Westport Railway by the applicants for the present Bill. The consensus of opinion was that if no arrangement could be arrived at between the conflicting interests that a Bill would be recommended simply ratifying and confirming the purchase. But, Sir, I find that the Bill which has been reported to the House goes very much further than that. This Bill gives to the applicants very large powers over and above ratifying and confirming the purchase. The position 1 take is this :	That these applicants had a
perfect right to come to us under the Railway Act and ask for a Bill confirming their purchase, and they were entitled to receive that Bill subject to any rights acquired under existing legislation. But when they come to us and ask for the privileges which they have obtained in this Bill then I think we "have a right to say to them:	Before
we give you these privileges you should do what is right and just by the people who have assisted in the construction of that road and have not been paid. I will briefly mention the history of this enterprise. The Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company was chartered by an Act of the legislature of Ontario a good many years ago. That company entered into a contract with a man named Robert G. Hervey for the construction and equipment of that portion of the line from Brockville to Westport, being forty-five miles, and agreeing to pay for such construction and equipment (according to the schedule attached to the contract) all of the stocks, bonds and subsidies of the company. In pursuance of that contract work was begun and the line partially completed. The rails and fastenings and the wire for fences were purchased from Coojjer, Fairman & Company and the Dominion Wire Company, and I might say that a large portion of the material used in the construction of the railway, in the shape of ties and so on, was purchased from persons throughout the province of Ontario. For instance, the Rathbun Company furnished a large portion of the ties which went into the construction of this road. The Investment Company of Philadelphia furnished at different times certain sums of money upon notes made by the railway company and endorsed by R. G. Hervey, and with certain
bonds of the railway company as collateral security. The Investment Company were familiar with the condition and transactions of the railway company, and agreed to the assignment by the company of the Dominion subsidy for the purchase of the rails, fastenings and wires which were purchased from Cooper, Fairman & Company.
In July or August, 1892, an agreement was made between Hervey and the Investment Company for the assignment by Hervey of the construction contract to the Investment Company, and thereupon Hervey endorsed such transfer upon the original contract. The directors, who up to that time had been legally qualified by holding each the amount of stock specified in the charter, and having paid all calls thereon, resigned as such directors, and the Investment Company nominated a board of directors. It is important that we should consider that position. The Investment Company who took over all the bonds of this road under which the road was subsequently sold, took over this contract from Hervey-and I am reading now from the statement of Hervey which can be substantiated as I understand, by the records. The Investment Company agreed to assume these liabilities; the liabilities which we have been considering in the committee and in the sub-committee. Mr. Her-vey's object in making this agreement was that the railway might be completed and equipped and the construction liabilities paid by the Investment Company who became the contractors ; and the object of the Investment Company was stated to be that they might acquire a good title to the stock and bonds upon the completion of the contract. Now, just while I am on that point, one of the parties who came before the subcommittee was a Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson had had a contract for the construction of a certain portion of this road. He had a claim against this company of some $20,000, and he obtained judgment upon that claim, but as yet has never received a dollar. Now, Sir, I say that the Investment Company, when they took over that contract, assumed that liability. They agreed with Hervey that they would pay [DOT] the liabilities which then existed, and that they would go on and complete the construction of this portion of the road. The Investment Company received all that there was to be had, they received all the bonds, all the stock, all the assets of the road. There is nothing else that could be obtained and it is under these bonds that the Investment Company sold this road. I contend that the parties who have purchased it are really parties representing the Investment Company. However, instead of proceeding to complete and equip the railway in accordance with the terms of the contract which they then held, they failed, and refused to pay the construction debts ; and to complete such construction and equip-

ment, I am informed and believe that they attempted to repudiate the assignment of the Dominion subsidy to Cooper. The Dominion subsidy had been assigned to Cooper, Fail-man & Company as a security for their furnishing the rails and fastenings and they undertook to foreclose the deed of trust or mortgage securing the bonds. Several years of litigation ensued, during which time the directors of the railway company did not act, so I am informed, in the interests of the railway conjpany, and did not defend such foreclosure suit, as they should have done, and should have set up that the bonds held by the Investment Company should not draw interest until such contract was completed. By reason of the failure of the Investment Company to carry out in good faith the contract they had assumed, the subsidy of the Dominion government lapsed, or at least such portion of it as had not been paid, but was withheld by the government pending the completion and equipment of the line in accordance with the specifications. It has been contended, and I think it was a fair contention, that the securities held by the Investment Company should be charged with a lien for the payment of the construction debts, and the completion and equipment of the line according to the contract. If I am stating what is correct-and I am stating it upon the authority of Mr. Hervey, whose statement I have in my hand-when Mr. Hervey handed over his contract the Investment Company agreed to take his position and complete the road in consideration of their receiving the 'bonds, stock, &c. Now,, Sir, I was not opposed in the committee to granting to this company the same powers as the original Brockville," Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company had ; but I took this position, that if the applicants for that Bill wanted from us large privileges, then we had a right to say to them : When we grant you these privileges, we think you should do what is right and fair by the creditors of this company. I have a statement here which was directed a short time ago to the Hon. William Harty, the chairman of the sub-committee of the Railway Committee, and I do not know that I can do better than read this statement to you. I may explain to the House that the creditors felt that It was in their interest to apply for an Act authorizing them to construct a railway from the present terminus of this road, and they offered, if they obtained that Act, to place in the hands of the Minister of Railways and Canals the sum of $50,000 to be divided rateably among the creditors. That was Bill No. 67 ; then there was Bill No. 89, known as the Brockville and Sault Ste. Marie Bill ; and there was the present Bill. Messrs. Hutcheson & Fisher, who are acting for a large number of these creditors, state in this document:


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Re Brockville and Westport Railway Bills.
Sir.-We understand that of the three Bills referred to your committee by the main railway committee, regarding the Brockville and Westport Railway in this county, only two are being pressed in earnest, viz., the Brockville and Western Bill herein referred to as the Creditors Bill, number 67. and the Brockville and Northwestern Bill, herein referred to as the Syndicate's Bill, number 89, the other Bill, known as the Brockville and Sault Ste. Marie Rail-number 104, as stated by Mr. Barwick was applied for in order that the four gentlemen who are the applicants might be in a position to obtain a license from the Minister of Railways and Canals to operate the forty-five miles of railway now in use until a new charter is obtained.
On behalf of Mr. James Cooper, the Dominion Wire Manufacturing Company, Limited, W. J. Webster and certain other creditors of the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, whose claims are for material and labour supplied in building the road, we ask you to report in favour of the first Bill named-The Brockville and Western Bill-and to report against the Brockville and Northwestern Bill. The Creditors' Bill you will notice has a clause providing for payment of fifty thousand dollars into bands of the Minister of Railways and Canals for distribution pro rata among creditors of the Westport Company within sixty days after the new company acquire the road.
We submit that the men whom we represent, are entitled to consideration at your hands. Because they are the men who actually supplied the material and labour which made tho railway, built it and made it available for traffic and for all these years their claims have remained due and owing. Mr. Cooper supplied rails, bolts and fastenings : tbe wire company the wire for fencing and Mr. Webster actually constructed a section of the road, built fences. &c. Your committee are fully aware of all tho circumstances under which the rails were supplied. A transfer of a part of the Dominion government subsidy was made to Cooper, Fair-man & Co., as security for the rails, but owing to the fact that the road was never completed to the government standard, the government engineer refused to accept it and some thirty-eight thousand dollars of this subsidy to -which Mr. Cooper was entitled, was never paid.
We say that parliament, the highest tribunal in our land, has the authority and power to ascertain if an undertaking such as a railway has paid its debts of construction and if it finds that construction debts are still owing that parliament has the right to enforce that lien which equity recognizes everywhere as Delonging to the man whoso labour and material has created the railway and undertaking in question. In a recent judgment in the United States Supreme Court Mr. Justice Brewer expressed the opinion in reference to foreclosures of mortgages om railways :

'This court long since recognized the fact that in the present condition of things other inquiries arise in railway foreclosure proceedings than the mere matter of the debt of the mortgagor to the mortgagee. We have held in a series of cases that the peculiar character and condition of railway property not only justifies but compels a court entertaining foreclosure proceedings to give to certain limited unsecured claims a priority over the debts secured by the mort-

gage. It may be and has often been said that this ruling implies a departure from the apparent priority in right secured by a contract, yet this court recognizing .that' a railway is not simply private property but also an instrument of public service has ruled that the character of its business and the public obligations which it assumes justifies a limited displacement of the contract and recorded liens on behalf of certain unsecured creditors.'
It is .contended by the promoters of the Syndicate Bill that this equity in favour of labourers and material men does not apply or attach in this case because the syndicate purchase this railway at a court sale. We submit that the equity does not apply because :-
The conditions of sale were unreasonable and on the face of them show that they were framed with the object in view of the large bondholders (who was also plaintiff and had conduct of the sale) becoming the buyer. No outsider had am-chance whatever of buying the undertaking at any price. Bonds could be turned In on the purchase money and the Philadelphia Company then held some ninety per cent of the total bond issue. They or their nominees would thus only have to provide in cash the remaining ten per cent of their purchase price and the costs of the 6uit. As Mr. Holm told your committee when he and his associates went to the sale with ninety per cent of the bonds in their pockets or under their control, they intended to come hack the owners of the road. They were thus in a position to outbid every one. For this reason we submit it is pertinent to this matter to inquire.
What this block of bonds-ninety per cent of the total issue-cost the promoters of the Syndicate's Bill ? It has mot yet appeared what price was paid the Philadelphia Company, although we have stated as a matter of report that the price was $90,000 and no one had denied it.
Mr. Cooper was offered the holdings of the Philadelphia Company at one time for $125,000, but owing to the death of his partner, Mr. Fairman, just at this time, be was unable to entertain it.
Inasmuch as ninety per cent of the purchase money at the sale was paid in bonds, we are entitled to bring before the committee all the circumstances in connection with the Philadelphia Company's holdings of these bonds. We do know that the construction contract to build the road was assigned by the contractor. R. G. Hervey, to this company. The Philadelphia Company accepted and acted on this transfer and took certain benefits under it and the contractor R. G. Hervey, says that before this transfer was made the Philadelphia Company agreed with him to satisfy the construction debts then outstanding, on which Hervey was then liable, and to complete the railway according to the contract.
That is the statement made by Mr. Hervey in writing, and It has not been contradicted ?


William Alfred Galliher: Would the hon. gentleman not infer from what he has read that that is merely the assertion of some verbal understanding, which was not embodied in the agreement itself.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I do not infer anything of the sort. The original contract was for the construction of a certain portion of that road. The consideration for that contract
was the bonds and the stock of that road. Mr. Hervey went on to construct the road and found some difficulty in financing. He then assigned the contract to an investment company, which took the consideration he was receiving, namely, the bonds and stock, and agreed to build the road, and released Mr. Hervey from all liability.


William Alfred Galliher: Does he not say in that statement that before this assignment was made, he agreed to do that ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: No, he says he assigned direct to the investment company. The only assets of that whole system were the bonds and stock, but these were received by the investment company. The investment company subsequently sold this road under a mortgage given to secure these bonds. Is it not most reasonable, even if Mr. Hervey did not say so, to assume that the investment company were to pay for the construction of the road ? They went on and: finished a portion of the road and paid for a certain portion, but at the time when Mr. Hervey abandoned this road, Cooper & Fair-man had been supplying the rails, the Rath-bun Company had been furnishing the ties, and Robertson had a contract for the construction of a number of piles on that road, which he went on and completed. Subsequently be bad: to sue the railway company and obtain judgment, and then he found that the bonds and stocks and everything were held by this investment company.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hour for private Bills has expired.


STEAMER. 'SCOTIA '-CLAIM RE SALVAGE.
[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: A few days ago I saw a report in one of the newspapers of the decision of the Privy Council in the case of the Anchor Line Steamer ' Fur-nessia' which rescued the government steamer ' Scotia.' The Privy Council decided that judgment could not be recovered against: the King, but the Lord Chief Justice expressed the hope that notwithstanding this decision the Dominion government would compensate this Anchor Line steamship, because, if not, tbe effect would be that steamers would avoid in future going to the rescue of Dominion government boats in distress. It struck me that that recommendation of tbe chief justice would have been accepted without question, but I am sorry to see to-nigbt in a despatch quoted from London ' Truth,' that tbe Canadian government have resisted the claims for compensation, and ' Truth ' says : ' Tbe natural outcome of this meanness will be that no ship will come to the assistance of any government vessel in distress.' I do not want to make any comments, but

sincerely hope that the report is not correct and that the Dominion government have not refused compensation. To do so would be false economy.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am glad the hon. gentleman has brought the matter to the attention of the House. 1 regret that the hon. Minister of Justice is absent as he would be able to answer the inquiry more fully. However, speaking from such knowledge as I possess, and which I think is quite correct, I will say that the defense raised by the crown was not with the intention of ultimately refusing to compensate this Anchor Company at all. In fact, I think the Anchor Company quite understand that the defence was raised because of some question arising, I think growing out of insurance contracts. But it is the full intention of the Crown to do all that is proper under the circumstances quite irrespective of the judgment. It has always been their intention to do so; but it was necessary, out of consideration of the rights of other parties, to allow the case to proceed through the courts.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think the government were quite right in that, but I hope prominence will be given to the statement made by the Postmaster General. While I quite agree that it was wise on the part of the government to resist when they did. yet, evidently the idea has gone abroad through the English newspapers that application had been made to the government and the government had resisted. I think steps should be taken to, correct that false impression very soon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
'Civil Government-Department of Labour-Salaries, the whole or any portion of which may be paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $15,300.	'
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir W illiam Mulock).: There is a net increase here of $1,450. The increases with regard to salaries include one new appointment at a salary of $1,400, Mr. W. W. Edgar; two statutory increases of $50 each to Mr. Ardouin; and increase of salary to Mr. Frank Plant, who received $1,000, and whose salary has been increased to $1,200: an increase for Mr. Gibbons from $S00 to $850: an increase to Mr. Andrews from $000 to $650; and an increase to Mr. Lapointe from $600 to $650.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The new apopintment is Mr. Edgar?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, he was a clerk in the library of parliament. His salary in the library was $1,100, and he received also $450 a year as secretary to the Speaker, a total of $1,550. He was transferred to the Department of Labour at $1,400, which is $300 more than his fixed Mr. OSLER.
salary, but $150 less than his two salaries combined. Mr. Edgar is a very scholarly man and has made a specialty of economic questions; and the services of a gentleman of his attainments are very necessary in the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And is his place in the library to be filled ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It has been filled by the appointment of Mrs. Lampman, the widow of the late Archibald Lampman, the poet. Mrs. Lampman had been a clerk in the Post Office Department, where her salary was much less than she is getting in the library. Her salary in the library is $800.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase here of from $1,000 to $1,200, but all to one man, as I understood.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. Plant is the clerk referred to. He is a man of forty or so, a married man with a family, and lives in Ottawa. A salary of $1,200 does not seem unreasonable for a person in his position.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What position did he occupy before he was appointed in the Department of Labour ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: By
trade he is a printer. He is a very bright man. When he first came into the department he was appointed as an ordinary clerk. As he became familiar with the work, he has been given, in addition to general work, special duties. At present, and for some time past, he has been specially engaged on the circulation branch of the Labour Gazette.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I saw a note the other day that the Minister of Labour's correspondents were threatening a strike if their allowance was not increased. Has the minister got that trouble fixed up ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think it has assumed any such proportions as my hon. friend apprehends. I am not aware of any difficulty of that kind, except that one correspondent, Mr. Phillips Thompson, of Toronto, has expressed a desire for an increase of salary. That Is the only application of that kind. I was not aware of such a communication until I saw it mentioned In the press. I made inquiry of the deputy and learned that Mi-. Thompson had made a direct application of that character.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What remuneration does Mr. Phillips Thompson receive? Whait demands has he made? And what are you going to do about it?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) has put three questions in the space of his brief speech. The first question is as to the present allow-

ance. The present allowance to each correspondent is $100 a year. The next question is as to the demands made. Mr. Thompson names no amount, but expresses the opinion that there ought to be an increase. The answer to the hon. gentleman's third question is ''that the matter will receive careful consideration.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do I understand that Mr. Phillips Thompson is expected to ;e-view the labour situation of the whole city of Toronto for $100 a year or about $8 per month? Is filie Dominion divided for correspondence purposes into districts, and does each correspondent supply information from his district ? If so, are the districts the same size, and are the correspondents paid by scale, or how are they paid ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Each correspondent is required to Bend in ft monthly report to the department as to labour questions in his district. No distinct geographical limits are assigned to him. He takes upon himself to notice matters occurring in the district where he resides.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Thompson is a journalist and a very competent man, but the minister does not seem ready to grant his application.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. Phillips Thompson is a very competent and reliable man. It gave me great pleasure to appoint him to that position, and his appointment is fully justified by the manner in which he has discharged his duties. As I stated already, the subject only came to my attention yesterday, and it will receive careful consideration. There are many ways of dealing with such an application. The duties of a labour correspondent do not monopolize his time. A person who is engaged in industrial life, or in touch with labour questions, may easily qualify himself to make a correct and reliable monthly report as to industrial matters in his district, without being obliged to neglect a regular calling. Therefore the principle has been adopted throughout Canada of making an allowance of $100 a year, or $8 per month for a monthly report with regard to industrial matters. Mr. Thompson's profession, I think, is that of a newspaper correspondent. I am told just now by my deputy that he has an appointment in the Ontario government; 1 was not aware of that before. But many of our correspondents are engaged in newspaper offices, there may be some exceptions ; but they are men having a regular calling. In the city of Montreal, owing to the prevalence of two languages, it is necessary to have two correspondents, one speaking English and the other French, and the samel practice is adopted in the city of Quebec. Whether it would be wise to increase the number in a city like Toronto,
or appoint one to an adjoining neighbourhood, is a subject to be considered. As to the amount of salary, if we were to double, or treble or otherwise, increase the salary of one correspondent, my hon. friend would cite that as a precedent in favour of all the others. Therefore we have to approach the subject of increasing the salary of one correspondent, bearing in mind the result it would have with regard to all the others.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When a correspondent sends a letter for the ' Gazette,' is it published just as he sends it in ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The report presented by the correspondents is in the form of tables to be filled in. The correspondents are furnished with blank schedules containing the questions or points indicating the nature of the information that the correspondent is expected to furnish. These schedules are edited in the office, and whilst the language of the correspondent may not be used, the substance of the report is published.


Mr. PUTTEE.: How many correspondents are there for the '.Gazette,' and are there two correspondents in any other city except Montreal ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are 31 correspondents in all Canada. Only in Montreal and Quebec are there two correspondents.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The amount paid to this gentleman who is correspondent for Toronto, is certainly very small, only $100 a year. That is a small amount to pay for proper information from a city like Toronto. It seems to me that if the government wished to have a fair labour report, they should not appoint a man who is in the employ of the Ontario government. That should be a fatal bar to any labour correspondent, I do not care by what government he is employed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I really was not aware till just now that Mr. Thompson was in the employ of the Ontario government. But I am sure the hon. gentleman would not expect Mr. Thompson to be dismissed because of that fact.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Certainly not.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He is a very independent minded man, a very sensible man, and I do not believe the circumstance of his being in the service of one government would have the slightest influence upon his report to this government. I do not know even that we should assume from the fact of his being in the service of the Ontario government that he is a Liberal. Even that is unknown to me. But he is, I think, an exceptionally able man. He has been identified with the press a great many years, and I was led to select him for cor-

respondent been use of his contributions to the press of Canada during so many years.
I knew him in that capacity only. He has made a study of labour questions, in fact I understand he is himself an author of a somewhat valuable book upon labour problems. These are the considerations which induced me to appoint him to the position which he now fills. As to the amount of the salary paid to these correspondents, I may say that this is the first time I have been urged by the opposition side to increase the salaries of the labour correspondents. At an earlier period the objection was taken from the other side of the House that they were overpaid. However, I am glad the hon. gentlemen have receded from that position. I conclude that if at one time they thought these gentlemen were overpaid and now they think they are now underpaid, perhaps the salary is not altogether out of the way.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I did not suggest that they were underpaid, but I said that in order to get a labour report from a city of the importance of Toronto, $100 a year seemed to me too small an amount to pay. As far as Mr. Thompson is concerned, I am not suggesting one word that would indicate that he is not a proper person to do this work. I do not know him, but I believe he is a very capable and upright man. It is simply on principle that I raised the question. I do not think the correspondent of the labour bureau should be an employee of any government, Liberal or Conservative. I think the principle is wrong. In this case, the reason majr be so strong that the exception is proving the rule.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Labour who the correspondents' of the Labour Bureau are in the city of Montreal, and what is the salary of these correspondents ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: One of the correspondents is Mr. Gustave Audette and the other was Mr. Fitzpatrick, but I think he has either resigned or contemplates resigning.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What salary do they receive?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The amount is paid monthly after the report is received. If no report comes, there is no payment for the month.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have Messrs. Audette and Fitzpatrick sent regular contributions during the past year ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There have been irregularities in the reports of the Montreal correspondents. Mr. Audette is a recent appointee, and is a successor to Mr. Gareau. Mr. Gareau was also somewhat irregular in sending in his reports, and he has resigned.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to inquire -from the hon. Postmaster General if there are any labouring men, so-called, attached to the bureau in Ottawa ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to more fully explain what he means by a labouring man ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think it ought to be necessary for me to explain that to the hon. Minister of Labour.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know what is in the hon. gentleman's mind.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I mean a man who has actually been at some trade, who has performed manual labour and who, consequently, may be termed as belonging to a class of men who are called labouring men.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. O'Donohue, the fair wage officer, was a printer by trade. Mr. Dubreuil, I am told, is a carpenter, or a mechanic of that kind. I am not sure, however, about that, but my hon. friend may know.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have never heard of him.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. Plant is a printer by trade and Mr. Williams was a locomotive engineer.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are they employed in the bureau at Ottawa ?


Tlie POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I suppose it would be among the duties of the officers of that department to see that the schedule of wages in cases of government contracts is paid to the labouring men employed by the contractors ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The government has a policy on that subject, and it would be the duty of this department to assist in carrying out that policy.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, that is a very vague answer. I do not know what the policy of the government is on that subject. There can be no doubt as to what the policy ought to be. If a government contract is given and a schedule of wages is attached to the contract, I suppose that schedule is the estimation placed by the government Itself, or its expert officers, upon the value of the workmen's labour, and I presume there can be no doubt that the policy of the government, or of the Department of Labour, would be to see to it that the schedule of wages is paid to the employee by the contractor. Surely the government should have no other policy than that. What I wish to know is whether that policy is being carried out in the working of the Department of Labour ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, . it is the practice of the department to live

up to that policy. The object in having a schedule of wages is to protect the employees. It is for their benefit. Of course, if employees choose to waive that position for any reason of their own, that might perhaps be treated as a matter of their own concern, but however that be certainly without their consent the department would not waive any such condition in the contract, but would require the contractor to pay the schedule rate of wages. We have in a very large number of cases compelled contractors to pay the schedule rate of wages. Contractors, in sending their vouchers and progress estimates, have to verify the payment of wages according to the schedule ; of course, as I say, subject to the exception that this provision, being for the benefit of employees, if an employee chooses to waive it, that relieves the government of its obligation in that particular instance.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Ail I can say is that the policy of the government is a very bad one, and that the Department of Labour falls far short of the object of its creation, because anybody acquainted with the ordinary conditions of labour knows that the contractor, in a majority of cases, will stipulate for lower wages than the wages mentioned in the schedule. I am surprised to hear the hon. Minister of Labour state that the policy of the government is that when the poor labouring man has been induced by a contractor to give his service at a lower rate than the fair and reasonable rate fixed by the government, the government's policy is to see to it that the poor labouring man obtains no relief at all. I am justified in saying that is a very poor policy. There are a great number of cases where contractors will grind down the labouring man and stipulate an unfair wage, and it was always understood that the policy of the Labour Department was to prevent that. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) will agree with me in that. Th^ government inserts a schedule of rates for the reason that the government is supposed to protect the labouring man against the employer, but now the Minister of Labour states that if the workman chooses to work for an unfair wage, the department that costs us $40,000 a year will not come to his assistance.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) is very astute to develop a remark into something that never was intended by it. I find the hon. gentleman to be one of those who does not appear to be able to correctly argue a case, but who from the slightest observation develops something wholly unwarranted. The hon. gentleman has in his mind as I have, the only case on record where there has been a waiver, and he knows all the facts of that case because he was professionally engaged in it. He is not warranted in de- I
yeloping a general policy based upon an isolated case. The facts of the case to which he has alluded to are, I understand, as follows : A contractor obtained a contract for erecting a public building at Nelson, British Columbia, and being an 'eastern contractor, he thought it might be of advantage probably to his employees or his acquaintances in the east to take them to Nelson. He may not have known what facilities there might be in the labour market there, as labour may have been scarce, but whatever may have been his reason he consulted with the men and told them if they would go with him he would pay their expenses out and back and board them while there, provided they would accept a certain rate of wage, which happened to be different from the schedule rate. When the case was brought to the attention of the Hon. Mr. Tarte, then Minister of Public Works, this special agreement was brought before him and he seeing nothing unfair in it, acted upon it. I presume the Hon. Mr. Tarte informed himself of the circumstances and was fully satisfied that the case presented no such features as my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) imagines, of the wage earner being compelled to take an insufficient wage. The conditions in Canada since this government came to power have been, that labour is even more plentiful than hands to do the work, and instead of a contractor being in a position to grind down an employee, the employee is able to place a value upon his own labour and sell it at a good price. The sympathetic appeal of my hon. friend on behalf of the downtrodden wage earner has no practical application, although it may be a beautiful thought to pass through the hon. gentleman's brain.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister has told us that the Department of Labour would not interfere if the wage-earner stipulated' for a lower price than that set forth in the schedule.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is wider than my statement.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister said that if the labouring man chose to waive the advantage of the wages stipulated in the contract he was free to do so and the Department of Labour would not interfere. The hon. minister is silent because he knows that is what he said.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) does not want me to be rude and to interrupt him while he is speaking. I shall have great pleasure in replying to the hon. gentleman, but there has been only one case of the kind since the department has had existence, and when he began his question I knew that he was alluding to that case because he was professionally engaged in it. I told him that he should not endeavour to prove a general proposition from a single case. However, that

is Ms logic, not mine. My proposition is that the Department of Labour is here to enforce the policy of the government, but if a workingman did make some special arrangement under special conditions and that fact is brought before the minister in whose department the work is being done, and if the facts are as in this particular instance,
I would like to know wherein any public injury or any private wrong is done by the department not interfering. The schedule is there to protect employees against unfair treatment and to secure to them a fair wage. If the men of their own motion, being perfectly free, chose in a special instance in consideration of particular circumstances- perhaps in this case they wished to avail themselves of this trip to British Columbia with all its attractions-if they make a special arrangement, then unless it is clear * that there has been undue influence brought to bear upon the men; unless it can be shown that they did not stand in a position to take care of themselves, is it unreasonable that in a special instance of that kind it should not be dealt with as the late Minister of Public Works chose to deal with it in the isolated case to which I have alluded ?


Arthur W. Puttee: The only thing that pleases ine about this discussion is that the minister tells us that this is an isolated case. I understand the facts to be these :	There
was a contract called for and the Department of Labour ascertained the current rate of wages in Nelson, British Columbia, and reported that to the Public Works Department, and these rates became part of the contract. It appears that the contractor was an eastern man and he took his men with him to British Columbia, and I suppose he got them at the eastern raites or at a less rate than prevailed in the west. Now, that is exactly one of the things that the current wage resolution went through this House to prevent; the taking of men from one part of the country to another and the breaking down of the wage rate in that other part. I regret that the Department of Labour did not stand by its own schedule. I understand that the Department of Public Works is responsible for the carrying on of that particular contract, and there is this point in it.
When a schedule is made up by the Labour Department and reported to the Public Works Department and included in the specifications, it becomes a part of the contract ; and I decidedly object to that part of the specifications which applies to the wages of labour, being departed from any more than that part which applies to the purchase of materials. The two parts are pretty much on the same basis ; the contractor has to buy the material called for, and he has to buy the labour called for; and it does not seem to me right to let him go below the schedule in the one case any more than in the other. I am glad to hear that this is only an isolated case, and I do Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
not think it should form a precedent for the future. It seems that the late Minister of Public Works is blamed for this breach. I hope the Minister of Labour will say nothing to encourage the present Minister of Public Works to proceed in the same way in the future. We know that eastern contractors, from Montreal and from Ottawa, have in the past tendered for western works at very much lower prices than contractors on the ground could do the work for ; and they undertake the work on the expectation that they will be able to take men from the east and put them at work under conditions which those men do not know anything about. It is idle to say that these men are free-that they choose to do that. The men are not free. They do not know the conditions prevailing; they imagine that they are the same as the conditions under which they have been accustomed to live and work. This is the principal evil of the contract system in this country. When a contractor in a cheap district gets work in a dear district, and takes his labour with him, and pays the wages that he has been in the habit of paying in the cheaper district, he commits a breach of the schedule, which I think we should have it clearly understood will not be permitted in the future. If that was an exception which the late Minister of Public Works put through, I hope it was only done against the protest of the Labour Department. That is the only idea of having the schedule of wages drawn up, and it does seem to me that it is altogether defeating the object of the Labour Department to allow exceptions of that kind to be made.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: While of course, I assume the responsibility of what occurred, I had no personal knowledge of the matter until to-day. The circumstances all occurred at a time when I was absent from Canada on public business elsewhere, and all that my department was able to do was to call on the Department of Public Works to apply the schedule. It was for that department to administer its own affairs. Of course, the government as a whole must assume the full responsibility for all that takes place, whether by the government as a whole or by individual members of the government ; and I quite agree with my hon. friend that one of the features of the fair-wage policy of the government is that the prevailing wage in the district where a work is to be performed shall be paid to those engaged on the work. I can only say that whatever may have been the special reason which moved the late Minister of Public Works to .dispose of the matter in the way he did, no doubt he felt fully justified by the facts. I pronounce no opinion myself whether the facts warranted the conclusion he reached or not. My department called attention to the provisions of the schedule, and there our powers came

to an end. But still, 1 agree with my hon. friend that it is not a case of exception that ought to be recognized-I mean allowing workingmen to be shifted from one locality to another, if the object is to break down the labour market in the locality. One of the leading objects of the fair-wage resolution is to prevent any such result as that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very glad to see that the hon. minister has shifted his disposition to a certain extent. I understood the hon. gentleman to state distinctly that if a labouring man chose to waive the schedule rate of wages, he was free to do so, and the department would not interfere. It seems to me extremely unfair for my hon. friend, who is the Minister of Labour, to endeavour to shift the responsibility of an action of this kind to the other department. If the Department of Militia gives out a contract under the circumstances under which this contract was given out, and the labouring men suffer from the conduct of the contractor, I do not see that the responsibility of my hon. friend is completely relieved the moment the Minister of Militia chooses to disregard the labour clauses in the contract. On the present occasion, in two or three instances, my hon. friend has endeavoured to lay the blame of what occurred during the execution of the contract in question, upon the ex-Minister of Public Works, whereas the blame should attach to the department of my hon. friend himself. Let me just point out in a few words the circumstances of this case, and the House will then understand that no blame whatever attaches to the ex-Minister of Public Works, but that there is blame to be imputed to my hon. friend, and to the employees of the Labour Department. And I venture to say that with a far smaller sum than that which we expend on that comparatively expensive department, three or four practical labouring men could be employed as experts, and we would get far better results. In the case to which my hon. friend the minister has alluded, and which belongs exactly to the category of cases referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg, there was a contract for 349,900 given to Messrs. Lemoine for the construction of a post office at Nelson, B.C., and in the fair-wage schedule the wages stipulated were:	for blacksmiths, $4.50 per day
of nine hours, and for stone cutters, $5 per day of eight hours. Three cases came under my notice, and I have no doubt whatever that the contractors meted out the same treatment to the other labourers whom they employed that they meted out to the three who claim the attention of the government.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Does the hon. gentleman say that in respect of three different contracts such departures have come to his knowledge, or is he speaking of cases applicable to one contract ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am speaking of three labourers to whom the department refused its intervention ; but I am convinced that these contractors followed out the same policy with regard to the other labourers whom they brought from the east as they followed out with regard to these three, who happened to be electors of mine and on whose behalf I solicited the intervention of the department and did not obtain it. What did these contractors do ?	They
wanted to make money out of this contract. They knew that the wages stipulated for British Columbia were fair wages and nothing more, and they had a scheme of bringing to British Columbia eastern labourers and paying them eastern wages. But they knew that they were evading the law, and they felt convinced, I suppose, that they would evade the attention of my hon. friend and his department; and so they were careful to make a written agreement with these labouring men. What was the agreement ? I will take one of the agreements, and they were all similar. It is as follows :
I, the undersigned, Alfred Racine, stonecutter, of the city of Hull, in the county of Wright, do engage myself to B. 0. Lemoine, contractor, of the said city of Hull hereto, represented by
	the whole of the time of the
works in stone-cutting in the construction of the post office at Nelson, in British Columbia- I accept 33 cents an hour for my work, all extra hours on the day's regular work to be paid me at the same rate. Whereas, the said B. O. Lemoine is obliged to furnish me with board and my passage to go and come, I admit that the compensation for my work amounts under this arrangement to at least $5 per day for eight hours work.
They were compelled to give *Miat admission regarding the wages, so that the contractors knew perfectly well their obligation.
And I consent that the monthly pay-list should be made in consequence and allow B. 0. Lemoine the difference between 33 cents per hour and $5 per day for eight hours, to reimburse them for my passage. It is understood that I will he admitted to work extra hours at the same price- 33 cents. The present agreement, made on the condition that I shall work continuously 'until the completion of the work. It is hereby understood that on the first salary accruing to me, B. O. Lemoine will retain the sum of $50, to be only paid me at the end of my engagement, if I work until the completion, but that he will keep the said sum as liquidated damages in the contrary case, any other recourse they may have.
This was the form of agreement, the object of which was to place the contractors beyond the conditions of their contract with the government, to the execution of which the employees [DOT] of the Labour Department and my hon. friend were especially pledged. It was for them to see that contract of this kind-which I call * fraudulent contracts -contracts in violation of the principle of contract with the government and the rights

of the workingmen-it was for them to see that that particular contract made by the contractor in the east with the labouring men was not carried into execution. A similar contract was passed with another stonecutter, whose claim I lodged in due time in my hon. friend's department and with a blacksmith-three brothers and I have no doubt they were not the only workingmen so treated. I entertain no moral doubt that every single workingman from the east was treated in precisely the same manner. What happened ? These men went out aud were paid under this form of contract. That is to say, they received considerably less than the contractors were bound by their agreement with the government to pay them. If the contractors had a contract for over $49,000, it was precisely because of the higher rates of wages in British Columbia and the conditions of life there, which are completely different from those here. Those workingmen came back and discovered how they had been treated. They came to me, and I inquired from the Department of Labour what the conditions of this contract were, and they made up their accounts in accordance with it. The blacksmith, Albert Racine, had a right to $4.60 per day of nine hours. He made up his account from his book with the greatest care. No question whatever was raised as to the number of days charged; and taking his schedule of wages stipulated by the government and deducting from these wages $105 for passage going and coming and $250 for board, at the rate of board agreed upon, this blacksmith had a right to a balance of $246.46. He had a clear right to recover that amount from those contractors. He has a right at law to recover it, I have no doubt, in spite of the agreement he has signed; but outside entirely the consideration of that agreement, it was for the Department of Labour, which had been duly notified, to see that the government contract was carried out. The claim of this man's brother, also a stonecutter, Camile Racine, amounts to $1,308.05, and there is no dispute as to the number of days. He charges $5 per day of eight hours, and he allows the contractor $321 for his board. There was coming to him a balance of $211.60. Another brother, a stonecutter, had a claim also for about the same balance. As soon as these facts came to my knowledge I communicated to the Labour Department. I have here all the correspondence, which I am ready to submit to my hon. friend the member for Yale and Caribou, and from that correspondence it results clearly that contractors were not paid at that time. The Department of Public Works had a large balance on hand then coming to the contractors. I notified the Department of Labour of this condition of affairs, and I received the answer that every possible attention would be paid to the claims of these three workmen. I


Frederick Debartzch Monk: also communicated at the same time with the Department of Public Works. I did so in order that that department would lay mose accounts, if necessary, before the contractor, and I notified the Department of Public Works that I had placed these claims, which seemed to me incontrovertible, in the hands of the Labour Department. I wrote several times to the Department of Public Works that these claims would be placed in the hands of the contractor and that justice would be done, and that there was a balance coming to the contractors amply sufficient to pay these claims. I wrote several times to the Department of Labour and have the letters here and the answers I received. I called attention to the justice of these claims and the circumstances I have just related, and asked that the department should carry out its duty to see that the fair-wage schedule be carried out with regard to these three workmen. After I had waited a very long time without receiving any information at all, as to the progress made in the settlement of this claim, I received at last a communication from the Department of Labour, if I mistake not, communicating


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) proposes to refer to any special letter from the Department of Labour I would prefer that he should read it. These letters are not sent by me, but by my officers, and I would like to know to what the hon. gentleman refers. I think he will find that the decision was given by the Department of Public Works.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have here several letters from the department of my hon. friend. If he desires, I will read them. One is as follows :
Department of Labour, June 16, 1902.
Sir.-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 13th instant re claims of Alfred Racine and Camille Racine against Viau & Lemoine for $213.08 and $211.60 respectively for wages alleged to be due in accordance with schedule inserted in a contract for the construction of a post office at Nelson, B.C.; also a copy of the agreement made by Viau & Lemoine with Alfred Racine and Camille Racine, and copies of the claims of these two men, giving details of the hours worked for contractors, amounts paid, &c.
In reply, I desire to inform you that these claims will receive immediate attention.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,


W. L. MACKENZIE KING.
[Stage Direction]
Deputy Minister of Labour. P. D. Monk, Esq., K.C., M.P.,
58 St. Francois Xavier Street,
Montreal.
That was in answer to a letter in which I sent these claims, duly attested, to the department.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I understood that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk)

was going to read a letter saying how fhe case had been finally disposed of, and by what department. I have not heard- that. I do not know from what department the letter came to which the hon. gentleman refers, nor do I know its tenor.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have that letter here also. Here is a letter from the Department of Labour:
Department of Labour, Ottawa July 10, 1902.
Sir,-I am in receipt of your letter of July 9,th, addressed to the Minister of Labour, in reference to the claims of the three Racine brothers against the contractors for the construction of a post office at Nelson, B.C., and asking that the department give this matter its immediate attention.
In reply, I beg to inform you that the secretary of the Department of Public Works, in a communication addressed to the Deputy Minister of Labour, has stated that he has written to the contractors concerned laying before them the claim of the brothers Racine, and asking on behalf of the honourable the Minister of Public Works, a full explanation. He has stated also that he would forward to this department the statement of the contractors in the matter, as soon as it is received.
On receipt of this statement from the Department of Public Works, I will communicate with you at oniee. and in the meantime I am notifying the department of your further inquiry in the matter.
I have the honour to he, sir,
Your obedient servant,


R. H. COATS,
[Stage Direction]
Acting Deputy Minister of Labour. F. D. Monk. Esq., K.C., M.P.,
58 St Francois Xavier Street,
Montreal, Que.
I received also the following letter :
Department of Labour, Ottawa, July 21, 1902.
Dear Sir.-With farther reference to our recent correspondence re the claim of the three Racine Brothers against Viau and Lemoine, contractors for the Nelson post office, I beg to inform you that I am in receipt of a communication from the secretary of the Department of Public Works in which he states that he is now in a position to bring the matter before the minister for a final decision. As you may happen to know the minister is at present absent on a tour of inspection and it may be some little time before he returns to Ottawa.
In the meantime, however, an application on the audit office for the payment of an estimate in favour of Viau & Lemoine amounting to $700 has been stopped pending the minister's decision.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Acting Deputy Minister of Labour. F. D. Monk, Esq., K.C., M.P.,
58 St Francois Xavier Street,
Montreal, Que.
I read this because, as the minister will see by the terms of this letter the decision of this matter, instead of being vested in the Department of Labour, seems to be vested in the Department of Public Works- an anomaly to my way of thinking, because
it seems to be that in a case of this kind it would be for1 the Department of Labour to give a decision before which the other departments would naturally bow as being the decision of the department interested principally in seeing to the carrying out of the fair-wage schedule. My hon. friend has asked me to give him the last communication I have received in this matter. I received the decision, in accordance with [DOT]the letter of Mr. Coats which I have just cited to the committee, not from the department of my hon. friend (Hon. Sir William Mulock), but from the Department of Public Works, which, according to me, had no jurisdiction in the matter at all. If my hon. friend the Minister of Labour and his department had done their duty, I have no doubt that these men would he paid to-day. For it is quite natural that the Department of Public Works, whicli had nothing to do with the matter except to pay the contractors, should have arrived at the decision that the contractors were to be paid, in view of the abstinence from interfering on the part of the employees of my hon. friend (Hon. Sir William Mulock) I received the following communication from the Department of Public Works :
Department of Public Works,
August 11, 1902.
F. D. Monk, Esq., M.P.,
Montreal.
Sir.-The honourable the minister authorized me to communicate to you his decision in the case of the claim of Camille Racine and Alfred Racine for wages as stonecutters in connection with the erection of a post office at Nelson, B.C. This decision is embodied in a letter of the honourable the minister to Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King, Deputy Minister of Labour, a copy of which letter is hereto attached. Let me add that the engagement signed by the Racine Brothers is dated Hull, June 20, 1901.
Believe me,
Respectfully yours,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
And here is the decision, a decision which I submit to the committee was rendered by the wrong tribunal. The tribunal that had jurisdiction in this matter was that of my hon. friend (Hon. Sir William Mulock) especially created for the labouring men circumstanced as these three claimants were circumstanced. The letter giving the decision is as follows :
Office of the Minister of Public Works of Canada Ottawa, August 11, 1902. W. L. Mackenzie King, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
My dear Sir,-Re claim of Camille Racine and Alfred Racine for wages as stonecutters in connection with the building of post office at Nelson, B.C.
I find that these gentlemen had made a written engagement with Viau & Lemoine, by which they agreed to accept 33 cents per hour. They have been paid according to their engage-
[Stage Direction]
memt. In other words they have made a contract which they are asking me to set aside. I shall certainly not do so. I cannot possibly interfere with Viau & Lemoine and oblige them to pay the Racine brothers more than these gentlemen had agreed to accept.
Truly yours,
(Sgd.) J. ISRAEL TARTE.
Hon.   H@: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend (Mr. Tarte) says * hear, hear.' But this decision, coming from a department which is not specially-charged with the protection of the labourer, may not appear surprising. It is not surprising to me, 'because my hon. friend is not a lawyer and is not presumed to have knowledge of conditions existing in another department, and is not presumed to know that at the time of the signing of this contract there w-as a special wage stipulation in favour of these men which it was not in the power of the contractor, I say, speaking as a lawyer, to set aside. Any contract made by a contractor in violation of his principal contract with the Department of Public Works, in so far as this particular aspect is concerned, was a contract against public order and void. That is my contention, and I have no doubt that the courts in the province of Quebec would so interpret it. This disposition contained in the fair-wage clause, to which is annexed the fair-wage schedule, is a condition of public order, and any contract made by a contractor with labourers, be they eastern or western, in violation of that, is a contract against public order and, ipso facto, is null. Therefore, the contract invoked by the Department of Public Works against the claim which was lodged by these three men in the Department of Labour is void, and would be so declared by the courts of my own province, and I have no doubt by the courts of any province ; because I believe it is the law in every province that every contract against public order is null and of no force or effect. Now, what X complain of is that, although for more than three months the Department of Labour was in full possession of these facts, had the accounts of these labouring men in its hands, it does not seem to have been able to take one step towards securing the rights of these labourers, but had allowed the contractors to be paid in full for their contract without exacting from them the fulfilment of that clause which the Department of Labour was specially obliged to see enforced. I say that if the Department of Labour does not see to the carrying out of this fair-wage stipulation in government contracts, what is the use of the department ? I say, moreover, that the other departments of state have no jurisdiction to decide this question, neither the Department of Public Works or any other. Under the law, as I understand it. questions of this kind are vested for decision in the Department of Labour, and it is impossible for that department to shirk Mr. MONK.
its responsibility in the premises by saying : Oh, the decision has been rendered against us In some of the other departments. It was for that purpose that I asked my hon. friend, at the beginning of this discussion, what the policy of his department was, and I understood him to say distinctly that the policy of his department was to try and see that the fair-wage conditions Were carried out ; but that if, forsooth, the labouring man and the contractor choose to stipulate a low' rate of wages, as in this case, an unfair and unjust rate of wages was stipulated, then the Department of Labour would not interfere. My hon. friend said that that was very astute reasoning. But there is no astuteness about it at all. That is what my hon. friend said, and it is that policy he has carried out in this case. I say we have just right to complain, before we vote this amount, at the way in which this matter was managed in the department of the hon. gentleman.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I was Minister of Public Works when the claim of the Racines was presented. I do not agree with the description of the powers of the Department of Labour given by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I would certainly not have allowed the Department of labour to manage the affairs of the Department of Public Works when I was at the head of it. I was very glad indeed often to avail myself of the ability of the officers of the Labour Department. I think they will agree with me that we worked very harmoniously indeed, and I did not hesitate cheerfully to work with the Department of Labour from the very inception of the organization. The way we proceeded was this: When a contract was to be awarded the schedule of wages was [DOT]submitted to the Department of Labour and prepared by them. The contract was signed according to that schedule, and when so signed the administration of the work remained and must remain under the Department of Public Works. When there are difficulties the Minister of Public Works tries to adjust them, and I have on several occasions been only too glad to avail myself of the services of Mr. King especially. On this occasion the Racines presented their claim. I do not remember whether it was presented directly to me by them or to the Department of Labour.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It was presented to both departments simultaneously.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, I think my hon. friend interested himself on behalf of these men, if I remember right, I received a letter from him. I think they are electors of his. However, these claims were investigated with a great deal of care. The Racines are intelligent men, living. I think, in Cartier-ville, near Montreal. They made an arrangement by which they were to receive a cer-

tain amount per hour, as well as their travelling expenses and other advantages. They made a special bargain. After having investigated the case, I came to the conclusion that, as they had signed a contract, which was a fair one, they were well paid. I did not think I was justified in setting it aside. That is the position in two words. Now, the Department of Labour lias been made acquainted with the whole situation, the position has been discussed, and I think the Department of Public Works and the Department of Labour are jointly responsible for the decision that has been rendered. In other words. I rendered a decision, and no representations were made to me by the Department of Labour that my decision was wrong. That decision was communicated to the Department of Labour, and no complaint was made about it. The Department of Labour, I say again,- cannot possibly administer the affairs of the Department of Public Works. If the two departments attempted to work jointly in that direction, they could not do it. I have been long enough Minister of Public Works to be able to state that it cannot possibly be done. The Department of Labour, is a kind of advisory board, and very useful. Surely no Minister of Public Works, having respect for his position, would allow any other minister to come into his department and decide matters over his head. So long as I was there, nothing of the kind was done, and nothing of the kind was attempted. Again, I say that the officers of the Department of Labour have been very useful indeed. In the Racine case, I think both my decision and the decision of the Department of Labour-for that is what it amounted to- were fair and right.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know that my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was here when I gave the details of this case.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I was not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I want to tell him that I was not attacking his department.


Joseph Israël Tarte: We are discussing a pretty important question. The question is whether the Department of Labour should have the right to direct the affairs of the Department of Public Works. That is the case in two words.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, that is an important point. I wanted to say to my hon. friend that in defending his department which I was careful not to attack, he has, I think, extended that defence to the hon. Minister -of Labour and I do not think the hon. Minister of Labour has as good a defence as the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works.
The ' POSTMASTER GENERAL. If I were an ex-minister it would be very good.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps. I think the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's, has given away the ease as to the hon. Minister of Labour, because my hon. friend says that he rendered this decision, carried it out, and paid the contractors and there was no remonstrance made whatever by the Department of Labour. That is just what I find fault with. I can understand that a minister at the head of a department which is not particularly charged with the interests of the workingmen and who really does not know all the details of the fair-wage schedule for the enforcement of which we have created a special and an expensive department-I can understand that a minister at the head of such a department might say : I find a contract between a contractor and a labouring man, tbe contract is sufficient for me, if they have agreed as to wages, I see no reason for stopping the pay of the contractor. It is here that the duty of the Department of Labour begins, because, I lay it down as a principle that this contract made by tbe contractor with these workmen is a contract which is against public order and as such it could not be invoked against them. That is the law in the province of Quebec, and I am pretty sure it must be the law in the other provinces also. Therefore, there would be no valid agreement, these men have been deprived of this $700 or $800, the contractors have heen paid in full and it is the fault of the Department of Labour. Why is it when the Department of Labour had these accounts in its possession that there was no question raised whatever as to the amount payable to these men when the Department of Labour knew perfectly well that the only way the contractors could get paid in fraudulent avoidance of this contract was to invoke this secret contract made by them with these workmen in the east ? Why did not the Department of Labour intervene and make representations to the Department of Public Works in order to secure the rights of these men ? That is the real point and what has happened in these three cases lias probably happened in tbe case of every one of the labourers employed by these contractors. I have no doubt whatever that they took all their labourers from the east. The hon. member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) shakes his head. Is he prepared to -say that there were only these three labourers taken from the east ?


William Alfred Galliher: I am prepared to deny tlie hon. gentleman's statement that in ail probability all tbe labourers were taken from the east, because, living there. I know that some of the men employed live in that town and were paid the scnedule rate of wages. You would not get men out thereto enter into a contract such as these men entered into, regardless of whether they would be doing men on the ground out of a job or not. and who are now- coming to the hon.


IlEVISEI) EDITION COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
member for Jacques Cartier asking for assistance and sympathy. They entered into this contract knowing that this schedule of wages was the schedule of wages paid to men living out there, and knowing that the contractors could not procure men for less than those wages. Yet, of their own accord they entered into this contract regardless of whether they were doing men on the ground out of a job or not. I do not agree with the principle of importing men from one province into another to do work. I entirely disagree with it. X think it is a principle that should not be followed. If there was a way of preventing contractors from bringing men from the province of Quebec to British Columbia, I should be only too glad to see it applied.
Joseph Israël Tarte: That would be a very difficult thing to do.


William Alfred Galliher: I say if there was a way of doing that I would he glad to see it applied, so much opposed am I to the practice of contractors who may get contracts, taking their men from wherever they may reside and employing them on their contracts in another province. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) tries to evoke sympathy for these men


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who is talking about sympathy ? I am not talking about sympathy; I am talking about money.


William Alfred Galliher: Or money either. I will not argue the question of law with the hon. gentleman. I do not know what the decision would be in the province of Quebec in a case of this kind, hut, these men, if their contract is null and void as between them and Lemoine, have their recourse against Lemoine. It is not a question at all of classing them in the same way as if the contractor had gone to the city of Nelson where the building was being put up and had attempted to employ men there and to coerce them into hiring at less than the schedule rate of wages. About the agreement which these men entered into, I do not pretend to know anything, except what is specified in the contract which the hon. gentleman has read, a contract entered into by these men with their eyes open to all the facts and regardless as to whether or not they were doing any other mien out of a job.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very much obliged to my hon. friend, because I think he has made the case very much stronger. When the hon. gentleman says that no man in Nelson, British. Columbia, would think of working for the wages stipulated for by these men lie makes the case much stronger.


William Alfred Galliher: I will not allow the hon. gentleman to put words into my mouth. What I did say was that the contractor c uld not get men in Nelson to work for those wages.


William Alfred Galliher: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That makes the case very much stronger.


William Alfred Galliher: For the simple reason that they would not be allowed by the union to which they belong to do so. If that is any advantage to my hon. friend he is welcome to it. That is a statement of fact.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That makes the case very much stronger, because it show's clearly on the testimony of a gentleman living out there that these men were employed at a most unfair rate of wages and therefore they a re right in claiming the rate of wages stipulated by the department of government that made the contract.


William Alfred Galliher: That brings up a matter that I should answer.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to get through as 1 have not much more to say. I do not agree with my hon. friend that we should only give work to labouring men at the place where the contract is being executed. If a Canadian is a good workman it does not make any difference whether he comes from the province of Quebec or from any other province. If a contractor is executing a contract in the province of Quebec we will be glad to have workmen from the province from which my hon. friend comes. I believe the minister is a lawyer, hut he does not ansv'er my objection that this contract was null and void as against public order. The hon. gentleman says that these men entered into this agreement knowing all the facts, but that is a gratuitous assertion because I began by stating that it was only when they had reached Nelson that they found that they had a right to $4.50 or $5 per day.


William Alfred Galliher: There is a statement in the agreement you have read that it makes up to $5.00 a day. How do you answer that ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I answer that by saying that these men did not know that they had a right under the contract made by Lemoine & Yiau to $4.50 a day. It was the contractor that inserted that clause but he did not tell these men. I am stipulating a low rate of wages with you but under the contract I have made with the government I am bound to pay a higher rate. It is there that the Department of Labour should have come in but failed. Everyone who is familiar with the ways of these contractors knows that when they have a chance they make an agreement of this kind with the labouring men. These contractors made a most profitable contract with the government, and they made a most profitable contract with the labouring men whom they imported from the east. Upon these three claims alone Messrs. Yiau & Lemoine pocket-

ed $800 which they wrung from these labourers.


William Alfred Galliher: Viau & Lemoine's tender was $25,000 lower than the lowest local tender, and so far from making money they lost money on the contract.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will take my hon. friend's word for that, but there is no doubt whatever that when they signed that contract on the 1st of January, 1901, for $49,900, they had before them this fair-wage schedule and they must have calculated that they would pay blacksmiths $4.50 and stonecutters $5 a day. There is no doubt that if they were allowed to pay their labouring men half the fair wage rate they could have tendered at a lower price. It was the duty of the Department of Labour to see that justice was done to these men and we have a right to criticise the neglect of the Department of Labour to do this justice.


William Alfred Galliher: I must still disagree with my hon. friend with regard to being willing to see labourers coming from one province into another. He may he broader in his views than I am, in this respect, but so far as I am concerned, when a public building is being erected ini'a province-I will confine it to a province and not simply to a town-and when there are workmen in that province and particularly in the town where the work is going on who are willing and capable of doing the work, whether rightly or wrongly, I believe that these workmen should have the preference over workmen from another province. That is the principle I go on. I like to see the home man who spends his money in the town and who is building up that province, get work in that town when he is competent and willing to do it. Of course if there is a scarcity of labour there could be no objection to labourers coming from another province, or If a labourer comes in from another portion of the Dominion of his own motion and gets work, I have not a word to say. But I have a word to say against the labourer who contracts as these labourers did contract down here, to give their services at a lower rate than men were entitled to who lived in that province and were ready to do the work. Now, there was a consideration for these men signing such a contract. In the first place they were to be kept on during the continuance of that work and so the contractors were practically insuring them a job for the time during which the work lasted, which might be a year or a year and a half. There was the other consideration which to my mind is a minor one as compared with that, and that is that their passage should be paid each way and their board.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And a chance of viewing the scenery.


William Alfred Galliher: Yes, and the scenery of British Columbia is well worth being viewed by any one. Further than that, some of these men, after coming out there jumped their job.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not these men.


William Alfred Galliher: I am not speaking of these men, but some men who came from the east did jump their job and that is why I presume the $50 was to be retained by the contractor until the end of the work. It was not like the case of men going out there without any consideration and accepting less than the schedule rate of wages and where they just simply cut in for the purpose of undercutting the wages. There was a substantial consideration given them and some of them no doubt went with the object of getting a trip to that province, and they could work when they went there or quit, just as they liked, and were in no way bound.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How does the hon. gentleman explain, that counting in every thing they got, they were still $200 short of the wages they would receive if they had been paid according to the schedule ?


William Alfred Galliher: That might be explained by the consideration of the men receiving a steady job for a year or a year and a half.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Permanent employment ?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes, and that is a very important consideration to men out of work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They would not be employed after the work was done.


William Alfred Galliher: No, but they would have work for a year or a year and a half and they would have an opportunity of getting a little taste of the scenery and the social qualities of that beautiful province.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It seems to me that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) has missed the point, and that is, that under this Bureau of Labour employers and employees may contract themselves out of the obligation in the schedule rate.


William Alfred Galliher: The Minister of Labour has answered that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of what value is the schedule if it may be evaded by the contractor ? The case has been most admirably presented to the Minister of Labour by the toon, member for Jacques Cartier. The Department of Labour was warned before the contractors were paid off, that these men were short $200 or $300 each of the amount they would have received had the schedule of wages provided for in this contract been paid to them. Surely if a contractor signs a contract with any department of government and that contract contains a schedule of wages, the

contractor cannot afterwards employ men in violation of that schedule at a lower-rate ? No matter how steady the work to the men may be, that is not a consideration which should induce the Department of Labour to withhold enforcing the terms of the contract. The hon. member for St. Mary's issued his flat. He ignored the schedule. He said : ' These men have made an agreement with the contractor, and they are out of court so far as I am concerned.' Why did not the hon. minister take up the cudgels on behalf of the men if the schedule was to be of value to them ? If the contractor can sign himself out of any obligations which the schedule imposes, what is the value of the schedule 1


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: How I would have dealt with this case if I had been here and if it had been submitted to me, I will not now state, because that would be a mere theoretical statement. But I would certainly begin the consideration of such a question with the desire, and if possible, the determination to allow no departure from the terms of the contract, including the schedule price of labour. The particular case in question, as I have stated, occurred in my absence, and I had not heard of it until to-day. At the same time,
I recognize the governmental responsibility, and in that spirit must take the responsibility of all that occurred in this particular instance. What would be the proper way to deal with such a case would be a serious question for consideration. I agree with my hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Gallilier) that in this particular instance these workingmen were not very considerate of the interests of the workingmen of the west, when they chose to throw away the protection which the department was endeavouring to throw around workingmen everywhere, and make a secret contract which conflicted with that which the government had tried to make for them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman state that they were aware that they were 'entitled to receive the wage scale of the schedule ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I began by stating that they knew nothing of the conditions of the contract with the government. They found those out when they were out there.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If they did not know about the schedule, how could they contract themselves out of it? They made a special contract. I do not know the terms of that special contract; but it is fair to assume that in making it these men knew all about the schedule.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, no. The hon. gentleman must accept the statement of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He will not ta ke the responsibility of saying


Edward Frederick Clarke: that these men knew nothing about the schedule.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They made this agreement at Hull without knowing anything about this schedule. They found it out when they reached British Columbia, and when they came to my office they asked me if it was possible that such a thing could exist.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the hon. gentleman knows that of his own knowledge, I accept his statement ;* but I am inclined to think that he was misinformed. The contract was advertised and the schedule was public property, and the workingmen of Hull know full well the practice of the department in regard to such matters. These same contractors have had several other contracts with the government. It is well known to the working people of Canada, not only in Hull, but everywhere, that it is the policy of this government to establish a schedule of wages which is part of the contract itself.


Joseph Israël Tarte: All our works are under schedules.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. minister takes that view of the case, it is high time that the men who are working for fair-wages should be protected against conduct of that kind.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We are discussing at present the probabilities of these men having any knowledge of the schedule. I say it is most improbable that they did not know that there was a schedule. The workingmen of Canada all know what the present government has done in this respect, and they know it,
I am sure, gratefully; and these men, who chose to make this special agreement, made it. in my opinion, knowing full well what their rights would be in the absence of such an agreement. My hon. friend the exMinister of Public Works a moment ago mentioned to me that he now recalls some of the circumstances which induced these men to make this special agreement, and not to take the benefit of the schedule.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not understand that.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Perhaps my hon. friend will announce to the committee the statement he made to me a moment ago. If they made that special arrangement, it satisfies my mind that they knew very well whait they were doing. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is an hon. gentleman learned in the law, a jurist of great note in his province, a professor of law and an eminent practitioner, and he has laid down in the most unqualified language that this alleged waiver is literally void. If so, why has he neglected so long the interests of his clients and not taken out suits against these contractors to co n-

pel them to pay compensation to these men? If these men have rights, why has he not, as a zealous counsellor, taken steps to prosecute those rights ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How does my hon. friend know that I have not done so?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then, what is his grievance?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The law's delay.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Why has not my hon. friend made use of that great learning of his to secure to his friends their rights? I hope it will be made known to them that he has, on the floor of parliament, as their representative, as a professor of law, a lawyer, an eminent man, a man of knowledge, alleged that on all these authorities they can absolutely rely on recovery without a shadow of doubt, if the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who knows the methods of the law, would only move his hand and put the majesty of the law in motion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the hon. Postmaster General if it is not his duty, if he believes that a scaile of wages should be fixed-and I understand that he has an officer for that special purpose

to protect those men who believe they should have that scale of wages ? Whait effect will it have on the labour market if the hon. minister neglects just such cases as those which have been presented to him by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier ? Admitting his contention that these men. knew that schedule and violated it, what effect will that have on the rate of wages in British Columbia and everywhere, and on those who believe in the schedules and desire to have the wages of the schedule paid to them ? How is the hon. gentleman protecting their interests ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman has a habit of asking a large number of questions and expecting an answer, and then standing his ground. If he wishes me to interrupt him to answer his questions, I will do so. It is the duty of the department to protect the workingmen in respect of their rights arising under the schedules. Not only is it our duty, but we perform that duty. I do not know what decision I would have given if this case had been referred to me; but I should have begun the consideration of the question with a judgment in favour of the schedule. But this case has been disposed of; it is out of court, so far as the government is concerned. No good purpose will be served by my expressing an opinion on this particular' case. My hon. friend the ex-Minlster of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was supreme in his sphere. As Minister of Public Works, he was one of the contracting parties, and nothing could take away from him the right to determine the merits of claims arising under that contract. He was head of his department, and while he might consult the other ministers, it was for him to finally determine how he would wind up his contracts with the contractors. Whether I would or would not have agreed with my hon. friend, I could not say, as I am not sufficiently familiar with the facts; but I consider that it was very improper for those three men, knowing their duty towards their fellow-workingmen in Nelson-it was a very improper and unbrotherly act for them to have sought to underbid their fellow-workmen in the Nelson market in the manner they did. It may be that my late colleague felt they had no claim on his sympathy, and left them to that unerring law, which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier says will give them a remedy, if they only choose to set it in motion. '


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. minister has been made aware of the conduct of the contractors, and he reiterates, in the face of the solemn assurance to the contrary of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, that the men knew all about the schedule. He thus refuses to accept the statement of my hon. friend.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 accept the statement of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that these men told him they knew nothing about the schedule, but that is only hearsay evidence and is not conclusive ; and drawing an inference from the circumstances, I am inclined to believe that they knew fully what their rights were.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Notwithstanding the statement of my hon. friend from Jhcques Cartier, that these men,were not aware of the schedule and the rates of wages to which they were entitled if they worked at Nelson


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: How could the hon. member for Jacques Cartier know it ?	'


Edward Frederick Clarke: < Because I presume he has the testimony of these men. The hon. minister has no testimony whatever to the contrary, and yet he assumes that these labouring men were not telling the truth. But now that he has had his attention called to the methods which have been and may be adopted by men prepared to work under the schedule rates and by contractors prepared to evade the terms of the contract made by them with the government, how is he going to protect the fair-wage men in the future ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot conceive of any set of circumstances which could induce me to allow a contractor to evade his contract.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is to allow the men to contract themselves out of the contract and the contractors to avoid its obligations.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL. .: 1 did not say that I would allow the men or the contractors to avoid the contract. What I said was that I cannot conceive of any conditions which would induce me to allow a contractor to escape the payment of his schedule rate of wages.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Since the hon. gentleman's attention has been drawn so forcibly to the avoidance of the schedule rates in the Nelson contract, will he see that provision is made to prevent contractors from contracting witli men to do work for less than the schedule rates ? Surely that is a fair proposition, if be desires to enforce his fair wage schedules.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: As we go on in the world we learn more. There is nothing perfect. There is no legislation which astute people will not find means to evade. If any weaknesses are found from time to time in this or the other legislation, it is our duty to remove them ; and it may not be unreasonable to devise some measure such as my hon. friend refers to. His suggestion is one worthy of consideration.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am much obliged to the hon. minister. If these schedules are to be of any value, they must be lived up to. That is a proposition which the hon. minister will not dispute ; and if methods are being devised by contractors to make greater profit out of their men than their contracts allow, surely the matter is one that ought to be attended to without delay. Evidently the legislation providing for these schedules is not perfect, and I think my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is entitled to the thanks of the working men of Canada for having drawn the attention of the minister so forcibly to this flagrant breach by certain contractors of their contract with the government.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have no desire to unduly take up the defence of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour. He is well able to take care of himself. But I must repudiate the insinuation that in deciding as I did, I was in any way endeavouring to help the contractors to evade the schedule which was inserted in this contract. The case was submitted to me in a very clear way. Those three brothers were anxious to take a trip west. They, like many others, were in search of gold. The wages granted them were higher than those paid in the east, and they agreed to go for those wages. My hon. friend from Jacques Carder has been informed by them that they did not know that there was a schedule attached to the Nelson contract. My hon. friend, of course, has received his information from the three Racines ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the hon. gentleman acquainted with these three brothers "


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am not, except in a literary way, because I have received a great many letters from them and in their behalf. They were all employed in the same time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The blacksmith was employed some time after the others.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I understood that they would be employed all the time the work was being carried on, which was a great advantage. They were anxious to go, and I understood, when their case was presented to me, that they had gone out hunting for gold. I gave a decision. If that decision was not a legal one, I have no objection to its being reversed now.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I decided to the best of my knowledge. I had the written contract under my hand, the conditions were explained to me, and I thought them sufficient to justify me in giving a decision in a certain sense ; but if it is going to be the law that, under no consideration or condition, the schedule wages will be disregarded, I have no objection to having my decision changed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: All the same it is a pretty hard rule, and I am afraid we are going very far. These men are intelligent men. They must have known that there was a schedule, because the Department of Public Works has been carrying on all its work under schedules. That was well known.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Advertised.


Joseph Israël Tarte: All works have been advertised. There is not a work, I think, that has not been carried out on the schedule wages. AH the same, these men may have ignored the rule. Let my hon. friend (Mr. Galliher) make some exceptions to what he said. He expressed the belief that when a work is advertised in British Columbia, or Manitoba, or Ontario, or Quebec, only local men should be employed. That is not a sound Canadian rule.


William Alfred Galliher: I did not say what my hon. friend from St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) attributes to me. I was speaking of the circumstances under which these men were employed. When men go out to British Columbia in search of work and are employed, there can be no objection to that But when men contract at a lower rate than the regular rate to go out to British Columbia and engage in work there for the purpose of depriving other men-or at least with the effect of depriving other men-of work at fair wages. I say I do not want to see men from outside given work in the province of British Columbia under such circumstances.


Hon.   H@: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher), if I understood him well, was echoing the sentiments and opinions of his province to a very large extent. I have received protests on many occasions from our British Columbia friends against the employment of men from other provinces. Such a doctrine should not be entertained in this parliament. If there are labour troubles in British Columbia, let me say, without making any personal allusion, that, in my opinion, they are due, to a very large extent to the fact that politicians are catering too much to prejudice. I do not make any personal allusions. But when even members of parliament are found supporting the doctrine, that only British Columbians should be employed on these public works that is going pretty far.


William Alfred Galliher: I did not say so. I made no such suggestion. Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) rise and say that my statement was to the effect that men from other provinces than British Columbia should not be employed under any consideration ? Was it not to the effect that men should not be brought from one pro-ince into another under the conditions under which these men were brought into British Columbia ? And will the hon. gentleman say that I am wrong in that ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I accept the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Galliher). It is very clear. But I say I have received protests from British Columbia against the employment of eastern men, even for regular work, such as telegraphers and men of that kind. And the labour troubles of British Columbia, I say again, are due to a very large extent to prejudices entertained by people who, in my humble opinion should give other advice. British Columbia is in bad shape to-day. There are labour troubles all over. Instead of encouraging them, it seems to me we should give sound advice, and it is not sound advice to encourage prejudices. However, the Racine case is under consideration of the Department of Labour. And, if my decision has not been right, I shall not cry if it is reversed.


William Alfred Galliher: I feel satisfied that when the hon. gentleman from St. Mary's division referred to telegraphers he was striking at me.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, not particularly.


William Alfred Galliher: The hon. gentleman says he is not striking at me particularly. I am prepared to be put on record as saying this-that where there are appointments to be filled on telegraph lines in British Columbia and there are competent men resident in British Columbia to fill those positions, I want to see those positions filled by British Columbians rather than by Ontario men. And I say that if this were the ease of a work in the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario, if vacancies were to be filled in the staff operating tel'eL graph lines, the hon. gentleman would not send to British Columbia or anywhere else for men to fill them. That is my view.


Joseph Israël Tarte: In Quebec we employ men from all parts of the country without asking whether they are English or French, without asking whether they are from Quebec or whether they are British Columbians or Ontario men.


William Alfred Galliher: I am not raising any question of race. But I do say, Mr. Chairman-I may be wrong, you may call it narrow if you like-that where there are positions to be filled in any province, the men who reside in the province, if they' are capable, the men who spend their money in the province and help to keep up the province, should be appointed. I say that not of British Columbia alone, but of any province.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The money spent on British Columbia works is not British Columbia money ; it is Canadian money. The principle which has been supported in British Columbia is false, it is bad ; and I take this opportunity of saying again that I have received protests from public men, from members of parliament


William Alfred Galliher: Yes, from me.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Not only from my hon. friend (Mr. Galliher)-he must not take everything I say to himself alone. I have received protests-it seems incredible-from members of parliament, from public men, from labour associations, asking me to dismiss men because they did not belong to British Columbia-for that reason and no other. They contended that only' British Columbia men should be employed on these Canadian works. That is a false doctrine, a bad doctrine, one that should not be encouraged. If we are going to go province by province, then city by city-Montreal against Quebec ; no Toronto men in Montreal ; no Montreal men in Toronto. Let our British Columbia friends rise a little higher ; they are capable of it.


William Alfred Galliher: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) should not refer to me in such a remark, because I have never asked the dismissal of a man because he is not a British Columbian. But I advocated as strongly as I knew, how the appointment of British Columbians in preference to eastern men. That is as far as I went, and I think the hon. gentleman will bear me out.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Hear, hear.


Arthur W. Puttee: Coming back to the question of the contract, I cannot agree with the decision that the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) came to in this case, because it seems to me that it Is

weakening altogether the principle adopted by this parliament. The effect of two or three decisions of that kind would be to notify contractors that the schedule was not to be taken seriously ; and when you come to that, you might as well do away with the trouble and bother-yes, and the pretense-of having any schedule at all. Now, what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte), really did was this-he allowed these parties to make a contract setting aside the contract he had entered into on behalf of this government. It seems to me that is a wrong position for him to take, on the face of it. The object of the second contract was to get beyond the provision of that wage schedule. The purpose was to enable the contractor to make money


Joseph Israël Tarte: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Puttee) allow me a moment ? Would he be prepared to say that the schedule prices should have been paid to these men besides ail the expenses of their trip ?


Arthur W. Puttee: No.


Joseph Israël Tarte: That is what I want to know, because that is the case after all.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, not by any means.


Arthur W. Puttee: I was going to mention that. I have no sympathy with men, especially intelligent men, who, understanding that there is such a thing as protection in the contract for them, will deliberately sign such a contract as these men signed* I accept the statement, as a matter of fact, of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), but I want to say that intelligent stonemasons in this country do know of this matter. I am perfectly well aware of that ; and I have found other men who, knowing this, have gone and made arrangements with contractors for taking a lower price, believing, I imagine, that they can, through writing to members of parliament and getting their good offices, and through using the Department of Labour, get afterwards these higher prices that they have contracted themselves out of. I have no sympathy at all with such men, although I am aware that in other branches of labour men are often led to do this ignorantly, through not reading the papers before them to sign. I have no sympathy at all for a man that will deliberately go and enter into these underhand agreements with the expectation afterwards of being able to get the rate guaranteed in the schedule. But because of this difficulty, we are not going to recognize the practice of contracting out. The whole matter was before the minister at the time he made his decision, and I say that I do not agree with the decisioii he came to. It seems to me that it would have been fair to make an estimate of what these contractors should be paid in the way of railway fare and board, and deduct that from the amount of Mr. PUTTEE.
this claim, and then give these men the balance that was coming to them. But contractors should not be able to make money by making any agreement with men below the rates mentioned in the schedule. You have got to lay down the principle once for all, and as soon as it is laid down, contractors will be governed by it, knowing that these schedules are to be recognized as closely as any other specifications in the contract.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me that the question to which the Minister of Labour has attached so much importance is not an element at all to determine cases of this kind. According to what the minister said this afternoon it would have been .sufficient, in the agreement which I read, for the workingmen to state at the foot of the agreement that he entered into it knowing that it does not correspond with the fair-wage schedule. It would be possible, therefore, for labouring men to contract themselves out of the fair-wage clause without having any recourse left. From what the Minister of Labour says, the moment the contracting labourer knows of the fair-wage clause and he chooses to contract himself out of it, he has no recourse.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I never-said anything like that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is what it amounts to. The minister stated repeatedly this evening that if these three men knew there was a fair-wage clause and they chose to make this contract, he thought the decision rendered could not be appealed from.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I never uttered anything open to such an interpretation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then the Minister of Labour-does not think that the knowledge by the labourer who contracts himself out of the fair-wage clause is an objection to his obtaining recourse, and that is my opinion. That is the opinion at present of the Minister of Labour. It is easy to conceive circumstances where a labouring man, being in want of work, although he knows the existence of the fair-wage clause, will make a contract with a contractor willing to give him steady work say for two months for $1 a day, when he knows that under a clause of the government contract he would be entitled to $2. Even under those circumstances, that man has a recourse, and it is for the government to see that he is paid the full amount of his wages, although he contracted to serve for $1 a day. Otherwise it is no use trying to carry out these clauses at all, they are nothing but a delusion. Now, in regard to these three men, I wish to say this, that I do not think the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal, knows them. They are all skilled workmen, though they are uneducated. I have a letter from one of

them written in French, which I would be willing to hand to my hon. friend, and he will see that the writer is an illiterate man. They heard when they reached Nelson that they had a right to higher wages. They carried out their contract, and on their return to Montreal they came to my office, as they live in my constituency, and asked me to write the Department of Labour to find out if they were not entitled to higher pay under the fair-wage schedule. These were not the words they used, but they understood there was a stipulation in the contract made by the government with Yiau & Le-moine by which they were entitled to higher wages. The minister will find in my correspondence that I did make that inquiry, and when we got the facts from the Department of Labour we made our claim. They never knew of this fair-wage clause, and I do not think there are many labouring men, even stonecutters or blacksmiths, who know anything about the fair-wage clause.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have a higher opinion of the intelligence of stone-tnasons and mechanics than my hon. friend. The fact that the government inserts a fair-wage schedule in contracts I think is generally known by the mechanics of Canada. The policy has been in force for some time, it was begun some years ago, and has been gradually adopted by one department after another until now it is the policy of all departments. Of course, it is easy to be wise after the fact, but I ithink that in dealing with a case of this kind one should avoid giving inducements to violate the spirit of this agreement. A workingman who knows that the government has taken the trouble to try to secure him a fair wage, and who deliberately disregards that arrangement and adopts another course calculated to injure his fellow-workingman, takes a course that I think does not appeal to one's sympathy. They do an unbrotherly act in invading the labour market of others and trying to under-bid their fellow-workingmen. If they choose to go to that other market and sell their labour at the market price, that is another thing. After this question was brought to my attention to-day I began to consider how it should be dealt with, and I will mention one method that occurred to me. I think there should be no possibility of a contractor gaining by disregarding the schedule. I am not aware whether contractors, as a rule, or at all, attempt to evade the terms of the contract.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would my hon. friend allow me ? I remember very well that the contractors stated to me that they had not disregarded the schedule of wages, because there were advantages attached to the arrangement which were an equivalent for the deduction in the rate of wages. I remember that was one of the considerations that induced me to make these people stand by
their agreement. Let my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier inform himself about these men. Let me tell him that these French Canadian artisans are just as bright as those of any other race. They know all about the schedule of wages.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What were the special advantages they were getting under this arrangement that they would not have had under the schedule ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The special advantages were that their travelling expenses were paid.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That was taken out of their wages.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I know ; but they had not money to go up there. They were anxious to go. Of course, I state what was reported to me. They were anxious to go, and that is the reason why they made a special agreement. There were three of them. It cost a certain amount of money to go out there. The contractor agreed to pay their trip. It was a large amount of money. I do not remember whether the return trip was paid or not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, it was paid out of their wages. How does my hon. friend know that they desired to go out there ? The contractors stated that ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, it was stated to me.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did the hon. gentleman hear the men as well as the contractor before he came to a decision ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, the case was stated to me by my friend from the Department of Labour, and I think I got a letter from the hon. member for Jacques Cartier too. I gave a great deal of attention to the case. Of course, I do not know whether I have been wrong in the interpretation of the law, or whether the contractors had any right whatever to depart from the schedule. Perhaps I have been wrong.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I was going to say that in a matter of this kind there should be no inducement to either party to depart from the schedule. As to a private stipulation for contracting out. the rule adopted may not be sufficient. I think that precautions should be taken to prevent a contractor gaining from such a stipulation. The pressure will always come from the contractor. He will get a contract, which on its face requires him to pay a certain rate of wages. He will make his calculations accordingly and if he is successful in getting the men to work at a lower wage he thereby makes an undue profit. It may not be unreasonable to have a clause in the contract that if it is disclosed that in any case the contractor did not pay the schedule rate of wages he should lose that amount and by that amount his contract price should he reduced. I do not say that

that would be a proper remedy in all cases, but it would have the result that when the settlement was made he should not be permitted to gain by inducing the workmen to contract out of the schedule. My deputy informs me that in a large number of cases applications have been made to the department on behalf of the workmen and that in some sixty odd cases, in fact in every case except the present one, the department was instrumental in securing to the workmen the schedule rate of wages. This is the only case where the schedule was not enforced literally and it may be, that, as the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) says, the men obtained the equivalent of the schedule rate. At all events, that was the suggestion of my hon. friend in dealing with the case, so that it appears after all that he was, in his judgment, endeavouring to live up to the spirit of the agreement by seeing that they got what he deemed to be substantially the schedule rate. Of course, if a large sum of money was advanced to these men to take them across the continent and they did not work it out I do not know what remedy the contractors would have. These are doubtless very honourable men who would not have broken their contract, but there are instances in which travelling expenses have been paid in advance and have not been worked out and in that case the contractor would be the loser. The contractors in this instance have run the risk. Whether they did run a real risk I do not know. I assume the contrary because we are told by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that when they reached Kaslo they learned what the schedule rates were and they, notwithstanding, proceeded to work. It might be supposed that if their employers were with them at the time when they learned what their rights were they would have made a demand upon their employers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They would have been fired probably if they had done so.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That may be an explanation for not doing it, but Ordinarily when a person discovers that a wrong has been done him he is ussually found asserting his claim at an early day.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would the hon. member for .Jacques Cartier tell me how long these men have been employed out there ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to say that if these questions are to be decided not by the Department of Labour but by the department interested in the contract it would possibly be better before coming to a decision to hear both parties. They began work-this is one of the accounts-on the 4th September, 1901. They worked through September, October, December, January, 1902. February, March, April and May.


Joseph Israël Tarte: They complained only when they came back here ?


William Mulock: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I stated that they became aware when they were out there, probably by contact with other workmen, that they were getting less than the others. They came to my office and asked me to find out what were their rights. I wrote to the department to find out their rights as I did not know myself any more than they did. Then I got the schedule and found, out the conditions and they made their claim.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There will be no hope of stopping this kind of business unless the hon. minister penalizes the contractor every time he does anything of this kind. According to the statement of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier these men were not compensated to the extent of $200 or $300 each, which compensation was due them if they had been paid the scheduled rate of wages. I would suggest to the hon. minister that if this matter is not finally closed he should take steps to collect that sum for these men.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I think there is a sum of money due the contractors yet.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. minister wishes to give evidence of a bona fide desire to establish a fair rate of wages he will see that an effort is made to secure to these men the money that is due them.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the hon. gentleman suggests that I am not giving a bona fide desire to establish a fair rate of wages simply because of that isolated transaction occurring, the hon. gentleman does not to my mind make a fair suggestion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Now that the hon. gentleman has had his attention drawn to the matter I am sure we will only need to remind him of the fact, that, as the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works says, there is some money due to these contractors, to secure his intervention on behalf of these men. It is a serious matter, and I think a violation of a contract made between the contractor and the Department of Public Works should be visited with some penalty. It would be a deterrent to some other contractors from doing the same thing and it would save the hon. gentleman's department possibly from a great deal of criticism. The hon. gentleman made the statement in the earlier part of the evening that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House had objected to the remuneration paid to persons who act as correspondents of the ' Labour Gazette.' I would ask the hon. gentleman when that complaint was made and who made it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I understand that in the session of 1901 some hon. gentleman opposite took the attitude.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister made a very much stronger statement earlier in the evening.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I said exactly then what I said now.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister then said that members on this side of the House objected to the amounts paid to these correspondents as being too large, and that since we had changed our minds and were advocating higher wages now.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I said that I understood hon. gentlemen on the other side some time ago took exception to the salaries of the correspondents as being too high, and that now they took exception to them being too low.


Mr.   CLARICE@: The minister will be able to say who made such statements ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I was not present at the time, but, that is what I understood.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman does not know of his own knowledge ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I never said anything different from what I say now.


Mr.   CLARICE@: The minister stated that these correspondents sent in a lot of tabulated statements with schedules of statistics. \Vhat becomes of them when they are sent to the department ? Are the reports made up from the statistics, or do the correspondents send the letter press as we have it published ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They fill up the schedules with such observations as they seie lit to make, and their observations are edited by the department for the purposes of the ' Gazetted


Edward Frederick Clarke: The editor of an ordinary newspaper has very great latitude and he publishes what he thinks desirable. Do those who edit the ' Gazette ' change in any particular the reports sent in ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The exact language Is not used because it may not be proper for publication, but the substance of the reports is adhered to strictly and the originals are on file.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I see Mr. Phillips Thompson makes a very elaborate report for July, Is this printed just as he sent it in ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. Thompson is an exceptionally good correspondent-


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am not disputing that.


Tlie POSTMASTER GENERAL.: And his reports are so well worded that it is rarely that there are any variations from the originals.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the July report printed just as Mr. Thompson sent it in ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am not able to answer categorically the question, but the hon. gentleman may rely upon it that it is substantially his report.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How often are these fair wage schedules made up ? The minister knows that the conditions are continuously changing and the cost of living is increasing rapidly throughout Canada.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: On the occasion of each schedule being prepared, the department informs those, and fills up that schedule from information up to that time.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that the duty of the fair-wage officer ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How does he obtain the information ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: As a rule he visits the locality where the work is going to be performed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I want to draw the attention of the minister and his deputy who is present, to statements that have been made during the past two or three days by a number of our fellow subjects who have come out from the old country. I refer to certain Scotch moulders who have been induced to come out here as they allege under false pretenses. It is a very serious state of things, and one that should be put an end to at the earliest possible moment. The ' Montreal Star ' of yesterday, the ' Toronto News ' of yesterday, and the Toronto papers of to-day contain statements respecting the treatment which these men have received. There is also a statement from the Canada Foundry Company as to the way they have been treated. It is a serious matter, if, as alleged, lpO or 170 moulders were induced to come out to this country under false pretenses and are now making arrangements in Montreal for the purpose of securing then-passage back to the old country. Should these Scotch moulders go back in the state of mind that they apparently are now in, it will certainly give this country a black eye, and we ought to have some report from the minister or his deputy as to what steps have been taken to inquire into the grievances Which these moulders claim they labour under. I read in yesterday's Toronto * News ' a telegram from Montreal as follows :
Montreal, Que., July 21.-A committee of ten, representing the Scotch iron moulders who were brought to this country to work for the Canada Foundry Company, at Toronto, is in the city making arrangements to have the whole party of 170 men taken hack to the old country.
They claim they were brought to Canada under misrepresentations. It was represented to them that a colony was being founded at Toronto, and big works established, and they had no idea a strike was on. there. They say

they practically had to fight their way out of the works.
On the steamer coming out they were told that a strike was on. and, after stormy meetings. decided to go to Toronto and see how the original representations compared with circumstances,
The Montreal 'Star' of yesterday under a large type heading ' Indignant Scotch Moulders ' ' to sue government officials for $50,000.' Says :
There is considerable excitement among the iron trades men of this city to-day, as a result of several of the iron moulders that were brought from Scotland to work in the Canada Iron Foundry, at Toronto Junction, where there is a strike on, arriving in the city.	.
The mem were taken to 132 St. James street, the headquarters of the Iron Moulders' Union. Among oihers were Messrs. Thomas Robertson, of 90 King street, Govan, Scotland, a native of Saltcoats, Ayrshire, and John Thompson, 115 Brighton street, Govan, Scotland.
When seen by a ' Star ' reporter, Mr. Thompson made the following statement :-
'We have had some desperate fighting since we left Glasgow, and to say that we have been grossly deceived is putting it mildly. We were engaged by Mr. William Laurie, of 322 St. Vincent street. Glasgow, Scotland, to work in the Canada Iron Foundry, at Toronto Junction. This man made a declaration to us that there wras no strike on in Canada. He said that h** wias co-operating with the Canadian government immigration agents in securing skilled mechanics for the Dominion of Canada where there was a great scarcity of labour of all kinds.
Large posters were put up all over the town advertising for 22,000 skilled mechanics to go to Toronto, Canada, where there were great extensions of work in progress, and where a new colony was being founded. All kinds of inducements were held out to us. We were to be given a home free, and our wages was to be $16.50 per Aveek, of fifty-five hours, and we were guaranteed two years' work, and they promised to bring out our wives and children.
When we 'were a few days on the ocean Ave were informed by a man named Graeme Hunter, that he was also co-operating with the government agents in securing skilled mechanics for Canada ; that there was a strike on at Toronto, and that we would be expected to put up a great fight against the strikers if necessary. We did not know Avhait to do. but resolved to go on to Toronto after we reached Quebec. There were 170 of us in the party, and we made it interesting for Hunter and the other agents all the way from Quebec to Toronto. Th'e train did not stop at the Toronto station.. We were run -into the Avorks by a side track, like cattle, where there were tents erected for our accommodation.
We were then informed of the true situation. We absolutely refused to go to work, whereupon the officials refused to give us our baggage. They tried to make us go to work by threatening us with being throA\rn into prison for having disregarded an agreement. Th*v used the police, but we fought our way out of the Avorks and we marched to the Toronto Iron Moulders Hull. Some of our party were pretty roughly handled, but none of the men were seriously injured, except Robertson. Avho w'as nearly chocked to death.
We were praoticailly prisoners from Quebec to Toronto, and we were almost, hounded to death.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We were no! allowed to talk to any person. The agreement was that the company was to keep $37 out of our wages for our passage. We cannot condemn the immigration policy of the Dominion government too strongly. All kinds of deceiving advertisements are distributed throughout Scotland, and there is now, no doubt, but the old country people are being led astray. Many of them are being brought to this country under false pretenses. We intend to take an action against the government officials as Avelil as the company tor $50,000 damages. We have our written contract specifically stating that there Avas no strike on in the iron foundries at Toronto.
There will be a mass meeting of the Iron Moulders Union to-morrow evening at 132 St. James abreet, when the whole situation will be discussed. The Scotchmen will be at the meeting and they Avill produce the agreement and all papers in connection with their trip to Toronto.
The Scotchmen are bright, intelligent workmen. They are thickset and appear to be very poAverful.
It seems to me, in view of the conflicting statements^ made, the one by the Canada Foundry Company, and the other by these men, that it is the duty of the Department of Labour, if it has not done so, to begin an examination of the conditions and of the statements made by both parties. It would be a matter to tie regretted if men should be induced to come to this country under false pretenses, especially as it appears that these men are going to return home. I would ask the hon. minister if he has sent his deputy, or his fair-wage officer, or any other officer, to Toronto or Montreal to ascertain whether these statements are well founded ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: I would draw the attention of the hon. minister to this fact, that these men evidently feel that they have been deceived, and that they are labouring under a grievance. The fact that they have elected to go to the premier of Ontario surely is not sufficient to warrant the hon. gentleman in withholding his hand ? I do not for a moment affirm that the statement made by either of these parties is correct. But it is a matter of vital importance, 1 submit most respectfully, that the officers of the department should ascertain from these men, who are about to leave Canada and go back to Scotland, their side of the case ; and then it would be the duty of the department to ascertain whether their statements are well-founded, and whether their grievances are as alleged. If, in view of the statement we had the other evening from the hon. Minister of the Interior, it can be established, as these moulders allege, that the government immigration agents in the old country are promoting and assisting this immigration under false pretenses, it is surely important enough to justify the interference of the hon. gentleman and his department. This movement is branching out and assuming more serious proportions, and the hon. gentleman should not hesitate to interfere and ascertain what the facts of the case are-who is in the right and who is in the wrong. In view of the policy enunciated by the hon. Minister of the Interior the other night, it is due to that hon. gentleman that the officials of his department should be absolved from the charges made against them by the Scotch moulders,
i
if they are not guilty of those charges. I have pointed out the serious effect that these statements will have on immigration. If these men are permitted to go back to Scotland and disseminate these statements as to the treatment they received from the government's agents in Scotland, and from those with whom they came in contact on shipboard or on this side of the Atlantic, l need not point out to the hon. gentleman that they will certainly have a depressing and serious effect, and I think he would be justified in inquiring and ascertaining all the facts and informing the people of Canada and the people of the old country as to the true condition of affairs.


Arthur W. Puttee: This matter has acquired more than local importance ; and if the hon. Minister of Labour has not been asked by either side to interfere or conciliate, I think it would naturally be expected that the Labour Department would at all events keep track of the events that are happening in Toronto at the present time ; because we have evidently reached a crisis in dealing with labour matters in Ontario. I believe the minister will find it to be a matter that should be brought before the heads of other departments, notably, the Interior Department and the Justice - epartment. I have read the statements to which the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has called attention, and have taken the trouble to find out to what extent the complaints are well founded. There is one thing I am pleased to see, and that is that both sides in this case are laying the whole matter before the public. The men especially have taken great pains from the start to see that full information is given, and they took the very sensible step from the beginning of forbidding any of their own members picketting or besetting the premises included in the strike. There are several statements in the newspapers to-day, which I have ascertained to be true. One is that the county police have been instructed to arrest all men found around those premises. One result has been that two or three days ago three men, recently in the employ of the company, happened to be in that vicinity, and were taken in charge by the county police and rushed into the premises of the company. They were kept there several hours and then removed to one of the sub-police stations. On application being made for their release, the reply was given that they could not be released because no charge was made against them, and therefore it was not possible to bail them out. Later on a charge was made, and they were removed to the central police station. At 9.30 p.m, some friends of theirs wanted to bail them out, but they were told that it was contrary to custom to let men out after dark, so they were kept in jail all night. The next morning they were charged before the magistrate on an amended

charge, as the original charge was not properly made out, and they were then let out on bail. There is another matter to which I would call attention. The Noble Detective Agency has its men all around the works, following, watching, and besetting all men in any way connected with, or who have been in the employ of the company. These men are intimidated by the detectives and prevented doing things which they have a perfect right to do. As this is purely a labour trouble, the hon. minister should have these matters carefully watched and reported on to the Justice Department. The tact that a contract was made in the old country to bring these men out is a matter or public notoriety. That kind of thing has been oping ou during the last nine months very frequently, but during the last two years intermittently. During the earlier part of this session a large deputation of the Trade Congress of Canada, representing every province, waited on the government and urged it to pass an anti-contract law. But in this matter, as in every other, when the labouring people ask for an anti-contract labiur law, the impression is given foith that they are objecting to immigration of nil kinds. I wish distinctly to contradict that statement. In asking the government to pass an anti-contract labour law, they are asking it to do what lion, ministers have often admitted should be done. They have admitted that men snould not he en-cmi-aged by misrepresentations to come to Canada. Such contracts should be made illegal. The ordinary intelligent Canadian labouring man thoroughly appreciates the fact that when an Immigrant comes here and becomes a producer, he also becomes a consumer, but what we object to is bunging out workingmen under false represent^-tians ; to compete with the same class in our cities and towns. There is another department for which the hon. Minister of Labour could get some, information. In the interview with the First Minister of Ontario. I find this little passage :
As to protection, Mr. Barnett of the local union said they had met the employers In order to try and settle the dispute, and the employers asked the men to support them in I '^'-r agitation for a higher protective tariff, Mr. Barnett answered : * Why should we do so : You will not help us to protect labour, why should we help you to protect capital ?
I am told that there has been a movement going on during the last nine months to fl od our cities with artisans and mechanics, in order to have a glutted labour market and thus bring pressure on the government to raise the tariff. This is being done by the Manufacturers' Association which is fighting the battle of this foundry company and they are being sustained by the National Foundry Association, which is an international organization. What object have they in fighting us in this way ? Is their object


Arthur W. Puttee: not also to congest the labour market, to make what they are pleased to call a fluid labour market, so that many will be without employment, and then they can turn around and say that what is wanted to give employment is more protection and a higher tariff. In this dispute which is now on in Toronto, there are a good many things concerning which the Labour Department should inform itself and in which it should not wait to oe asked to interfere. I am told that lorty citizens of Toronto, some of them with their families, have already crossed to the United States, and that in their places are these men who were brought from the old country, and who would be glad to return if they could get the price of their passage. To my mind, while an old country immigrant is a good immigrant, our Canadian people are the best people to keep in the country, and to have an organized movement driving our own men out and getting a more unstable population in, is injuring not only the province of Ontario, but the whole Dominion. This question is not a mere local one. It is a big contest with the International Association of Employers. This association sent over at the start from twenty to thirty men, contrary to the provisions of the Alien Labour Law. Why is that law not enforced ? This national association of employers keeps a hand of men, professional strike breakers, and brings them from Duluth and New York, and erects tents for them inside the foundry grounds and keeps them at work. Citizens of Toronto, who have gone on strike, cannot proceed against those men because they do not know their names, and we have the law violated by a large body of men who are supposed to be our best citizens. That matter should be looked into, and closely followed up. I claim that we have a right, while the Alien Labour Law is on the statute-book, to have it enforced. For myself, I am prepared at any time, if the hou. minister will oppose the repeal of that law, to vote with him, and to propose to the minister the introduction of an anti-contract labour law, to prevent workmen being brought here under contract to labour. There is no need for the introduction of such labour, and it is not brought here for any proper purpose. In the strike in Toronto all these features are found. As was stated in the paper to-day. when these old countrymen were brought in the cars in which they were were run within the company's works, and when they wanted to get out on Monday morning, they had to fight their way out. The police were there and the men had to fight their way out. And their baggage was stolen. Everything that has happened around these works for the last few days is having the effect of exciting and inciting men to riot. Tins is the natural effect of what is being done by the people who have lock-d-out their men; in fact, all the officials of the

719S
company, even aided by the police. That is the proper interpretation of their act when they deliberately force men to light their way out of the works-it is inciting to riot. There is no doubt that, if they are given time they will succeed. A large body of men cannot be expected, however peaceably disposed they may be, to remain impassive under irritation of this kind. It is important that the minister should keep close watch on the proceedings in Toronto until this matter is settled and get full and authentic information as to the various steps of what has occurred so far.
Miscellaneous-Department of Labour, allowances to correspondents, printing and stationery (including printing of ' Dabour Gazette), travelling expenses, &c., and $500 each for an accountant and French translator, which sum may be paid to any one in the civil service notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $33,450.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: According to the Auditor General's Report the department spent only $32,213 for the year ending June 30th, 1902. How is it they need so much this year ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It has bc-en usual to take an appropriation of $50,000 a year, but in no instance has this been required. Whatever is not used lapses. Ir. the fiscal year just closed there is a considerable lapse, and I trust there will be the same on the present vote. But the expenses of the department naturally increase. For instance, we have the ' Labour Gazette,' the printing of which is to be paid for out of this appropriation. The circulation has increased. At present I think it is between 11,000 and 12,000. It was established in August, 1900, so it will soon have completed its third year. There is a slight revenue from it, but not much-. Then, the committee *will remember that parliament this session has passed an Act under which the department may in tow me in railway labour disputes. That is another responsibility and duty placed i j:on the department. Whether it will involve any expense or not no one can tell. I trust that the railways of Canada will be free from labour disputes, but should they arise the expense will be provided for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But why does the department require such a large vote when the Auditor General's Report shows a relatively small expenditure ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That only show's that it is quite safe to trust us with the larger sum. We return directly ail	is not wanted.


Mr. CLANCY.: What is the subscription price of the ' Labour Gazette ' and how many are subscribed for ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Labour Gazette can be obtained by annual
subscription or by separate copies. The annual subscription is 20c. and the price per copy 3e. There is a subscription list of between seven and eight thousand, besides a considerable free list. All members of parliament receive free copies, and public libraries throughout the country, boards of trade, &c., are also on the list.


James Clancy: What is the revenue ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It would be 20 cents each on a subscription of between seven thousand and eight thousand ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Last year it was $1,000.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That would show a subscription list, then, of about 5,000 copies.


James Clancy: What is the cost of producing it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It costs more than that. The amount is given in the Auditor General's Report.


James Clancy: I was not asking the Auditor General, but the Postmaster General.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: r can get it and look it up.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Are there no advertisements in connection with the ' Labour Gazette ' ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


Mr. INGRAM.: As the items of the Labour Department will soon be passed, 1 would ask for an answer to a question I put with regard to the salaries of the British Columbia Labour Commissioners. I wished to know the date of beginning and the date of closing and the amount paid to each commissioner.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The commission was composed of Chief Justice Hunter and the Rev. Mr. Rowe. Chief Justice Hunter was paid $40 a day and Mr. Rowe was paid $35 a day. The secretary of the department was the Deputy Minister of Labour, who was not paid anything except his travelling expenses and the sum of $5 a day by way of indemnity to cover miscellaneous disbursements. The stenographer was Mr. Giddins, who was treated in the same manner, and allowed $5 a day for items of expenditure. The officers of the department left here on the 22nd of April and reached British Columbia in due course, going without a break to Victoria, where they put themselves in communication with the commissioners who immediately organized and published advertisements in the local press announcing the intention of the commission to begin the sittings. * Having given a few days' notice they commenced sittings in the first week of May and continued at their work, engaged either in taking evidence or in pre-

paring the report, without the break of a single day. They worked continuously from the time they began until the second week of July. Then the officers returned to the department, reaching here on the 18th of July. The cost of the commission, has not yet been ascertained. The hon. gentleman can figure it out to a certain, extent so far as these items go. But there is another large item to be paid for yet, that is the cost of publishing the report, and perhaps the evidence. The report is a voluminous one, covering about 170 pages of foolscap typewritten. There is also a vast amount of evidence, I am told over 3,000 pages. So if the evidence is also printed, it will involve a good deal of expenditure. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman thinks it would be advisable to publish the evidence. But as to the report, it is the intention to issue it as a supplement to the ' Gazette,' and for that purpose some 11,000 or 12,000 copies will be required. Other copies will als i be required,- and an order has been given for 15,000. I think it will be very instructive in regard to some of the causes of the labour troubles that have prevailed for som? time past.


Samuel Hughes: Why not give us some of the causes now ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The report is in the hands of the printers, I have not seen it yet. It reached here on the 18th of July. I felt that the best course to adopt would be to have it printed at once, and as soon as it is printed I will lay a copy upon the Table of the House. I have not yet been able myself to read through the report, although the deputy has stated to me a good deal of the substance of it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are we to understand that from the 22nd of April to the 18th of July inclusive, the commissioners received at the rate of $40 and $35 per day ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They will only be paid from the time they began their work.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is from the first week of May to the last of June.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: From the day they began their work until they concluded it. I am sure that Chief Justice Hunter and the other commissioner could not think of charging any more than they are entitled to, and the Order in Council states specifically the amounts they are entitled to receive.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not saying they would. I presume they would not. But taking the statement of the hon. gentleman that they commenced sitting as a commission from the first week of May to the close of June- I would like to get the accurate dates if I could.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The deputy informs me that the commissioners left Victoria on the 28th of April to commence their work. They had previously had a meeting to organize and authorize the issuing of notices to the public. Speaking from memory, it was on the 28th that they left Victoria and proceeded first of all to Ladysmith, and thereafter to other places where the commission sat, and they were engaged continuously from that time, and from the 30th of June onward to the 8th of July. The fact that during that period they had taken down about 3,000 foolscap pages of typewritten evidence shows that they were pretty well occupied. They ex a mined over 100 witnesses, to say nothing of the time devoted to hearing the arguments of counsel.


Andrew B. Ingram: So we may conclude they began on the 28th of April and closed on the Stli of July. The point I want to get at is, did they receive payment for the time between the 22nd of April and the 28th of April, and between the 8th of July and the 18th of July, at the rate of $40 and $35 a day ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Their p>ay will cease on the 8th of July.


Andrew B. Ingram: And they did not receive pay previous to the 28th V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They have not been paid anything yet and will not be paid anything before the 27th of April.


Andrew B. Ingram: Now with respect to publishing the evidence, of course I expected the department would publish it. if any suggestion I can make would be of any service I would simply say that we have spent a very large sum of money iu sending out these commissioners for the purpose of making an inquiry, and if it has been made simply for the purpose of making a report from that evidence, I do not think it will be satisfactory at all. Having spent a large sum of money for the purpose of securing that evidence, if the evidence is to be of any advantage at all, we should be in possession of it in order that we may judge as to that report these commissioners have made upon the evidence. I would like to see the evidence published and circulated amongst the members of this House at all events in order that we mfiy have it for future reference. I am stating my own mind in respect to this and not speaking for any person else. I would like to know from the hon. minister if the department have made up their minds to publish this evidence or not.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: [DOT] I have already intimated that the case is a very important one, that the report is of very great value and it would almost follow from that statement that it would involve the pub-


William Mulock: lication of the evidence itself. The question of the printing is a serious one and it may be that the Printing Committte of the House would deal with the subject when I lay a copy of the evidence upon the Table. I think the evidence would have to be published.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that not rather an extraordinary proceeding ? Here is evidence produced as a result of investigations made by the head of the department. Other departments have their departmental reports prepared and submitted to parliament. This is a labour department and it is necessary for it, when evidence of this kind has been taken, to come to parliament and ask the Printing Committee of the House if the evidence shall be printed and circulated ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman forgets the arrangement. This expenditure for the committee is under a special vote for this particular purpose.


Andrew B. Ingram: Asked for by the department ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No matter who asked for it. It is not a sum voted to the department. It is a sum voted for this commission only. The department have a copy of the report of the commission and they intend to make use of that report and publish it as a supplement to the Labour Gazette, and if $10,000 is sufficient to pay for a copy of the evidence, then there would be no objection to its being ordered to be printed. But, if it is found that it is not sufficient the question of cost arises as to how it shall be paid for. The hon. gentleman need not be at all concerned upon this subject. I am sure it would be printed either by the department or the Printing Committee of this House.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the order of business for to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Railway Commission Bill will be taken up tomorrow as the first government order, and it will depend on how long it takes whether we shall reach supply later on.


Haughton Lennox: Has the Railway Commission Bill been printed and circulated amongst the members ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand so, but I have not seen it myself.


Haughton Lennox: I have not seen it yet.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the hon. gentleman looks up the files he may find that it has been printed.


Haughton Lennox: It will be very inconvenient to take it up if hon. members have not had an opportunity of looking it over.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I quite agree that we could not expect to go on if the Bill has not been reprinted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is in the post office tonight.


Haughton Lennox: Even if it is reprinted we should have some time to look it over.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would hope that my hon. friend would not prevent some consideration being given to it to-morrow. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) who was associated with the late hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) in some of the hearings and is familiar with most of the matters, will take it up and if it be found that there is anything requiring further consideration I am sure he will be willing to give an opportunity for that. The reason I am anxious to have it advanced is that the Senate has very little to do and it has even threatened to adjourn. If we are able to advance that Bill it will be an accommodation to the Senate and that is a very important matter.


Haughton Lennox: I am not desirous of obstructing the matter, but I think if we had the Bill in our hands for a short time before its further consideration is proceeded with it would facilitate its passage.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps there are some portions of the Bill which there will not be great difficulty in proceeding with. As to any matters which will require further consideration perhaps there will be no objection to allowing -them to stand


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly-


Robert Laird Borden: We might proceed with it on that understanding. I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance whether the resolutions on the Order paper will be taken up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Railway Bill will have priority. If we reach these resolutions we may take them up at a later stage. It will depend upon the time occupied by the Railway Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. and House adjourned at 12.35 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 23, 1903.