1904-08-05

Mr. C. PARMELEE moved :: That the Joint Report on the Printing of parliament be concurred in.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I would ask the chairman of the Mr. FIELDING.
.CORRECTION OF AN ERROR IN 'HAN SARD.'
Mr. :SAM. HUGHES. There is another matter. I notice in reading a report of some remarks of mine in the ' Hansard ' of the other day that there was a mistake in some figures I gave the House in relation to

the tonnage of Canada. The mistake may have been my own. I gave the tonnage of Canada in round numbers as 2,000,000. In fact, the tonnage of Canada is less than 1,000,000. I wish to make this correction.



THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for :
Further consideration of resolution reported from the committee of the whole respecting the proposed amendment to the Inland Revenue Act.-Mr. Brodeur.
Mr. R. A. PRINGLE.: Mr. Speaker, I feel a very great hesitation in rising at this late stage of the session to discuss this matter. However, it strikes me as a matter of the greatest possible importance and a matter which we have not now time to thoroughly discuss before the session closes. I have read with considerable interest the report of the commissioner, Judge MacTavisli, in connection with this matter. In this report the commissioner jrresents certain findings. The findings are briefly as follows :
The contract system complained of by the petitioners does in fact exist and is in general use in the cigarette and tobacco trade in Canada.
That the provisions of the contracts in question are not illegal under the common law or any statutory 'law heretofore enacted by the parliament of Canada.
That the manufacturers of cigarettes and of Canadian tobacco other than the American and Empire Tobacco Companies, are at a very great disadvantage in the distribution of their goods and in the prosecution of their business generally by reason of such contract system.
The extent, to which legislative control over the freedom of contract should be exercised, and how far the rules of trade can be interfered with by statutory enactments, without injury to the public interest, are, in the opinion of your commissioner, questions of policy for the consideration of parliament.
I assume that action is being taken on clause 3 of this report that :
The manufacturers of cigarettes and of Canadian tobacco other than the American and Empire Tobacco Companies are at a disadvantage in the distribution of their goods, and in the prosecution of their business generally by reason of such contract system.
It is proposed by this legislation to place in the hands of the lion. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur) the power to cancel the license of any of these manufacturers if he considers that they are contravening the law as laid down in this resolution. I say that that is a most extraordinary- power to place in the hands of one man, practically making him the sole a-biter as to the business of these corporations. To my mind it leaves room for the grossest corruption because this will leave it- in the power of the hon. minister to say to these large manufacturers :	I care
not what your contract is, I care not what
eminent counsel may say as to its coming within the law, I am the sole judge as to whether the contract is within the law or not, I say it is not within the law and therefore I cancel your license. That is a power that should not be given to any one man. I regret exceedingly that I was not present yesterday when this resolution was discussed. Let me say frankly that I am in favour of any legislation which will properly control and regulate the combines which are being formed unquestionably in this country, which have been formed in the United States of America and Which we find to-day existing in free trade England, but I am not in favour of any such legislation as that which is now before this House which will give to one man the absolute power to control these different manufacturing industries. It is unnecessary for me to say that this question of combines and trusts is a very large question. It is a question which has taken the attention of the statesmen of Great Britain, a question which has taken the attention of the statesmen of other countries. We find to-day in Great Britain the Imperial Tobacco Company, a tobacco company with a larger capitalization than any tobacco company existing, and doing business in any other country. The Imperial Tobacco Company' was composed of twenty different manufacturing firms. Its capitalization is 820,250,000. Yet, that company is not restricted in the methods by which it chooses to do its business. In order to get at this matter intelligently I think it is necessary for us to go back a little. Let us go back to 1897. In 1897 there was very little Canadian tobacco manufactured in this country. In that year free trade friends composing the present administration adopted the policy of protection and they increased the duty to ten cents a pound on foreign leaf. The Ef pire Tobacco Company engaged in the manufacture of Canadian tobacco. They invested a large amount of money, they put a great deal of energy into the business, they expended thousands of dollars in advertising and in endeavouring to educate the people to use the Canadian product. They did it against the opinion of men who have been in the tobacco trade for years. I refer to such men as Sir William Macdonald, who always condemned the manufacture of Canadian tobacco, thinking that the Canadian product was hardly worthy of being manufactured, but the Empire Tobacco Company, having confidence in the line they had laid out, having confidence that they could by educating the people get them to consume the Canadian product, invested their money and took their chance of establishing a business nurely in Canadian manufactured tobacco. That business went along fairly well. They went to -the retailers throughout Canada and by the offer of premiums and other

inducements they got the public to use Canadian tobacco. Subsequently they went to the wholesalers and they said to the wholesalers :	We have established a trade
throughout this country in the Canadian product ; if you want to take up that business we will make a contract with you which we think is favourable to you. The wholesalers made that contract and we find in the report of Judge MacTavish that in 1901 there was manufactured in Canada of Canadian leaf over 3,041,687 pounds, as against 600,000 pounds in 1897. That development has been brought about entirely by the energy of and the expenditure of money by the Empire Tobacco Company. The commissioner has not found that there is any monopoly. He has found that the consumer is affected and he has not found that there is any injury to the public. He has simply found that this method of doing business may be detrimental to some of the smaller manufacturers. These manufacturers started with jusit the same conditions as the American Tobacco Company started with. They had the same rights, they worked under the same law, it was open to them to push their business just as it was open to the Empire Tobacco Company, and now that the Empire Tobacco Company have made a success of their business, now that they have increased the use of Canadian leaf to the extent, I think, this year of some 5,000,000 pounds, they are met with the opposition of some small dealers throughout the province of Quebec.
This legislation is most important. It is legislation that should not be brought down in the dying days of the session. I know it is popular to decry trusts and combines, but we are not here simply to obtain popularity by that means. We are here to consider the best possible means of controlling and regulating, if necessary, these trusts, and we are not objecting giving to this important measure that consideration to which it is entitled. If we establish this precedent, next session some other industry, which through brains, skill, energy and capital, has developed a large trade, may be legislated against. While we have to-day an lion, gentleman as Minister of Inland Revenue, in whom we all have confidence, that may not always continue. No doubt the administration of the law will be perfectly safe in his hands, but we do not know who bis successor may be and what use he may make of these powers over the manufacturers of tobacco in this country. I am sorry to take up the time at this late stage of the session, but I have not detained the House at any great length during the session, and I think that when an important matter such as this comes up it is only right that I should express my views upon it. There is nothing in the report of .Judge MacTavish which finds there is a monopoly or that the consumer Mr. PRINGLE.
is affected or that the public are affected. There is simply an insinuation that the methods of doing business by this company arc detrimental to some other manufacturers. Upon that insinuation the government aie attempting to put through this resolution, which will leave in the hands of the Minister of Inland Revenue the absolute control of this large industry. As I have said, these large combines, these large manufacturing firms, exist not only in the protected United States, but even in free trade Great Britain we find some of the largest combines in the world. We find that in the British House of Commons, during the first week in March, 1904. Mr. Austen Taylor called the attention of the government to the recent combine of the Scotch steel makers, whereby a minimum price, with heavy penalties for selling below it, was agreed upon. Mr. Balfour replied :
I am aware of the combine referred to, but the matter is not one which seems to call for any action on the part of the government.
Let us see just what our position in Canada is to-day. We have our criminal code which controls and regulates improper combines.' Let me just refer to section 520 :
520. Every one is guilty, of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars and not less than two hundred dollars or to two years' imprisonment, and if a corporation is liable to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars and not less than one thousand dollars, who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with any other person, or with any railway, steamship, steamboat or transportation company, unlawfully-
(a.) to unduly limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce ; or
(b.) to restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or commodity ; or
(c.) to unduly prevent, limit or lessen the manufacture or production of any such article or commodity, or to unreasonably enhance the price thereof ; or
Id.) to unduly prevent or lessen competition to the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation or supply of any such article or commodity, or in the prices of insurance upon person or property.
These are the provisions of the Criminal Code, and they seem to me to be wide en-cugh to prevent any conspiracy which would be injurious to the public by restraining or injuring trade or limiting or lessening manufacture or production. But we also have the common law in regard to the illegality of contracts in restraint of trade. What do we find in this case ? We find that a manufacturer in the province of Quebec, who felt that he was being hurt by the splendid business ability and the success of the Empire Tobacco Company, invoked

first the Criminal Code. The court held, and held properly, that the Empire Tobacco Company were not in any way infringing upon the provisions of the Criminal Code. Then he took out a writ in the civil courts and endeavoured to show that under the common law these contracts were in restraint of trade. There he failed. The court held that both the American Tobacco Company and the Empire Tobacco Company came within the law and were doing a perfectly legal business. Having failed in the courts, he with others, got this commission started, and they failed to show the commissioner that any wrong was being committed or any injustice being done to the consumer. Sir, before we pass this legislation, which is aimed directly at the American Tobacco Company and the Empire Tobacco Company, and which will place these two companies absolutely under the control of the Minister of Inland Revenue, we should give it the fullest and most careful consideration. The Empire Tobacco Company have done a great deal for Canada. I was amused on reading the evidence of Sir Wm. Macdon-. aid. with rega rd to the Canadian leaf. In his evidence he pooh-poohed the idea of manufacturing from the Canadian leaf. He said that the farmers engaged in that Canadian leaf production might far better be employed in raising wheat, that for his part he used entirely the foreign leaf. But the Empire Tobacco Company, having confidence that they could get our people to raise a good quality of tobacco, went ahead with their business, and at enormous expense they have got the farmers to-day, not only in Quebec, but in Ontario, raising tobacco which is meeting with the approval of the people, as we see by the millions of pounds that are now being manufactured. And what is this gross injustice that is complained of ? The retailer can buy and sell the tobacco of any firm. In any town in Canada you will find ail brands on tht shelves of the retailer. The American Tobacco Company do not go to the retailer at all, but they say to the wholesaler : We have expended a large amount of money in developing our business ; if you sell our goods we will allow you a certain percentage and you can handle any goods you like; but if you want to act as our sole agents in the locality we will allow you an increased commission. In the town in which I have the honour to live, there is the firm of Snets-inger and Company (the name is no doubt familiar to our Liberal friends), and yester-dap Mr. Snetsinger said to me : My firm is agent for the Empire Tobacco Company and the American Tobacco Company. I am selling W. C. Macdonald's tobacco and Tuck-ett's Tobacco and a number of others.


Mr. BRODEUR.: Is it not true that his contract binds him not to sell other Canadian tobacco than that of the Empire Company ? Does it not discriminate against our home product ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: He sells the Canadian tobacco of the Empire Company but he sells the foreign leaf made by other companies. He has a perfect right to sell any other Canadian tobacco, if he is willing to accept two per cent commission, but if he wants to obtain six per cent commission then he can only sell the product of the Empire Company.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Does the hon. gentleman argue that it is fair and just to permit these exclusive contracts and to discriminate against our domestic products.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: It is absolutely fair and just that this company which has expended vast capital in the development of its business, should pay a higher commission for the exclusive services of an agent. That is what they are doing and that is their own private business. That is not only done in the tobacco business but in almost every other business in Canada. You can buy no cottons manufactured by the Canadian Coloured Cotton Company, except from their regular agents in Montreal. If you go to Cornwall or to several other towns you will find only one man selling the Slater shoe, and he is their sole agent. Judge MacTa-vish reports that these contracts prevail in all classes of business, but he says he did not go very far into that question because he was not required to, and, if similar contracts are used in other lines of business why take the American Tobacco Company by the throat and say : I am the Minister of Inland Revenue ; you must be subservient to me ; I don't care who says your contract is legal, I don't like it; I am the sole judge and arbiter and I will take away your license. I object to placing in the hands of any one man the absolute control over a concern which has invested thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars in this country. I am surprised that members on the Liberal benches do not protest against such a proposition. In all fairness, the tobacco company should have the right to appeal. The American Tobacco Company may get the most eminent lawyer in Canada to draw a contract in conformity with this resolution, but the Minister of Inland Revenue can say : I do not care what that counsel says ; I am the sole arbitrator and I will cancel your license unless you do just what I want you to do. It Is unjust to place such power in the hands of any man. The company should have the right to appeal to the Exchequer Court against the order of the minister, or to some other tribunal, and let that tribunal decide on the facts. The objectionable clause in the contract is that which gives the wholesaler an extra commission for being the sole agent for the product of the American Tobacco Company. On that point Mr. Blain

of the firm of Eby, Blain & Co., one of the largest wholesale grocery firms In this country, declares that the contract is absolutely fair ; fair to the wholesalers, fair to the tobacco company, and fair to the consumers. That firm would not handle the goods of the Empire Company unless they knew they were the best goods and the goods the public wanted. Any tobacco manufacturer in Canada can make a similar contract to this, but the trouble is that the rival manufacturers have been conducting their business in an out-of-date way, so that they are not able to compete with the energy of the American Tobacco Company, and so they come to the government asking for this paternal legislation thinking that it will help them out. It was said yesterday that this contract had the effect of creating monopoly, but the evidence does not bear that out. The Empire Company had the courage to go into the manufacture of the Canadian product, and they had many imitators, so that to-day there are a larger number of manufacturers in Canada than there were in 1897. I do not know what business they are doing, but the fact remains that they are there manufacturing Canadian goods when they would not think of manufacturing them prior to the time the Empire Tobacco Company established this trade.
Let me say one word in regard to the American Tobacco Company of the United States. It is unquestionably a large concern with an immense capital ; but, Sir, I can buy tobacco in the United States to-day fifty per cent cheaper than I can in Canada; and yet it is said that that company has created a great monopoly and controls the price in the United States. That company has keen competition in the United States, which has kept the price of tobacco down, and has reduded it from year to year until to-day it is at about the lowest point it has ever reached in the history of the country. Just let us see how this monopoly has been created. I understand that the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue says it has attempted to close out all the other manufacturers. Let us see how we stand in that respect. In 1893, there were ten manufactories in Canada ; in< 1894, there were ten, in 1895, there were ten. These contracts came into operation in 1895, and from that time the number of manufactories of Canadian tobacco went on increasing as follows: in 1896, 11 ; in 1897, 12 ; in 1898, 14 ; in 1899, 16 ; in 1900, 23 ; in 1901, 26 ; in 1902, 26. Therefore, instead of creating monopoly, the Empire Tobacco Company, by its energy and its expenditure of money-and it has expended an enormous amount of money in advertising Canadian tobacco-has not only established a large business for itself, but has increased the number of manufactories in this country by sixteen since starting this exclusive contract system, The number of cigarette manufactories has also increased Mr. PRINGLE.
steadily, until to-day there are seven in the Dominion of Canada.
Now, Sir, I believe absolutely in the freedom of commerce. While I believe that we have the right to do all that is possible to suppress illegal combinations, that the law we now have in our Criminal Code is a wise law and that the common law in regard to contracts in restraint of trade is a sound law, yet I believe that any man who invests his money in any enterprise has a right to freedom of contract. Let me quote from Eddy on combinations, a high authority. In section 62 he says :
Freedom to contract.-The right to contract, to do business unhampered by restrictions and oppressive interferences, is an essential part of the right to ' life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' said to belong to every man. Both courts and legislatures should be, and generally are, reluctant to interfere with the liberty of the individual to make contracts, even though the liberty is often exercised with consequences disastrous to the party and disadvantageous to the public. It is well settled that the individual can trade and contract freely, even to the extent of affecting or controlling the market, provided his contracts-[DOT]
(a)	Are not tainted with fraud,
(b)	Are not against public policy,
(c)	Are not contrary to statute.
Can it be said that these contracts are tainted with fraud 7 Can it be said that that are against public policy 7 Can it be said that they are contrary to the statute 7 I say they are not contrary to the statute. It has been held by the highest court that they are perfectly legal and valid contracts. Let me quote section 70 of the same work :
The final test of validity of both statute and public policy.-Finally, the test of validity of both statute and public policy is the wrong that is condemned. There must be an injury, actual or threatened, to individual or public before the transaction under investigation can be pronounced contrary to either statute or public policy. The wrong is the gist of the whole matter, and this wrong-this threatened injury to the well-being of society-must he of a very tangible character, not vague or speculative. Under English and American institutions the individual is given the largest possible liberty -liberty to waste and dissipate his own resources ; to trade and bargain so as to often acquire in a single venture the entire resources of another ; and even to so conduct his business as to extort large sums from the public at large,-all these things and more may be done, experience having taught the Anglo-Saxon race that those who overreach, who attempt too much, who do business contrary to morals and public sentiment, as a rule in the long run pay for their turpitude. Both the courts and the public are content to let men go their own way -short of things fraudulent, oppressive, wrongful-subject only to those immutable laws of evolution and social progress which sooner or later relentlessly suppress the wrong-doing and sustain the well-doing.
We are undoubtedly commencing to bear about trusts and combinations ; but we bear

of them as things existing in the United States, not in Canada. They are of American growth, but they have not been established here to any extent, and they have done no injury in this country so far as I can see. We are asked-we are not asked, we are practically driven by two or three small manufacturers into enacting legislation against a company formed not with a very enormous capital, with a capital of some $1,000,000, and a company which until last year, as I am informed, never paid a dividend. They paid out enormous sums in educating the people to the use of this Canadian product, and now that they have commenced to pay a dividend, now that they are beginning to reap the reward of their energy and expenditure, we are driven by the other manufacturers who are unable to keep us in the race to pass legislation which will place in the hands of the Minister of Inland Revenue the sole authority to deprive these people of their licenses if he thinks that their contract is not according to the resolution which is now before the House. As to the special elements of complaint in this matter, the special inducements and the exclusive contracts I would refer you to section 191c of this work :
Parties engaged in trade have the right to push their trade by all lawful means, and to endeavour by all lawful means to keep their trade in their own hands and exclude others from participating therein. It is lawful to make profitable offers to attract customers from competitors, and they may induce customers to deal with them exclusively by giving notice that to such exclusive customers only will they give the benefit of their more favourable terms.
That is exactly what they have been doing and I say that it is perfectly lawful. It has been so held in the courts in the case of Mogul Steamship Company v. McGregor, Law Reports 21 Queen's Bench Division 552. It is an English authority and an authority which is directly in line because in that authority they held that they have an absolute right :
It is lawful to make profitable offers to attract customers from competitors and they may induce customers to deal with them exclusively by giving notice that to such exclusive customers only will they give the benefit of their more favourable terms.
That is line for line exactly as the contract is in this case. The company have followed out that decision of the English courts and forsooth because they with their energy and enterprise and money have built up a business under the law as it stood, their competitors now come in and ask this parliament to place it in the hands of the Minister of Inland Revenue to squeeze them out of that business. I can say again it is a most unfair and a most unjust proposition.
There is no violation of law or of public policy in an agreement between two traders that 271
one shall sell to the other all its commodities and the other buy from the former corporation alone.
This is taken from that standard work, Chitty on Contracts, 11th American edition, 982-3 and notes. I may say that I am sorry to detain the House by quoting these extracts from this very valuable work, but, as I said at the start, this is a most important piece of legislation, it is opening the door for future legislation of this sort and next year we may have legislation introduced by which the Minister of Inland Revenue, or the Minister of Trade and Commerce or some other minister will be controlling every manufacturing industry in this country. That is not a position these people should be placed in ; they should not be placed in the hands of any one individual. I am quite ready to discuss the possibility of means for further regulating any of these companies, but I am not willing to have my vote recorded or to sit here and acquiesce in what I consider is most improper legislation.
Section 286 is as follows :
To render a combination unlawful because its object is to defraud, maliciously injure or oppress others, this element of unlawfulness must appear in the agreement constituting the combination. It must clearly appear that the combination was organized for the express or implied purpose of defrauding, maliciously injuring or oppressing others, the wrongful intent must be present. If the combination is organized for legitimate purpose it is legal even though It may, in the prosecution of its legitimate objects incidentally injure and even ruin others.
The only justification for this legislation is that there is an insinuation in the report of Judge MacTavish that these contracts are injuring others, and I say that that is no excuse, because the wrongful intent must be proven.
If the combination is organized for a legitimate purpose, it is legal even though it may, in the prosecution of its legitimate objects, incidentally injure and even ruin others. If it appears that injury to others was not one of the objects of the combination, but was simply an incidental result, the combination is legal. The distinction is drawn by Chief Justice Coleridge, in the Mogul SS. case, as follows -' I do not doubt the acts done by the defendant here, if done wrongfully and maliciously, or if done in furtherance of a wrongful and malicious combination, would be grounds for an action of the case at the suit of one who has suffered injury from them. The question comes at length to this : What was the character of these acts and what was the motive of the defendant in doing them ? The defendants are traders, with enormous sums of money embarked in their adventures, and naturally and allowably, desirous to reap a profit from their trade. They have a right to push their lawful trade by all lawful means. They have a right to endeavour by lawful means to keep their trade in their own hands and by the same means to exclude others from its benefits if they can. Amongst



lawful means is certainly included the inducing, by profitable offers, customers to deal with them rather than with their rivals.
Is that not all that Is being done in this case, they are inducing customers to deal with them rather than with their rivals.
It follows they may, if they think fit, endeavour to induce customers to deal with them exclusively by giving notice that only to exclusive customers will they give the advantage of their profitable offers. I do not think it matters if the withdrawal of the advantages is out of all proportion to the injury inflicted on those who withdraw them by the customers, who decline to deal exclusively with them, dealing with other traders. It is a bargain which persons in the position of the defendants here had a right to make, and those who were parties to the bargain must take it or leave It as a whole. Of coercion, or bribing, I see no evidence.
That is all there is in this case. By the inducement of profitable offers they get certain wholesalers to handle their product exclusively. Those men are not hound for twenty-four hours to handle that product. The moment that they see that it is not profitable for them to handle that product they can cancel the contract. Under the terms of the contract it is reserved to both parties to cancel it at once. Therefore I say that they come entirely within the law and within the proper principles of the law.
Now we come to the complaint that in thus conducting their business they injure the other manufacturers. I submit that they have done no injury. The report does not find that any injury has been done, they certainly have done no injury which should be taken into consideration. I am going to refer again on that point to a well settled principle as expressed in section 212. It is under this head :
212. Extent of injury to others and a test of legality of a combination. It is apparent that neither the extent nor the character of the injury to others resulting from the operation of a given combination is a test of the legality of the combination. Conditions are constantly changing in the commercial and industrial world. Under normal conditions, traders and manufacturers are involved in loss and financial ruin as the result of forces over which they have no control. The establishment of departmental stores

And I am surprised at your not bringing in some paternal legislation to restrict them in the interests of smaller merchants.
*-the establishment of department stores, for instance, in large cities has altered the entire complexion of the retail trade, and small shopkeepers heretofore prosperous find themselves unable to compete with these huge establishments. Among retail dealers and owners of real estate in cities whereon are situated small shops and stores, the prejudice against departmental stores fully equals any public prejudice against trusts and combinations ; and attempts are frequently made to pass laws, the object of which is to disintegrate the departmental stores Mr. PRINGLE.
-to break up the combination of businesses which go on under one large roof. So far these attempts have proved abortive, few legislatures being willing to risk the passage of Acts which on their face are as idle and foolish as would be the passage of a law against the employment of labour-saving machinery ; and so far no court has been found willing to sustain any Act looking towards the disintegration of the departmental store. The departmental store is simply a striking illustration of the tendency of the day towards concentration and combination. What is going on in the world of retail trade is going on in the world of manufacturing and commerce and all branches of industry. It is needless to say that co-operation, organization and combination, in all forms affect more or less parties who are outside of the combination ; and exactly in proportion as the combination is profitable to all interested in it and economically beneficial to outsiders at large, to that extent it is more or less disastrous to all who are in competition with it. The extent of the injury or loss to the outsiders is no measure of the legality of the combination. If the combination is improvidently conducted, those outside of it may actually benefit thereby. On the other hand, if the combination is wisely conducted, those outside of it may find themselves deprived of trade and means of support, within a month or six months as the case may be. These effects incidental to the proper conduct of any sort of combination-whether a partnership, a corporation or a consolidation- are of interest to the student of economics, but are entirely irrelevant so far as courts or juries are concerned, except in so far as they may tend to show affirmatively that the original intent of the combination was of an unlawful or oppressive character.
Now, Sir, I say also that the tendency of the courts is to regard these combinations, which it is said have the effect of restraint of competition, with less disfavour than formerly.
The tendency of the courts is to regard contracts in partial restraint of competition with less disfavour than formerly, and the strictness of the ancient rule has been greatly modified by the modern cases, except where public franchises and quasi public corporations are concerned.
Now, Sir, we speak of trusts and combinations, but they exist in everything, and have always existed. Combinations ex'ist not only in capital, but in labour. Labour organizations are nothing but combinations, and they are not new. We have only seen a short time ago the effect of labour organ-, izations in the lower province. They have a perfect right to organize, just as capital has a right to organize. Labour has a right to protect its interests just as capital has a right to protect its interests. It is the application of an old principle, which I think is a very sound principle. All the trade unions of the world are nothing but combinations. We find that many of these combinations take the ground that nobody is permitted' to work in certain lines unless they belong to these unions. I am simply stating this to show that these combinations apply to capital

as well as to labour. Now, as I said before, there is not only the Criminal Code, but there is the common law to guard the public interest against these combinations. They have invoked the aid of the criminal law, they have invoked the aid of the common law, and it has been held by the courts that their method of doing business is perfectly legal. Then they are driven to the extreme of coming to this House and endeavouring to get the government to pass resolutions such as we are now considering'. I was much struck with the finding of the judge who tried this case in the province of Quebec. He was evidently a very able and very learned judge. I refer to Mr. Justice Dugas, who tried the case in 1896 and 1897. His judgment is exceedingly well put, and it shows exactly what is the nature of these contracts and what was the appreciation of the presiding judge in regard to them. The judge says :
And to find whether the contract in question, signed by so many different parties is a conspiracy, a combine, an agreement or an arrangement unlawful, we have to return to the law in existence before the passing of article 520.
That is the Criminal Code.
I have read that contract over and over again, and I must say that I fail to see anything of the kind. It is true that it may be considered a very shrewd contract, a very shrewd combination, and an attempt to give as much as possible, the greatest circulation to the cigarettes manufactured by them, but yet I cannot see that it would have been unlawful to agree with as many parties as they could find, that they would consent to sell only their cigarettes exclusively to those of others.
It is true that amongst those who have signed the contract, some aver that they felt it was to their interest to do so, as otherwise their trade would have suffered, as the cigarettes manufactured by the American Tobacco Company of Canada are so much in demand by the public, that not keeping them would drive away clients. Some say that this agreement is not to their advantage, although they felt it was to their interest to sign it ; others declare that they are well satisfied with the contract. In all this, I can only find a party who, being proprietor of what may be manufactured by him, asserts his right to dispose of his property in the way he thinks best for his own interest. I cannot see there a combine against the law as for instance in cases of trusts, hut only a way of dealing with their own property, in a way which may, perhaps, be detrimental to some other people in the same line of business, hut at the same time I do not believe that this amounts to more than an ordinary competition.
That is the finding of Mr. Justice Dugas, and it is that he does not believe that it amounts to more than ordinary competition. Are these people to be deprived of the right of ordinary competition in this country simply because there are some friends of the government who are opposed to this company ? Then he proceeds :
If their cigarettes are really so much in demand, it is because they have found the means to have them accepted by the public. If others are anxious to reach the same success, it is for them to make cigarettes not only as good or pleasing to the public, but better, and whether at a cheaper or higher price, this would be their own business, provided the public would be satisfied to use them, and I am putting to myself the question as1 to whether the public itself does not find its interest in having other manufacturers if they want to reach the same means, forced to serve it better and produce better goods. This is, as I have said before, what I believe to be only the simple competition of trade. There is no combine with other manufacturers to raise the price of goods to force them notwithstanding upon the public, to prevent which is the principal object of such laws. There is no combine to absolutely prevent others from entering into the same business at their own will, and of delivering their own goods at their own price or any other thing of the kind mentioned in the paragraphs ' a,' ' b,' * c ' and 'd ' of article 520, but only a way of disposing of their own property according to their own views, and within the scope of the latitude which is given to trade in general ; for if they were not permitted to act in such a way when their action is limited to the disposing of their own goods, there would not be, perhaps, a trader who would not be exposed to a criminal prosecution, for the simple reason that always we see him trying to control as much as possible of the trade for himself, either by exaggerated advertisements, by giving goods at lower prices than others, by giving away, or offering to give away, things which do not pertain to his trade generally, &c., and all this for the only purpose of drawing to his shop clients who perhaps otherwise would have stopped at his neighbour's.
It seems to me that this is a correct appreciation of the contract. Now, I feel that I have detained the House at some length, but I was determined that I would, at any rate, go on record as against any such legislation as is proposed here. I do not believe that it is a proper policy to place the power in one man's hands of controlling the destinies of any of the great manufacturing Industries of this country. There is no right of appeal. He is the sole judge, the sole arbiter. If his decision is wrong there is no redress. Surely a proper course would be, if legislation is going to be introduced to interfere with the internal management of the business of the manufacturers of this country, to give the manufacturers some rights, some redress in the event of the lion. Minister of Inland Revenue deciding wrongly. But that is not even proposed. It is left absolutely and entirely in the hands of one man. I say that principle in a democratic country such as this is wrong and should not be supported, and I am surprised at bon. gentlemen on the other side of the House sitting quietly behind the government like a flock of sheep. They are told that this must go through before the end of the session, and they are not allowed to exercise their judgment


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.

Mr. PRINGLE-^or to express their opinion on the question.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Let me say another word. The Empire Tobacco Company have done a great deal for the Canadian producers of tobacco. The county of Essex, a few years ago, only grew a small quantity of tobhcco, but owing to the efforts of this company in educating the people, and to the fact of their having taken an interest in the growth of the plant, in order to encourage these people in growing a good tobacco, they have succeeded, as Judge MacTavish has found, in growing in that section of the country a tobacco known as White Burley. That tobacco has become a success. Notwithstanding Sir William Macdonald's evidence before the commission, that the Canadian tobacco was no good, that he never attempted to manufacture it but once in the sixties, and that he abandoned that attempt, the Empire Tobacco Company have, by investing their money and by conducting experiments in the growth of Canadian tobacco, succeeded in getting a tobacco known as White Burley leaf to be grown in western Ontario and Quebec which is a first-class tobacco, and which to-day is being consumed largely by the Canadian people, and no doubt will be consumed to a large extent from this time onward. Therefore, I say that the Empire Tobacco Company have done a great deal in the interest of the tobacco business. The commission has found that they have done a great deal towards encouraging the growth of tobacco in this country ; and yet, having done all that, having expended their money and their energy, having built up this business, because a few competitors are not satisfied, this government are asking us to pass this paternal legislation and place the whole power in the hands of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue to control this industry. The Empire Tobacco Company engaged in this business in perfect good faith. They engaged in it upon the knowledge of the Jaw that was on the statute-book at the time they invested their capital. They engaged in it to such an extent that the government gave an increased protection of 10 cents a pound ; and, as I say, now that they are reaping the reward of their energy and money, an effort is being made to destroy their business. I submit, Mr. Speaker, we should not proceed to the further consideration of this resolution at this time. It is very late in the session. We are supposed to prorogue to-morrow or on Monday ; there is no time given for a full and careful consideration of this important measure. I am not going to take up any more of the time of the House, but I will reserve the right in committee to thoroughly discuss this measure, because I feel it should not be forced through this House in the dying days of the session. It is an improper measure ; it is a measure which is a discredit to this country. If you are going to Mr. PRINGLE.
pass legislation of that sort, then let it include all the manufacturing industries of this country. Do not single out the tobacco manufacturers ; include them all, although I say that general legislation of that sort would be absolutely wrong. Give the tobacco companies the right to appeal, and do not place them absolutely in the hands of one man. The principle in the resolution is wrong ; it is a principle which may lead to the grossest corruption. This matter should stand over till next session, when we can have an opportunity of more fully and more carefully considering it.


Mr. E. GUSS PORTER.: I do not intend to discuss the particular features of this question nor even the general principle involved. I address the House for the reason that some of my constituents who were at Ottawa a short time ago on a deputation waiting upon the government in regard to this measure have requested me to contradict the statements made in the House, that the expenses of that deputation had been paid by the tobacco company. That statement was no doubt made for the purpose of creating a prejudice against the tobacco company, and these gentlemen desire me to place them right before the House and the country. I wish to read the following letter :
Belleville, July 30, 1904.
E. Guss Porter, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa. Can.
Dear Mr. Porter,-We understand a statement has been made to the House that the expenses of the wholesale grocers' deputation to Ottawa recently have been paid by the tobacco company.
We wish you would deny this imputation. We paid our delegate and the company have not recouped or promised to recoup us.
KENNEY WALMSLEY & CO'Y.,
Wholesale grocers.
I have also received the following telegram :
Trenton, 0., July 30, 1904.
E. Guss Porter, M.P.,
Belleville, Ont.
I understand that one of the ministers made the assertion that the American Tobacco Company paid expenses to Ottawa re Tobacco Bill. They did not pay my expenses. Kindly deny charge.



B. S. HOOEY.

Mr. J. E. E. LEONARD.: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the discussion on this Bill, because I am strongly in favour of the resolutions introduced by the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue. If the hon. member for Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle) had been here yesterday, he would not have taken the floor to-day in order to make the speech he has just delivered. Every one of the good arguments he has brought was uttered and repeated yesterday by hon. members on this side of the House ; nevertheless, we all declared our-

selves in favour of the minister's resolution. And when my hon. colleague from Cornwall and Stormont comes here and complains of the fact that these resolutions have been introduced too late to be discussed freely ; when he comes and delivers himself of a one hour and a half speech, keeping us here uselessly, when the whole country, the tobacco growers, merchants and consumers are all in favour of this law being passed, he will allow me to tell him that he speaks more like a learned lawyer representing some client than like a member of this House.
I shall not detain the House any longer. Although this Bill is not perfect, as my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) said yesterday, I hope


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Speaker, I beg to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the member for Cornwall-Stormont (Mr. Pringle) is charged by the member for Laval with acting as a lawyer of the trust.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pringle) is well able to protect himself. If I have called things by their name, it is because last night the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue-I am sure he was labouring under a false impression- or some of his friends have wrongly informed the hon. members who are here today, when they said that I made a motion asking that the second reading of the resolutions should be put off to a later date.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) What has been said is that the hon. member for Laval instead of giving yesterday his full assent to the measure, tried to check it when he seconded a motion offered by the whip of his party (Mr. Taylor).


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) That motion was negatived. We were asking in that motion that the word 4 shall ' should be substituted to the word 4 may,' in order that the minister should be compelled to cancel the licenses delivered to parties who like the American trust would be inclined to monopolize the tobacco trade.
Mr. Speaker, I may say in conclusion that I hope the House will pass this Bill. Although it is not perfect, as I have already said, we are, however, willing to give it a fair trial. As my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) said yesterday, we shall always be at liberty to amend it next year if its application does not give full satisfaction.
Resolution read a second time, and agreed to.
Mr. BRODEUR moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 168) to amend the Inland Revenue Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time, considered in committee and reported.
On motion for the third reading.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I wish to say a word with regard to a question which was discussed in the House yesterday as to the rebate paid on cuttings of foreign leaf exported from this country. I wish to say to my hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) that this matter has been engaging for some time the attention of the department. As I have only been Minister of Inland Revenue for a few months, I have not been able to consider the matter fully, but it has been engaging my consideration and I hope to be soon able to announce a matured policy on that question.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Thank you.
Bill read the third time, and passed.



PURCHASE OF THE CANADA EASTERN RAILWAY.

Hon. II  R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 163) authorizing the government of Canada to purchase the Canada Eastern Railway, and to take possession of the Fredericton and Saint Mary's railway bridge.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: Mr. Speaker, before the Bill is read' the second time, I wish to make my protest against the acquisition of this railway. The Minister of Railways has given no explanation which would justify such an enormous expenditure as $800,000 for the purpose of acquiring what is a perfectly useless undertaking. W nat are the facts ? Here is a railway 136 miles in length which has been running through a section of New Brunswick for nearly twenty years. The minister describes the country through which it passes in glowing terms. The earnings of the road for freight and passengers at one time amounted to $137,000, but for the last three or four years they have been running down, and they now amount to only $116,000. I learn from the papers which have been laid on the table of the House, that this road ceased to run and was virtually abandoned as useless ; and petitions from boards of trade in Fredericton and other places were sent to the government asking that some means be taken to compel the parties in possession of the road to run it. The net earnings of the road are stated to be in the neighbourhood of $2,400. And this is the road for which we are asked to pay the sum of $800,000. When the resolutions were before the House, I stated that the cost of the road was $1,700,000. The Minister of Railways contradicted my statement, saying that the expenditure for building the road was largely in excess of that sum. The report of the Deputy Minister of Railways on the road shows that my statement is perfectly correct. He states that the parties who are selling the road stated that it had cost to build about $2,100,000 ;

8551
but be found that the actual cash expended upon it was about $1,700,000. He values the road at $1,200,000, but he does not regard it as a running concern at all. Any
one who examines the returns made by this railway to the department will find that commercially it is an entirely useless undertaking. The party who was running it states further, what the minister ought to have stated to the House, that to put the road in running order will require an expenditure of nearly $800,000, or a net expenditure of $547,000. So that we are not only expending $800,000 to acquire the road, but are probably incurring a further expenditure of $547,000 to put it in running order ; which means an expenditure by the government of nearly $1,400,000. The min-iser said that the road runs through a comparatively easy section of country-that the gradients and curvatures are fairly easy. I see by the return made to the department that none of the curves are very sharp ; but the only information we get with reference to the gradients is that the highest is 80 feet to the mile. That shows at once that the road is not up to the standard of modern railways. The minister said that it was true the gradients were 80 feet to the mile, but that there were very few of them. He must remember that one gradient on a road of 136 miles fixes the standard for the whole road-the strength of a chain is the strength of its weakest link. The return shows that the natural rise of the country for the 136 miles is 1,900 feet, and the fall the same. This shows at once the impossibility of getting a road of easy gradients through the country. Now, what is the object of the government acquiring this railway ? The minister says that if it passes into other hands, it may divert some traffic from the Intercolonial to another railway. The whole traffic, as I have shown, is only $116,000. Is there any railway company in the country which is anxious to acquire this road V All they want is to keep the road running. The probability is that with its present earnings it could not be kept running. The minister says that the bad showing on the road for the last two or three years is accounted for by the large expenditures made on the road to bring it up to its present standard. The entire average expenditure on the road for repairs and everything else during the last four or five years has been about $40,000 a year.
It is less than what any other road in the country, which is doing any business at all, expends for the same distance for the ordinary repairs, track repairs and so forth. The road has wooden bridges which we will have to replace by iron ones. You will have to lift the whole iron on the road, according to the deputy minister's report. The rails are pretty well worn, sixty to Mr. HAGGART.
sixty-five pounds to the yard, and wifi have all to be taken up and replaced. The deputy minister makes the calculation that to put the road in running order, without
rolling stock at all, will cost $547,000. What possible justification can be given for this ? I venture to say that there will be a loss every year we own the road of $100,000 a year for all time to come, if we keep it in proper repair. There is the transaction in all its nakedness. A road 136 miles long on which you will have to spend $600,000 to put it in running order, the gross earnings from which are $116,000 a year and the net revenue $2,400. And we are asked to spend $1,400,000 to acquire that road, ft would be better, in the interests of the country, that the sum was made a present of or pitched into some bog hole on the Intercolonial, because the road will entail a loss to the people for all time to come of a large sum apart from this expenditure. Surely when a proposition of this kind is sent to the people there should be some reason given to justify it. Is there any explanation ? It is not taken as a commercial undertaking. The only reason given is this. That it might pass into the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway, that the Canadian Pacific Railway have had an option on it, and could have had it for $800,000, and that it is dangerous to allow the traffic to be diverted to that line. And there is the bridge. That bridge cost $350,000, which of course was a bad investment, and as it was made in our day, I suppose we are partially responsible. We built the bridge across the river for the purpose of getting into Fredericton, and what was the result ? We have never received a cent of interest up to the present, nor are we ever likely to. What a precedent are we not setting. Every road that makes connection with the Intercolonial will be in the same position as this one. if the government adopt the policy, which is given as the reason for the purchase of this road, namely, that it is to prevent the traffic of this local line from being diverted to the Canadian Pacific Railway, we will be asked to apply that policy to every road that connects with the Intercolonial. Are you going to acquire every such road in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and own and run them as government roads ? In our section of the country and every other section these matters are left to private enterprise. What I want is to enter my protest At this late hour I believe it will have no effect in the House, but I hope it will reach the country. With all this enormous expenditure on capital account on the Intercolonial which we are passing this year, an expenditure of over $6,000,000, with an expenditure on repairs of $6,400,000, with a loss on this undertaking last year of $2,700,000, I think it is high time to call a halt. It is time that the people impressed on the

government that such heavy and useless expenditure should be put an end to. We have had enough of these expenditures. The Finance Minister may plume himself upon the maritime provinces being well looked after.


William Stevens Fielding: And the other provinces too.


John Graham Haggart: No, the revenue of the government has not been distributed equally since 1896. During the present year we are called upon to meet a loss or deficit on the two government railways in the maritime provinces of $2,700,000. We are voting this year on capital expenditure in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island an amount of $6,400,000, taking this great Canada Eastern into account. There has been an expenditure since 1896 of nearly $27,000,000, and the expenditure to which we are pledged this year will bring this amount up to nearly $30,000,000. What becomes of the beautiful surplus the Finance Minister boasts of from year to year ? He congratulates the country on its being a growing time, congratulates the people on the fact that although we have taken a large sum of money from them in taxes we have not gone into debt, we have expended it in useful and beneficial undertakings in different sections of the country. I believe in the principle that there should be a fair distribution among the different provinces of the Dominion, except perhaps that in the newer provinces where we cannot expect that they would contribute the amount necessary for the works that are required in those particular parts, it is the duty of the older provinces to contribute, and if necessary to contribute lavishly, towards the expenditure in those sections of the country. But in the older sections of the country I believe that we ought to adopt the principle of returning expenditure to the people of the different sections of the Dominion according to the amounts they have paid in or according to their population, and it should not be the boast of any minister or any particular party that of the immense surplus which has been wrung out of the people in the shape of taxes, a large amount has been distributed in a particular portion of the country.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not make any such boast as that these moneys were distributed in a particular part of the country. I said they were distributed fairly and equitably throughout the whole Dominion. My hon. friend may or may not agree with me, but that is what I said.


John Graham Haggart: Let me have an explanation of that. The hon. minister was talking about his section of the country being fairly looked after, and I cried, ' hear, hear.' The minister asked that it be taken down and he would make use of it, and I said ' So will I.*


William Stevens Fielding: I expect that.


John Graham Haggart: That was the retort I made.


Mr. EMMERSON.: And you are trying to do so now.


John Graham Haggart: I noticed that the minister thought he was on dangerous ground at the time and went on to say that the money was fairly distributed. Let the minister state what section of the country other than the maritime provinces has received an expenditure to be compared with this expenditure of $26,000,000 over and above the receipts of the railroad in that section of the country ? That amount has been expended there in capital or in deficits upon the road. Following that they ask us at the present session for an appropriation of $6,400,000 more on capital account to be expended this year. Where is there a corresponding expenditure in any other section of this Dominion V


William Stevens Fielding: The difference between my hon. friend and myself is that he seems, as I said the ether day, to be lying awake at night, making up calculations as to the amount of the interest on the expenditure in the maritime provinces. I have no doubt that if hon. gentlemen from the maritime provinces desire to pursue the same narrow and miserable policy, they might make calculations as to the expenditures in other provinces, but I may say without hesitation that that is not a creditable policy for the representatives of any section of the country to pursue. The question is, is there any section in this Dominion having demands upon the treasury of Canada for fair and legitimate purposes which are not being met ? If he can show that there is any legitimate work in Ontario which has sought aid and been refused, then, to the extent of that case, he will have some ground for criticism, but if we are able to show, as we can show, that everywhere from east to west and from north to south, all claims have been fairly considered, and public moneys appropriated to meet the needs of different sections, then I think his criticism is unjust. The conditions in all portions of the Dominion are not alike. In one section of the Dominion you desire expenditures in one line, and it may be that in particular one province seems to get more than another, but in another section some other branch of public service requires a larger expenditure. It is not well to take a provincial view of matters of this kind. My hon. friend must know that vast sums have been expended and are still being expended on the canals. They are largely for the benefit of the section through which they run. But to lay stress on that would be a narrow view and although the people in the maritime provinces may never see these canals, we educate our people to the belief that these are thing*

for the good of Canada generally, and we are willing to bear our share of the expenditure. Is my bon. friend going to adopt the miserable find narrow policy of going into the back counties of his province and making calculations as to how many cents per head the people paid a year ago in the east, because he knows that his people may not be acquainted with that section of the country and its needs ? I believe there is intelligence enough in all sections of the country, that there is intelligence enough in the great premier province of Ontario, to condemn that narrow policy and to stajid for a policy that is not for the maritime provinces, not for the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec, but for each and every section, and for the Dominion as a whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
At one o'clock, House took rece'ss.
House resumed at three o'clock.
House went into committee on the BUI.
On section 4,
Mr. BARKER.: I would like to call attention to the terms of the 4th clause. It simply enables the government to take possession of the bridge.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Which the government is entitled to do at any moment now.


Samuel Barker: Certainly, a mortgagee is always entitled to take possession of a property if the mortgagor is in default. But when you foreclose a mortgage you declare that the eqnity of redemption of the mortgagor is foreclosed. What you are doing in this section is simply to authorize the government to take possession. That does not do away with the equity of redemption of the mortgagor. I do not see anything in this statute that will prevent the bridge company hereafter if the property should appear to become valuable, to come back and seek to redeem it, and I daresay the government would be glad to allow them redemption. But the idea of this Bill is a foreclosure, and I submit that some more words are required. A mortgagee may take possession, but that obliges him to account for receipts to the mortgagor, for whom he is only the trustee. I submit that the minister ought to consider whether he cannot use proper foreclosure words in this clause, so as to wipe out the equitable title of the mortgagor.


Henry Robert Emmerson: While parliament is all-powerful. I think we should recognize even the rights under the original contract. I do not think it would be fair for us arbitrarily to foreclose without a consideration, as contemplated by the original contract. My own ideas are that the mortgagees have no rights, my own ideas are Mr. FIELDING.
that the amount of money, the principal and interest, entirely precludes them from coming in and asking any further consideration. Yet I would feel that we should do justice, and I think we are going as far as we ought to go in justice in declaring that we shall take possession. We could do it without this declaration by parliament, a declaration is not necessary. Yet I feel that we would be dealing unfairly with the parties who may have an interest. T do not think they have any, but if they have, it must be recognized. It seems to me that we are going as far as we properly should in the declaration that we are making today. Now I am very sorry my hon. friend has taken a sectional view of this matter.


Samuel Barker: Surely I am not doing so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am referring to the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart), who certainly has taken a very sectional view. I recognize this proposition as a necessity in the interests of the Intercolonial ; the Intercolonial I recognize to be a road in the interest of all Canada.


John Graham Haggart: Well, if this discussion is to go on it will be interminable. Wliat right has the hon. gentleman to talk on the railway when we are considering the bridge ? I ask you ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The question is on the bridge.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The bridge is an incident of the railway. I do not propose to follow my hon. friend in his remarks with respect to the railway, but I think I can fairly claim that this bridge is a coincident of the railway. The Canada Eastern is a necessity of the Intercolonial, and the maintenance of the Intercolonial is a necessity by reason of the pact of confederation, Under these circumstances, it seems to me my hon. friend from Lanark is travelling far afield, and most unfairly, in his remarks with respect to the purchase of this road.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Chairman, I must have your ruling.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am speaking about the bridge.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman is adopting a style of argument I have heard before. I heard a gentleman once brag that he was the Governor General of Ontario. He said that he ruled his mother, his mother ruled the bishop, and the bishop ruled the Governor General. That is the style of argument the hon. gentleman is adopting. He says the bridge is connected with the railway, the railway is connected with the Intercolonial, and the Intercolonial is one of the biggest works in the Dominion of Canada ; therefore, he can discuss almost any subject upon this question.


Peter Macdonald: I hope the committee will keep to the point in section 4, which provides for taking over the St. Mary's bridge.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will recognize my hon. friend's objection, if he feels sensitive.


John Graham Haggart: I do not want to go over the argument again to-day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend knows that he is wrong, and he knows that his friends will not support him. But I will not take up the time of the House in discussing the question of the bridge, he will appreciate that.


Samuel Barker: Now that the First Minister has come in, I would again call attention to that fourth section of the Bill. I think it was understood by the House that the intention was to take this bridge property over as property of the Dominion, in fact to foreclose the property. I am pointing out that under the provisions of that 4th section the government will be simply mortgagees in possession, liable to account for rents of the bridge. Now if the government say that is what they in-1 tend, well and good, we have to allow the government to do as it pleases. But it does seem to me an extraordinary thing, the mortgagor being in default, that we should simply take possession, leaving the ownership where it is. The result is sure to be that in a few years the gentlemen who are interested in the equity of redemption will be coming to parliament and making a case for the grant of a few hundred thousand dollars, because we have been in possession of a bridge and have been making money out of it, and that money ought to belong to them, and we should account for it. The hon. gentleman has perhaps made up his mind whether he is going to take that bridge off their hands or not, and if he intends to do that, this clause is not sufficient. But if he admits that he does not intend to foreclose ; then he is simply putting the government in possession, liable to the mortgagor to account for every dollar received on the bridge and every dollar expended upon it.


William Alfred Galliher: From the speeches of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) and of my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), I would infer that the bridge is not part of the railway proposed to be bought but belongs to some separate corporation. Under this Bill, the bridge being necessary for the running of the railway over the river and the bridge being in the possession of the vendors of the railway, the government are placing themselves in exactly the same position as that in which the vendors of the railway are at the present time.


Samuel Barker: The government have made advances on the bridge.


William Alfred Galliher: I do not understand that the bridge is being sold.


Samuel Barker: The position is this : The government have made large advances on the bridge. This is a property which is quite distinct from the railway.


William Alfred Galliher: That is what I say.


Samuel Barker: The government have made large advances, no money has been paid, the parties are in default, it is a hopeless undertaking, but the government, instead of foreclosing the business, are simply going to enter into possession and be liable to account for all revenue and expenditure.


William Alfred Galliher: I was right in my understanding of the position of the matter. The vendors have running rights over the bridge and the government wish to place themselves by this Bill in the same position as that which the vendors of the railway are in.


Mr. FOWLER.: How can the government place themselves in the same position as the vendors ?
. Mr. GALLIHER. The vendors of the railway have the right of running over the bridge.


George William Fowler: Do the government get that right from the vendors ?


William Alfred Galliher: If the vendors of the railway hold the right of running over the bridge from the separate company and they are transferring this right to the government surely the government would get the same right as that possessed by the vendors.


Samuel Barker: That is not what the Bill provides.


George William Fowler: They are not transferring this right by the Bill.


William Alfred Galliher: I want to understand the position clearly. If that is the case it would strike me that we should not make an absolute foreclosure of the rights of the bridge company ex parte, because this Bill is only dealing with the purchase of the railway from the railway company, including running rights over the bridge.


Samuel Barker: That is not the Bill at all.


William Alfred Galliher: Well, that is the position.


Samuel Barker: That is not the Bill at all.


William Alfred Galliher: If I understand aright that is what is intended to be acquired by the Bill.


Samuel Barker: Read the clause and you will see it has nothing to do with the acquiring of rights.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It Is a declaration of the rights of the government in respect to the bridge.


Samuel Barker: As to the bridge alone, but without regard to the railway.
Mr. GALLIHER, If we get all the rights of the railway surely we get the rights which the railway had to run over this bridge.


John Graham Haggart: They are not pretended to be transferred at all.


William Alfred Galliher: That is a question I do not understand altogether.


Peter Macdonald: Probably I had better read the clause again.


William Alfred Galliher: Well, I would like to be clear upon that.


Peter Macdonald: 
George William Fowler: I would like to have some information from the hon. minister. Is there a contract between the government and the t>t. Mary's Railway Bridge Company in respect to this bridge, or has there been any understanding between the St. Mary's Railway bridge Company and the government in respect to this bridge ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There has been none whatever. We are simply, by this Bill, declaring our rights. I think it would be very unfair for us to foreclose any rights they may have. I do not, as respecting the Department of Railways and Canals, recognize and I do not for a moment imagine that these people have any rights. I think that the amount of principal and interest against that bridge entirely precludes the St. Alary's Railway Bridge Company from making any claim and yet with the sense of justice which possesses me constrains me to come to the conclusion that it would I be very unfair for us to entirely shut them '


Samuel Barker: nut from any rights which they have under their original contract. That is all I have in view in respect to this Bill. It seems to me that we have the right under the original contract to take possession of the bridge and we are not going any farther really than in the declaration contained in this clause of the Bill. If we had attempted to go farther it would seem to me to be fair that notice should be given to the parties interested who have no rights in my judgment beyond the rights which are given to them by the original contract, and I claim that their rights are stopped by reason of what has occurred in the years which have elapsed and by reason of the condition which prevails at the present time.


John Graham Haggart: Does the hon. minister not see that this is the position in reference to the matter ? He is taking over a property on which the government have a mortgage. The moment he takes over the property all interest payable to the government ceases. The government may have the user of the property and may exercise it for the fifty years. At the expiration of that time those having an equity in the property could come to the government with such original amount as they owed and the interest accrued up to date and take over the property at any time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The original contract contemplates notice.


Samuel Barker: Why not give that ?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: We will naturally follow out the terms of the original contract, and give them notice and entirely foreclose, but it would be manifestly unfair for us by a stroke of the pen at this moment to preclude them from their undoubted privilege to have that notice.


Samuel Barker: I would suggest then to the hon. gentleman that he should add to this clause a provision to the effect that unless the bridge company within twelve months pay what is due to His Majesty their rights to pay the mortgage should be foreclosed. The objection to the clause as it stands now is this : You are going to get into possession of the property as mortgagees and for years to come you are liable to these people to aeeunt for all you have been receiving and expending upon it. Whether there is the one or the other party in power at the time, these people may come four or five years hence to the government with a pitiful story asking for a large sum of money.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What does the hon. gentleman suggest ?


Samuel Barker: I would suggest this : Unless the Bridge Company within twelve months from the passing of this Act shall pay to His Majesty the money due, all the mortgage rights and equities of the company shall stand foreclosed.


Sir WILF RID LAURIER.: We will take this question into consideration, and in the meantime let the committee rise.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am perfectly willing to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Barker). It is in accordance with my own view and we might just as well dispose of the matter now. The suggestion of the hon. gentleman is worthy of acceptance, and I will draft an amendment to that effect.


George William Fowler: I do not know that that is quite fair to the bridge company. I think we should proceed in the ordinary way by formal proceedings for foreclosure. Why treat this differently from any other business transaction?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I suppose you are now pleading on behalf of the profession,


George William Fowler: I am pleading on behalf of the law as it exists.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
George William Fowler: You practically declare by Act of parliament that this property is foreclosed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have a year.


George William Fowler: But you have no proceedings to take. That is a peculiar way of doing business.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a much more favourable provision than the court would recognize under the terms of the original mortgage, and I do not think it can be claimed that the company is in any way placed in a false position with respect to the matter.


George William Fowler: That may or may not be, but you are shutting these people out from having a chance to be heard. This may be all right in this case, but it is a very dangerous precedent to establish.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) had more confidence in us he would leave us to the ordinary recourse of the law under which we may give notice or not, but he binds us to give twelve months notice.


George William Fowler: You ought to take the legal means to foreclose this mortgage.


Mr. ALCORN.: If the owners of the bridge have any legal rights we cannot take them away by a declaration in an Act of
parliament, because the Act of parliament would be ineffective as against their contractual rights and at the end of twelve months you are no better off than now. I believe you would still have to go on and take the regular legal proceedings by foreclosure.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
On motion for the third reading,
George William Fowler: Before the Bill is read the third time, I would like to ask what is the policy of the government with respect to branch roads which are feeders of the Intercolonial Railway. I wish this information because, as a representative of the province of New Brunswick, I am very much interested in this matter. There are a number of branch roads in New Brunswick which it seems to me have just as strong claims to be taken over by the government as this railway ; notably the Salisbury and Harvey Railway, which runs from Salisbury in the county of Westmoreland to Harvey in the county of Albert ; the Albert Southern Railway, which runs along the south shore of the county of Albert; the Hampton and St. Martins Railway ; the Central Railway ; the Havelock and Petitcodiac Railway ; the Kent Northern Railway ; the Caraquet Railway. All these are feeders of the Intercolonial!. I have not anything to say against the plan which the government has adopted of taking over the Canada Eastern. For my part, I think it is the proper policy for all trunk lines to own the branch lines or feeders which run into them, because these can be operated much more cheaply as parts of one system than they can under separate owners. It is not necessary to have on them the same extensive equipment as on the trunk lines, and as the cheaper equipment on the trunk lines is discarded it can be utilized on the branches; and their ownership entails very little increase in cost of office management. I would like to know what the policy of the government is with respect to these other ' lines, whether applications have been made by their owners to have them taken over by the government, or whether any negotiations on the subject have taken place.


Mr. SEYMOUR GOURLEY.: Mr. Speaker, I want to concur in the policy propounded by my learned friend from King's (Mr. Fowler) and to emphasize what he says. We want the government of Canada to adopt it as a policy.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Settle that matter with your friend at your right (Mr. Hag-gart).

Mi'. GO[JKLEY. My friends are all right. I want to say that it is the unanimous wish of the people of Nova Scotia, irrespective of politics, that the Intercolonial Railway should become a great system of railways, and to that end should absorb all the auxiliary railways along its route. We can never hope to make the Intercolonial Railway pay until it adopts the policy which other great railways have adopted. 1 venture to say that if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had confined itself to the thin line of railway extending from Montreal to British Columbia without bringing in branches from the great paying territories beyond it, it would not be a paying institution to-day. The same remark applies to the Grand Trunk. It has been by bringing to their main lines the trade of the country around them for two or three hundred miles, that these railways have become paying systems and vital to the development of the country. Sow could you expect the Intercolonial Railway to pay, starting from Montreal, skirting the 1st. Lawrence, and at the time it was built running for 400 miles through an absolutely new and unopened country which was practically a wilderness, with a little population in the maritime provinces at one end and 'a little population in Quebec at another ? However, it had to be built; confederation was impossible witnout it; and we had to work out the problem of making it pay. I care not what it costs- I care not if it costs ten millions a year- it is the duty of this government to carry out the compact of confederation and make that line what it was intended to be, the unifying element of scattered provinces. Some people believe that the Intercolonial can never be made to pay. It will never become a paying system until the policy stated by my hon. friend from King's, of taking over the different lines of railway in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and making them part of the system, is adopted. When that policy is adopted, the Intercolonial will pay. To-day we have the railway running through Annapolis valley, the Windsor branch and the Cape Breton branch in Nova Scotia, paying splendidly. If these paying railways were united to the Intercolonial system, they would help to bridge over the 300 or 400 miles of the Intercolonial which are not paying. I want the Intercolonial to be a great paying railway ; and recollect, that railway is infinitely more advantageous to the people of Ontario than it is to the people of the maritime provinces. Out of rwery dollar of expenditure made on the Intercolonial Railway seventy-five cents inures to the advantage of the province of Ontario. But I do not complain of that. I want to help the people of Ontario ; therefore you will never hear me complain of an expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway, although I


Henry Robert Emmerson: know that 75 cents out of every dollar I vote goes into the pockets of the people of Ontario.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a remarkable resemblance between you.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: At a public meeting held in my county before I came here, I was asked to urge on the government the policy of absorbing all the branch railways into the Intercolonial Railway system. You never can have a powerful railway system with a single line of railway. You people in Ontario have the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific systems squabbling every day to build branches for you. Whenever a new section is opening up, you find these two great systems contesting for the privilege of building branch railways through it. What is the case in Nova Scotia to-day ? I want 150 miles of branch railways built in the county which I represent. If these were built, coal mines, gold mines and iron mines would be opened up in every section ; but, as it is, a gold mine or an iron mine is only a heap of sand if it is twenty or thirty miles away from a railway. Therefore I want the government to adopt tne policy of absorbing into the Intercolonial Railway every branch railway, and then to build more branches, and build them rapidly, through every part of the maritime provinces. That is the enlightened policy that should be pursued in this year 1904. The time is past for little politics in Canada. I want to help this government to develop this country for the short time that they are going to be in power. I want to help them, as much as I would any government more in line with my sympathies, in carrying out this policy, because we cannot wait for new governments to come in, in order to have the correct policy adopted. We must have the present government pursuing the proper policy. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I concurred in the purchase of this railway. My only difficulty was with regard to the price. I hope the price is honest. That is my only difficulty. If the price is honest, the policy is right.


Mr. WILLIAM ROSS (Victoria).: I congratulate my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Gourley) on his broad views and I hope he will make an impression on the representatives from Ontario on both sides of the House. There is just a word I would like to say in favour of the Intercolonial. In former days we heard it frequently said that during three months in the year it would be impossible for that railway to be run. Well, there was not a day last winter, with all its severity, on which a train did not go from Montreal to Sydney, Cape Breton. True, it was some hours late at times, but when the other railways in Canada were tied up, we had continuous trains from

Montreal all the way to Halifax and thence to Cape Breton all winter.
Bill read the third time and passed.



THE ALIEN LABOUR ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCIC (Postmaster General) moved second reading of Bill (No. 162) to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting Alien Labour. He said : Whilst the Bill appears to cover a number of subjects, there are but three salient points in it, and to those three I would ask leave to draw the attention of the House. The first point is the clause which seeks to reach the case of false representations, by means of which persons are attracted to Canada under the pretence that there are opportunities here which in fact do not exist. We had this spring an illustration of the wrong we are now seeking to prevent. About the month of April last the press announced that there were large numbers of Italians in Montreal, who had just arrived in search for employment, and that employment was not to be found. We were told that they were in a state of distress, that they were creating embarrassment to the local authorities, and that these gatherings of large bodies of unemployed foreigners were often disquieting to the citizens . Whatever may be the remoter consequences, no one can defend such a practice as was illustrated in Montreal, and I submit that it is our fluty to prevent our country being made the base of operations for the purpose of promoting such frauds. An investigation conducted under oath showed a deliberate plan on the part of evil-disposed persons in Montreal to attract these aliens to our shores by leading them to believe that they would at once obtain satisfactory employment. When these peotple reached here they were disappointed, They also had been induced to contribute money to the agencies which had directed them here, under the representation that they would get at once good employment on registering at these agencies. This was but a further continuation of the frauds conceived in the original plan of sending forth from Canada to foreign countries these false representations as to the state of the labour market. That illustration is in itself sufficient to show the necessity for this legislation.
John Graham Haggart: Would not the law reach that class now ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: No. Quite apart from the wrong done the individuals themselves, there are further injuries. For instance, it is not to the credit of Canada that a number of persons should be induced to come here under the belief that they are going to immediately obtain profitable employment and then be disappointed. Transactions of that character are such as we ought to stop. Therefore that feature of
the Bill is one of its important provisions. The second is section 8 which regards the railways aided by public moneys. It provides that they are to be constructed as far as circumstances will admit by the class of people mentioned in this Bill, namely, British subjects, Canadians resident and residents in Canada and bona fide immigrants to Canada, and failing those, then by such others as the government may from time to time admit. It also provides that the contractors shall be British subjects, and if the contractors are corporations, then the majority of the directors and the capital shall be British. Apart altogether from whatever intrinsic merit there is in that proposition, it would not be out of place for me to remind the House that across the line there is legislation of a much more restrictive character. I am aware that the alien labour laws of the United States are not viewed with favour generally, but we did not begin it. We began at a very long date after the original Labour Act of United States. The United States Congress itself has legislated on this subject, and so have various states of the union, chiefly the northern border states touching upon Canada. For instance, the laws of New Jersey prevent any person from performing any work in connection with any state, county, city, town, township or other municipal corporation, who is not a resident.
Under the law of the state of Illinois :-
It shall be unlawful for any board or commission, or any officer or other person acting for the state, or for any county, township, city, village, district, or other municipality in the state, or any contractor or sub-contractor, under any or either of said municipalities, to employ any person or persons, other than native born or naturalized citizens, or those who have in good faith declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States, when such employees are to be paid, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, out of any funds raised by taxation.
If we see a man coming to Canada with his wife and family to settle we know he is coming as a bona fide immigrant ; but when we find 1,000 navvies whose homes are still in their own country, who come without any household goods or effects, who come just for the moment to earn and go away, we may be able to distinguish, I think, between that class of person and the bona fide immigrants who have come here across the seas with their families, with the bona fide intention of becoming citizens of Canada. In connection with public works of magnitude such as the Grand Trunk Pacific it seems particularly incumbent upon us to see that those who are responsible for the work, commencing at the top, and extending through all the different classes of workmen, should be under such control as is contemplated by this section. I believe it is conceded that those portions of the Cana-

dian railways which were built under the supervision of Canadian engineers were, as a rule, better built than those portions which were built by aliens who are not familiar with our topography or our requirements. In another respect I think it is due and essential to the people of Canada and in the interest of these undertakings, that the engineers who have the control of such vast millions of money as will be spent in the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific and I trust in connection with other public works which this country jpay authorize from time to time, should be in touch with public opinion in Canada. The engineers can to some extent make an enterprise cost much or little. I cannot conceive that as a rule an engineer coming from abroad can be as familiar with our views of the obligations on the part of engineers and with our expectations and requirements in respect of integrity and fidelity on their part as can those engineers who are of our own country and who have been brought up in our own atmosphere.
Then with regard to contractors. It is proposed in this measure that the contractors shall be British subjects as well, and that if the contractors are a corporation we shall, so far as possible, control the constitution of such a corporation. It might be largued that it would be sufficient to say that the boards of directors or a majority of them should be British subjects, but if 1}he real contractors at the back are not British subjects, not people interested in our own country, they can easily arrange to have dummy directors to quality under such a provision as that while in reality the contractors would still be aliens. In the construction of an enormous work like this, if the contractors are not in sympathy with our own country and our own people we think that these contractors will be inclined, especially should they be contractors from the other side of the line, to favour their own country in the purchase of supplies, in the employment of labour if possible and in every way to consider the interests of their own country as distinct from ours. I maintain that in the expenditure of this money on the Grand Trunk Pacific as far as we can control the destination of this money in the way of payment of supplies or for labour, it is our duty in so far as the circumstances will admit, to see that the expenditures remain in Canada to the extent of being paid to Canadian residents, that people in our own country should add to their resources and in that way aid in the enrichment of our own country. But if the contractors are citizens of a foreign land, if they should make money they will in all probability withdraw from this country when they have finished their work and will take away whatever profits they have earned, and while they are connected with the work they will be inclined to turn whatever custom and trade they can into the Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
land of their own birth. Therefore to get the fullest advantage out of this enterprise, I think we are bound also to have regard to the nationality of the contractors, and to I control the class of employees who build the work.
I would also submit this thought. The Grand Trunk Pacific will not only be a scheme for transportation but during the period of construction it might do a great work in the direction of immigration itself. If the men who are to be engaged in the construction of this work are birds of passage, men who come here but for a moment to work, to earn and to leave, there remains nothing of their labours when they are gone except the constructed work ; but if we can induce to come to Canada as workmen in the first place to take part in the construction of this road, persons who will make good settlers, people who are likely to settle in our country, this enterprise as the work proceeds will have the effect of peopling the districts that are now devoid of settlement altogether. The machinery contemplated by this section is that whenever the government is satisfied that Canada does not supply sufficient labour to perform this work it can itself permit the importation of other labourers from other portions of the world. In that way they can discriminate. They can issue an order, for example, in favour of people from one country as against people from, another country, and we know very well that in old Europe to-day and in other portions of the world there are people some of whom would be desirable settlers while the people in other sections would not be desirable settlers. A wise discretion on the part of the government in attracting workmen from countries that supply people who would become desirable settlers might, I think, be made a very important feature in the way of settling the districts to be traversed by this road. The last feature in the Bill to which I draw special attention is the exclusion of undesirable immigrants. This has nothing whatever to do with the question of alien labour but has to do simply with the endeavour to secure as good a population as circumstances will permit. There are at present upon the statute-books of Canada some rather crude and primitive laws, having for their object the exclusion of undesirable citizens, but these laws are quite inoperative and they do not at all touch the point. For example the Immigration Act found in R. S. C., chap. 65, while it appears to prohibit paupers and persons not otherwise suitable such as persons of unsound mind, who are blind, &c., does not prohibit their coming to Canada but only seems to deal with the subject by way of penalty. It provides for example, in one class of cases, that a ship importing an undesirable class of immigrants may be liable to a small pecuniary fine, but there is nothing to prevent a person who lands from becoming a citizen of Canada. As an aid

therefore to the immigration laws, section 10 is proposed, which provides that certain undesirable classes should be prohibited absolutely from becoming citizens of Canada. They are enumerated in that section, I need not refer to them now.
I think no one will deny for a moment that this evil of bringing in an undesirable population to Canada is not dealt with (by merely imposing a pecuniary fine upon those who bring them here. The United States has for many years been allowing the surplus population of all the races of the earth to flock into that country, and now they are beginning to discover that they have been altogether lax in their immigration laws. Desirable as it is to add to the population of our country, I think it is most important also that the class of people that come here should be a desiralble class. We are now laying the national foundation, and if we are to act wisely in the selection of the foundation stocks that are to build up the peoples who are to inhabit a united Canada, now is the time for us to act. We cannot do that unless we exercise some discretion in regard to the classes of people who are to become the forefathers of the future nation. Therefore, in discussing this section, hon. gentlemen will observe it has nothing to do in itselt with the question of alien labour, but strictly belongs to the question of immigration. However, the Minister of the Interior having charge of immigration and the Department of Labour having charge of the subject of alien labour, and having also to do with de portations, it was deemed advisable that one department alone should be concerned in ihe subject of deportation, and my colleague the Minister of the Interior thought it more properly belonged to the Department of Labour to take complete charge of the subject of deportation; accordingly these clauses are found in the Alien Bill now before the House. In addition to this special feature of the Bill, there are some other features of a minor character, but to them I attach comparatively little importance.
The first clause in the Bill of any consequence is a re-enactment of almost the whole of the first section of the original Alien Labour Act of 1897. That clause is a copy of a clause in the Act of the United States. After the United States Congress had enacted it, they subsequently amended it, and the amendment proposed in this section follows in substance the amended section of the United (States Act. The original United States Act provided that it should be illegal to import aliens under a contract, expressed or implied. Subsequently, and after our Act was passed, they amended their Act extending the illegality to cases of importation under promise or offer, as well as under contract. I attach very little importance to the amendment in the law of the United States ; in fact, it seems to me an almost useless amendment, because the original Act makes a contract, expressed or implied,
final ; and it would seem, therefore, that it was comprehensive enough to embrace the class of cases covered by the amending Act of the United States, namely, persons brought in under promise and understanding. I therefore attach no importance to this proposed section, which, however, if it stood unexplained, might appear to suggest something radically new. It does not make any new suggestion, except in the direction I have indicated.
The next subsections of this section are what may be called remedial legislation. They are clauses providing that under certain conditions persons desiring to import labour which they would otherwise be prohibited from importing, may, through the machinery here suggested, obtain an order exempting them from the provisions of the law. Mow, the reasoning that induced me to propose these clauses was as follows : There is at present on the statute-book a stringent Alien Labour Act, of which section 1 makes it illegal to import labour. There may be instances when Canada cannot supply the labour required, and if that is the case, either the work which it is desired to do must remain undone, or those who seek to do that work will be obliged, illegally and surreptitiously, to bring into Canada the class of prohibited labour which they desire. It is not expedient that a law should be on the statute-book that will prevent useful work being carried on without, at the same time, providing machinery for the importation of the necessary labour if our own country does not supply it. In order to remove all inducement to persons to violate the law, it seemed to me wiser to provide machinery whereby they might do, in a straightforward manly way, under the sanction of the law, that which they would otherwise have to do in a clandestine way. Therefore, I desired to provide some machinery to meet such a case as that, namely, the importation of prohibited labour when it is not forthcoming in our own country, or from countries from which it is lawful to import it. These sections, therefore, instead of being intended to add to the stringency of the law are relaxations of the law.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the present case furnishes an illustration of how, occasionally, the very best intentions are misunderstood. I suppose it has been the good fortune of all hon. gentlemen present, within the last few days, to receive a great many communications, by telegram, letter and otherwise, from persons throughout Canada expressing their alarm at the radical and far-reaching character of this proposed legislation. I am aware that an organized effort has been made to create an intense feeling throughout the country against this measure. Some people, without seeing the Bill, without knowing its provisions, accepted the conclusions of others who were equally misinformed, who may have read it, but have not fully comprehended it; and they have assumed that this Bill is very

hostile to Canadian industries. It has been pointed out to me that one of the most objectionable features in it consists of these remedial clauses, these clauses which open the door1, in proper cases, to the importation of what would otherwise be prohibited labour. I have had an opportunity, within the last day or two, of interchanging opinions with a great many people upon this question, and I have been surprised at the lack of correct information possessed by them as to the real scope and object of this measure.


Mr. CLARKE.: Possessed by whom ?


William Mulock: I did not give the names. I said I bad the honour within the last one or two days, or within a few days, of having been interviewed by very many prominent and worthy citizens who have expressed their views in regard to this measure and in the course of these interviews I was surprised to meet with such inaccurate ideas as to the intent, object and scope of this measure. I have this to say that of all the men who have come to me opposing this measure on the ground that it involved the introduction into this country of very drastic laws, every one of them has changed his mind on understanding it. I may add perhaps in explanation of it, that when some features of it were pointed out to me as being capable of improvement. for example when it was pointed out that the machinery I was endeavouring to devise was not in all cases sufficient to carry out the objects of the Bill, I have expressed my willingness to make that machinery more elastic in order to meet some special cases. In the event of there being an absolute void in the labour market, it is not intended that we should play the dog in the manger by preventing work from going on in Canada if there is nobody in Canada to perform that work. For my part I attach no importance whatever to section 1. The other provisions were introduced with the worthy object I have mentioned and I regret to say that they do not appear yet to have received that hearty approval from those who are to benefit from them which I would have hoped, and which I think I had the right to expect. There is another .section which may seem perhaps more material than the others; that is section 7 which purposes to repeal section 9 of the original Act of 1897. That section it is not proposed to pass., I propose, with the permission of the committee, when we are in committee, to abandon section 7. There is only one other section which I think I need dwell upon and that is section 3. Section 3 purports to amend section 1 of the statutes of 1901. That section provided that it should be illegal for a person knowingly to import under contract. A short time ago a contractor from Port Huron in the state of Michigan, just across the river from Sar-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
nia, came into Sarnia to perform a contract. He brought his own labourers from Port Huron to perform that work.


Mr. J. D. REID.: A railway contract?


William Mulock: No, it was not a railway contract ; it was a municipal contract.


John Dowsley Reid: Not a government contract ?


William Mulock: No, a municipal contract. He brought in people from his own town. The workmen in Sarnia felt that they were being unfairly treated and steps were taken to impose the penalties cf the Act. The case was brought before,
I think, a stipendiary magistrate and the defendant went into the witness box and swore that he did not know these men were citizens of the United States. They were his neighbours in Port Huron and he was himself a citizen of the United States. The profound judge on that occasion held that as the defendant swore he did not know they were aliens he was not guilty of any offence and he dismissed the proceedings. It is proposed to add after the word ' knowing ' the words ' or having reasonable ground for believing,' sc that it shall be a violation to import knowing or having any reasonable ground for believing that the persons imported are aliens. It is not an amendment to which 1 attach much importance and I cannot see that it is a very serious one because I doubt if many judges in the .land would have given such a decision as was given in the case m question. Most judges would have been prepared to have taken the view that1 knowing ' meant having good reason for knowing irrespective of what the man confessed to knowing himself. In this country we have many classes of men administering the law, some learned and some not so learned, and it may be wise to make the law a little plainer for the benefit of the latter class. I beg to move that Bill (No. 162) to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting alien labour be now read the second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 1,
Section 1 of the said Act, chapter 11 of the statutes of 1897, is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor :-
1. It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, company or corporation in any way to assist or encourage the importation or immigration of any alien into Canada, to perform labour or service of any kind in Canada, whether by way of prepayment of or towards his transportation, or by way of promise or offer of employment or by way of contract or agreement, parole, or special, express or implied, for his employment, made or entered into previous to such importation or immigration, and the entry into Canada of any alien

whose importation or immigration has been so assisted or encouraged is hereby prohibited.
George William Fowler: It seems to me that this is restricting the thing very much. This is going to interfere with the work of your immigration agents abroad. The immigration agent would naturally, in advocating the advantages of this country, set out the fact that men can get employment here at different classes of labour. I do not see how else he is going to set out the advantages of Canada if he does not set out that there is lots of labour for all classes. He is not going to coniine himself entirely to agricultural immigrants, and it seems to me that when you say here : ' by way of contract or agreement, parole or special, express or implied ' it may be considered to be an implied agreement that the immigrant will get employment in Canada.


William Mulock: This is not a new provision in the law.


George William Fowler: It seems to restrict the thing very much and will interfere with the work of your Immigration Department.


William Mulock: Section 1 of the Act of 1897 reads as follows :
From and alter the passage of this Act it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership or corporation, In any manner to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or immigration of any alien or foreigner into Canada, under contract or agreement, parole or special, express or implied, made previous to the Importation or immigration of such alien or foreigner, to service of any kind in Canada.
That is the law to-day and the amendment simply incorporates the words of the United States Act, ' promise,' or ' offer, in addition to the word ' contract.'


Mr. SPROULE.: It is to my knowledge that farmers very often send home for labourers and furnish money to pay their way out.


William Alfred Galliher: It only applies to aliens.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How would it effect the Germans ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It only applies to such countries as have a similar law against us.


Mr. BOYD.: How will this effect the Icelanders and other nationalities who are settled in large numbers in the west ? Just as soon as some of these people can raise the money they send home for their friends and give them a promise of labour ; will they be prevented from doing that in the future ? What excuse does the minister give for introducing such an important measure as this in the dying hours of the session when it is impossible for us to give it that consideration that we should ?


Mr. DAVIS.: I fancy this law does not apply to Scandinavians or Germans.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let the minister tell us to what countries it would apply ?


William Mulock: I do not think there are any countries in the world that have an alien labour law except the United States and Canada. We are either the most advanced or most retrograde of countries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then it would only apply to the United States.


William Mulock: That is all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And it would have no bearing on the iron founders brought to Toronto under contract from Scotland ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: They are not foreigners.
Mi-. FOWLER. The minister dilated for an hour on the importance of preventing those hordes of Italians coming into Canada and now we find that his law does not a'pply to them.


William Mulock: That is altogether another point and is dealt with by another clause of the Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: Would it apply to an advertisement in an Italian newspaper ?


William Mulock: We cannot pass a law here making a penal offence of what is done in a foreign country.
Mr. TAYLOR, Some years ago I introduced an alien labour law word for word, and letter for letter with the United States law. The government did not allow it to pass but the Prime Minister pledged himself that he would pass an alien labour law similar to the American law. It is high time for him to redeem that promise. The only thing this government has done in the shape of a alien labour law is to introduce something to humbug the people, and this Bill is nothing else but a further attempt to humbug. Under it the Italians can come in just as they did in the past. When I introduced a Bill similar to the American law the government got one of their friends to introduce another Bill and they referred it to a committee of a majority of their friends who mutilated it so that it has never been enforced since and is of no use whatever. Only this morning I received the following letter from my county :
Lyn, August 4, 1904.
Dear Sir,-I am taking the liberty of drawing your attention to a violation of our alien labour laws. John Walker, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, has been brought to Canada by the Grand Trunk Railway, and is being fitted for a position as agent on their line. He is now at Mal-lorytown, and he is one of several telegraph operators brought at the same time and from the same source. I am certain as to my information.


William Mulock: Why doesn't the hon. gentleman make some use of that information ?


Mr. TAYLOR.: I am giving my hon. friend the information now. I wrote to the party saying that the Alien Labour Bill was coming before the House to-day, and that I would bring this matter to the hon. gentleman's attention. I will send him the letter, and let him deport these gentlemen.


William Mulock: I may inform the hon. gentleman that he is the one chargeable with the proceedings. The law does not enable the government to institute proceedings. My hon. friend received a complaint from a constituent of his, he put it away in his desk, pigeon-holed it, and now he would neglect his duty and call on some one else to do the work he should do himself. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman do his own worK.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman ought to be fair and honest, but that is something he cannot be. He resorts to the lowest kind of parish politics. He says I received this letter this morning, pigeon-holed it, and put it away in my desk. I had it in my pocket and took it out of my pocket; and now the hon. gentleman says I am the party to institute proceedings. The American law would permit the party who wrote that letter to make the complaint ; but this government have made their law so that it cannot be enforced. There is no machinery to put it in force ; and that will be the case if this humbug and fraud which the hon. gentleman is putting on the statute-book to-day is carried through on the pretense of preventing the importation of Italians iuto Montreal. I bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour in the interest of the labouring men of this country, and I ask him to act on this letter and have these men deported from the country.


William Mulock: What is the hon. gentleman going to do about it ?


George Taylor: I have nothing to do with it ; I wash my hands of it. I ask the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister to redeem the pledge they gave to this country that they would put on the statute-book an alien labour law word for word, line for line, the same as the American law.


Mr. COWAN.: Will you tell us about the efforts you made to put on the statute-book an alien labour law V


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman stole my Bill at the request of the government, and introduced a Bill with his name to it, which was a copy of the one I had introduced for years.


Thomas Osborne Davis: How many years ?


George Taylor: 


George Taylor: The hon. member for Essex stole the Bill which I had introduced for two or three years, and introduced it in his own name ; and what did he do with it ? He allowed it to go to a committee of his friends, who so mutilated it that it has been practically a dead letter ever since. It is no good in the interest of labour ; and I would ask the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister to redeem the pledge they gave to put on the statute-book a law the same as the American law, so that this man or any one else could go to a justice of the peace and have the law put in operation. You cannot do it to-day.


William Mulock: Why ?	'


George Taylor: Because there is nothing in the law to enable you to do it. You have to move the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General. Here is a statement, in yesterday's paper, that it has been proved before the government commission that there is a man working in Sault Ste. Marie in violation of the Alien Labour Law, and he defies the government or any one else to deport him. He has the government at his back, and they are doing what they have done ever since they came into power, defrauding the labouring men by pretending that they are doing something (in their interest. This Bill is so surrounded by machinery that no man or body of men can put it in operation without the win of the government.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take up the attention of the House for any length of time, more than is necessary to refer to the remark of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) that I had stolen this Bill. Perhaps some explanation might be advisable in view of the fact that a good many members of this House are not quite familiar with the history of the hon. member for Leeds' connection with alien labour legislation. For seven straight years, one consecutively after the other' the hon. member for Leeds introduced into this House a Bill respecting alien labour ; and for seven straight years he swallowed liis principles and dropped the Bill without forcing it to a division. In addition to that, the hon. member for Leeds once got a committee appointed to take evidence. Evidence was taken at very great expense to the people of Canada. Hundreds of dollars were expended to bring witnesses from one end of the Dominion to the other. Finally a report was made against the Bill, and his own leader, the late Sir John Thompson, dropped the Bill ; and the hon. member for Leeds, as usual, swallowed his principles, and voted against the measure which he had introduced into the House. The hon. gentleman said I stole his Bill. In 1S97 I was waited upon by several -labour organizations, who pointed out the course

which the hon. member for Leeds had taken in regard to alien labour, and asked now that this government was in power, that some person introduce an alien labour law In order to offset the alien labour law of the United States, and to place Canadian citizens in a position that if the American republic saw fit to deport citizens of Canada from the United States, citizens of the United States might be deported from Canada. I therefore introduced a Bill

not the hon. gentleman's Bill, but an exact copy of the alien labour law of the United States, which I copied from the statutes of the United States, exactly as the hon. member for Leeds copied his Bill, word for word, verbatim. But, realizing, as I stated at the time, that a population of 5,000,000 could get more employment among a people of 70,000,000 alongside of them than 70,000,000 could get among 5,000,000, I did not want to enforce the alien labour law against the United States unless they first enforced their law against Canada. Therefore, after a fight not only in this House, but before a subcommittee, in which I was not supported by some gentlemen who sat on both sides of the House, we conceded the point rather than have nothing, that the law could not be put into operation without the consent of the Department of Justice. What was the effect of that law ? Living in a border city and representing a constituency three sides of which are on the international boundary line, where citizens of the county of Essex who were constituents of mine had been turned back, not by ones or twos, but by the dozen, where their mail had been ransacked and their private correspondence gone through to see whether or not they were going to have employment in the United States, from the moment that law went upon the statute-books, there have not been five single individuals turned back to the city of Windsor. I want to go a step further and tell the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) that if he will read the reports of the United States and Canada, he will find that under the Alien Labour law introduced by me and subsequently amended by the Minister of Justice there have been two Americans deported out of Canada to the United States for every Canadian deported from the United States back to Canada. If he knew quite as much about the legislation of this House as he pretends and ought to know, he would know that in the year 1901 the regulation respecting application to the Department of Justice in order to get permission to set the Alien Labour law in motion was repealed, and that the poorest and humblest citizen in Canada can now invoke the present law just as well as the Department of Justice, and since that time that law has been put in motion by private citizens, and aliens from the United 272J
States have been deported from Canada under its provisions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that be the case, how does it happen that all these parties who were imported by the Grand Trunk Railway remained in the country all summer ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: It may be because our law contains the express provision that it should be applied to those countries only which have a similar law in force against the Dominion of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Mahlon K. Cowan: We are agreed on that ; and if the hon. gentleman will take the statutes of' the American Congress of 1903, he will find that the learned professions of the Dominion of Canada are expressly excluded from the American Alien Labour Act. He will admit that the profession of civil engineer is a learned one. If the United States were constructing ten transcontinental railways, they could hire every civil engineer in the Dominion, and there is no law in the American statutes which would enable the Amerieau government to deport them. But this Bill now introduced by the Minister of Labour goes further and in* eludes the learned profession. It includes engineers.


George William Fowler: How can that be ? Is not section 7 struck out repealing section 9 ? Section 9 remains and the Act must be the same as the American.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If because the American law does not exclude them, we cannot keep them out, what is the use of continuing the farce that has been going on some time and telling the people that the Minister of Labour is goiug to deport them ? Is not that misleading the people ? What authority have you to deport them ? The hon. member has said that he introduced a Bill exactly similar to the American law.


Mahlon K. Cowan: There is that exception to it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But he was obliged to concede this and did concede it.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I made no such statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He conceded what made the Bill practically worthless.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I desire to repeat that I made no such statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The statement which the hon. member made .was this, that he introduced a Bill exactly similar to the American, but that the strength of opinion against it was such that he was obliged to concede this amendment, which provided that the consent of the Attorney General must be obtained before taking suit. That made the Act unworkable.


Mahlon K. Cowan: We struck that out three years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The people of Capa da were told that we had a labour law excluding aliens. These aliens come in, the gov-vernment, through the Minister of Labour, starts a prosecution and tells the people he will deport them, and the hon. gentleman says it is impossible to do it under the law.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I made no such statement. I said it may be because there is a provision in our law which makes it apply only to countries that have a similar law against the Dominion. But neither my hon. friend nor anybody behind him is going quite so far as to say that that necessitates that the law shall be absolutely the same as that of the United States. The present Bill goes further than the present American law. Under the present Bill, you could deport an engineer and under the law of the United States you cannot.


Mr. INGRAM.: Where can I find the record giving the division in which the hon. member for Leeds voted against his own Bill ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: If the hon. gentleman will give me about three minutes I will tell him exactly where he can find the record. I have given the information to parliament before.


George Taylor: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Campbell).: Order.
Mr. TAYLOR-was the Bill introduced the year before. If he does not know it he ought to know it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Taylor: Then I withdraw the other statement I made, but the Bill he introduced and which I saw was the Bill with my name on it scored out.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Taylor: Yes, the Bill I introduced the year before and the records will prove it. The Bill is upstairs yet, and it was the Bill that had been presented the year before with my name on it and the name of the hon. member for Essex written on. Now let the hon. gentleman get up and say that he copied that Bill that he made statements in this House that were true. *


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is petty larceny.


George Taylor: That is what the hon. gentleman did. When I introduced that Bill the Minister of Labour and several others on that side pooh-poohed the idea and I had to introduce the Bill year after year until I educated the (people of the country to see that there was something in the Bill and then I got the committee and took evidence. After that What happened ? The present Prime Minister saw that there' was an agitation in the country on this matter and he said : Put me in and I will put on the statute-book a law corresponding word for word and line for line with the American law. I have asked ever since to have that promise fulfilled. In order that the Prime Minister might have an opportunity of doing so, I introduced a Bill the first session but I have been forestalled by the hon. inember for Essex (Mr. Cowan) who stole the Bill I had before introduced, and the Prime Minister in place of passing that Bill sent it to a sub-committee composed of three or four men from that side and two or three from this side. That sub-committee mutilated the Bill and the hon. member for Essex said that he introduced a Bill copied from an American Bill. The Bill was opposed by the Prime Minister and

this government in the form in which the hon. gentleman introduced it, because it was a copy of the Bill I had introduced, line for line with the American Bill. [DOT]


Mahlon K. Cowan: Both yours and mine were copies of the American Bill.


George Taylor: The sub-committee mutilated it at the request of the government. We had a member of the government on the committee and I remember some speeches that he made in the committee. These are the facts and yet that hon. gentleman will get up here and make statements that he knows are not in accordance with the facts, and yet he expects- the electors who sent him here will back him up in these statements.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) have asked me to give the date and the authority for the statement I made that the hon. member for -South Leeds had voted against his own motion and his own Bill. I find that he first introduced an Alien Labour Bill on April 15, 1890. On May 5, 1891 (' Hansard,' page 106) he introduced his Bill. On May 12, it went to the second reading and on request of Sir John Thompson he withdrew it. On March 3, 1892, he introduced his Bill again (' Hansard,' page 285). The report of the special committee which was passed the year before was read in the House and on May 11 (' Hansard,' page 2457) Sir John Thompson, his own leader, moved the six; months hoist of this Bill and you will search the records in vain to find the hon. member for South Leeds doing anything but agreeing to it and voting for the six months' hoist.


George Taylor: The hon. member has the report before him as it is in ' Hansard ' of that year. I ask him to read that report, and see if it will verify the statement he made that the committee reported against the Bill.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I made no such statement, I said the committee reported entirely in favour of the Bill and


George Taylor: I have the. floor. My hon. friend said and ' Hansard ' will verify it that I got a committee, large sums were expended and that committee reported against it. That is what he said, he has the report, and I ask him to read the report or send the volume over to me and I shall read it.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I wish to apologize to the House for having got into this discussion, but I want to say that I did not make a statement that the committee reported against the Bill


George William Fowler: Yes, you did.
Mr. COWAN-because I have the report of the committee before me and it makes it
all the worse for the hon. member for South. Leeds (Mr. Taylor) for the committee reported in favour of the passage of the Bill and then years after the hon. member introduced his Bill, he read the report of the committee upon the introduction and the hon. member's leader, Sir John Thompson, May 11 ('Hansard,' 2457 for 1892) moved the six months' hoist and the hon. gentleman swallowed his principles, voted with his leader, voted against his own Bill after having read the report of his own committee, expressly asking for its adoption.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman from South Essex (Mr. Cowan) made the statement in this House to-day that the hon. gentleman from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) voted against his own Bill.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Hear, hear, I make it now.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the statement the hon. gentleman makes. I ask the hon. gentleman to produce the record proving that statement to be true. He has not produced his record. He has produced his speech but I do not take his speech as a record of this House nor will any other hon. gentleman who knows the manner in which that hon. gentleman addresses the House. What I want the hon. gentleman to do is.to produce the record, and if he cannot produce the record of this House to show that the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) voted against the Bill he must withdraw his statement because it is untrue. I take the responsibility of saying now that it is not correct.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The record says it is correct ; I have sent for it and will send it over to my hon. friend. This was four years before I was in the House.


Andrew B. Ingram: I say that the hon. gentleman from South Essex cannot produce a record of a division in which the hon. member for Leeds voted against his own Bill. I make that statement against the hon. gentleman's own statement and he cannot produce the record to contradict it. I have been in this House since 1890 and I have watched closely every stage of the Alien Labour legislation in this House and I want to tell my hon. friend when the hon. member for Leeds introduced this Bill he introduced a measure which was extremely unpopular. There were few members on either side of the House who favoured that Bill except the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor).


Mahlon K. Cowan: The committee expressly recommended that it be passed.


Andrew B. Ingram: I know what I am talking about. The present leader of the government in every instance up to 1896 opposed that Bill, and he was no worse in

that respect than the leader of the government In those days who also opposed it, and Cam sure that the Prime Minister will hear me out when I make that staetment. As the Bill was introduced each year after that it gained some little support in the House, hut it was never popular in this House nor did it ever receive much support until the unfriendly feeling of the United States towards Canadians going into the United States developed and the Canadian people felt that they were not being used properly. Then that feeling developed in this House and encouraged my hon. friend in the passage of that Bill. The government in this past session favoured it for that reason, for it was popular but they look on that legislation as being bad legislation.
Now I want to say that while I supported that Bill, I do not think that it is proper legislation for either this country or the United States. I think there ought to he a more friendly spirit between the citizens of the United States and the citizens of Canada, and that so long as they are respectful to each other, they ought to be allowed to be employed by both countries regardless of any alien labour law. That is the view I took then and that is the view I take now. It was only after the bad feeling that existed in this country in consequence of the treatment of Canadians going into the United States, that we were obliged in self protection to place on our statute-book what is known as the Alien Labour Law. It was after this commotion had occurred, after this ill feeling had been engendered, that my hon. friend took the Bill that had been prepared and introduced b'y the member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and introduced it himself, and it becamd law. There is the whole thing in a nut-shell. That is a true statement of the facts as they occurred from the time of the introduction of the Bill up to the time of its passage. Again I say that when the hon. gentleman from South Sssex (Mr. Cowan) states that my friend from Leeds voted against his' own Bill, he is stating what is not the fact, and the records of this House show it is not the fact.


George William Fowler: Of course we are not surprised at the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Cowan) making statements that he has to go back on afterwards, because he is in the habit of doing that in this House. He made some statements the other day about a former, member of this House, since deceased. The remarks were made in bad taste as every member of the House felt, on account, both of the distinguished services which that gentleman had rendered to Canada, and because he had passed away. The hon. member made a statement then which was a gross exaggeration.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Mahlon K. Cowan: Absolutely correct, no exaggeration, except a difference in the amount.


George William Fowler: That is just where the exaggeration came in. The hon. gentleman said that the amount "was $2,000 when it was only $400. The hon. gentleman has so little appreciation of the English language that he calls an increase of $400 to $2,000 no exaggeration. Now we know just how much confidence to place on what the hon. gentleman says in this House. He says that my hon. friend for Leeds voted against his own Bill. As a matter of fact there was no division on the Bill, and yet the hon. gentleman says that the hon. member for Leeds voted against his own motion. Now that is the fairness we can expect from the hon. member for Essex. But we saw a beautiful example set him by the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour is so constituted that it is absolutely impossible for him to be fair when he makes statements in this House. Although for the last four years during which I have sat in this House, I had listened to many statements made by the Minister of Labour and had heard so much from him about fairness that I could not be shocked at anything he might utter, y.et when he attempted to-day to reprimand the member for South Leeds for only just reading a letter which he had received in this morning's mail. I thought the limit was certainly reached even by the nerve of the Minister of Labour. Now I have before me a report of that committee on which that Bill was introduced, and of which committee the hon. member for South Leeds was chairman. That committee reported :
Your committee find, on examination, that this Bill is similar in all respects to a Bill passed by the Congress of the United States in 1885 and amended by that body in 1886.
Your committee have had before them witnesses from different points along the frontier, and find from their evidence (copy of which is annexed hereto) that the American Alien Labour law has been enforced in such a way as to compel many of our people to relinquish their employment in the United States, or to remove with their families and reside there permanently, while citizens of the United States are permitted to work in Canada every day, and to return to their homes on the American side of the frontier at night, without interference from the Canadian authorities .
These are the recommendations :
Your committee recommend that the attention of 'the authorities at jWashington be directed to the oppressive application to Canadians of the American Alien Labour law, and to allow of such representation being made, and to afford time for its due consideration, recommend that further consideration of this Bill be postponed until next session ; and if some suitable measure for granting relief to Canadians from the grievance complained of, be not passed in the in-

terval by the American authorities, then your committee recommend that a Bill dealing with this question be introduced next session, and taken into consideration.
That is the report of the committee of which the member for South Leeds wan chairman. I think the member for Essex might have shown his opposition to this Bill without attacking my hon. friend for South Leeds. It was not enough for the hon. gentleman, he had not done injury enough ill taking away-I would not use the unparliamentary term used by the member for South Leeds, but we will say the member for Essex purloined the Bill of my hon. friend and palmed it off as his own. He found the Bill with the name of my hon. friend upon it, he scored out that name and substituted his own. I do not imagine there is another man in the House of Commons who would have been guilty of such unblushing effrontery as that.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Of course I have sat in the House for years with the hon. member for Leeds. I am not going to say anything about unblushing effrontery, it is not necessary, neither is it necessary after listening to the hon. member for King's, New Brunswick (Mr. Fowler) and never will be. But I want to say this, and I repeat what I said at the outset, that the member for South Leeds, not for the first time in this House, has criticised members on this side for not doing something in regard to alien labour. I find that report was made on the 15th of April, 1900. The conduct of the United States had become so objectiouable to the people of Canada, so many letters and telegrams had been written to members, so many questions had been asked time and again across the floor of this House, that it urns, deemed of sufficient importance to appoint a committee of this House to investigate the matter, and on April 15, 1890, they brought in a report stating that unless the American government could be induced to withdraw their drastic legislation or to cease enforcing it against Canada, a Bill dealing with that question would be introduced at the next session, enacting retaliatory legislation. That was in 1890. During all the balance of 1890, and during 1891, the same thing went on, and in 1892 the hon. member for South Leeds again introduced his Bill and he made a speech and read the report, the closing paragraph of which I have just read. I will read what took place from the 1 Hansard ' of May 11, 1892, page 4257 :



ALIEN LABOUR IMPORTATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the order to resume the/ adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Taylor that the Bill (No. 4) to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labour in Canada, be read a second time ; and the motion of Sir John Thompson in amendment thereto. ' That the said Bill be read a second time this day six months.'
Amendment agreed to.
And the member for South Leeds agreed to it, never dared to stand up for his own Bill, but agreed to the six mouths' hoist. I will send him over the ' Hansard ' containing the exact record.
An hou. MEMBER. There were no yeas or nays called.
Mahlon K. Cowan: The hon. gentleman did not see fit to call for the yens and nays, but he agreed to the six months hoist of! Jh|s own Bill.


George Taylor: We have heard pettifogging lawyers in division courts very often and in police courts. Every day we find the records of this House saying that a motion moved by the government is agreed to, there is no division, it is agreed to by the majority of the House. So on that occasion the motion was agreed to without division. BuL what was the representation by the government ? The representation by the government was that, acting on the report of the committee, they were engaged in correspondence with the government of the United States in an effort to make an amicable arrangement, and under these circumstances *Sir John Thompson moved that the Bill be read this day six months hence. The majority of the House agreed with him. There was no division. If ever parish politics were resorted to, the hon. member for South Essex has resorted to them in trying to falsify the records of this House. The record every day, no matter what the motion may be, is that without division the motion is agreed to, simply because the majority cry out ' yea,' unless there is a division. Tlie hon. gentleman says that I agreed to it. I say I did not agree to it; otherwise, I would not have introduced the Bill year after year as I did to try and educate, not only hon. members of the opposition, but some supporters of the government, to the belief that it was absolutely necessary, in the interest of the country, to adopt such legislation. It was a good deal like my Bill pro hibiting the importation of oleomargarine. I introduced this Bill, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) got up and spoke and voted against it, after which he took all the credit to himself for having introduced this very Bill later on. The hon. member for South Essex made the statement that the report of the committee was adverse to this legislation, that the committee reported against placing any restriction upon alien labour. When be makes the statement that he copied the American Bill, he simply means that he introduced a Bill printed the year before and which had previously borne my Ame. I do not see how an boil, gentleman who makes statements like that to the House can go back home and face his electors.


Andrew B. Ingram: In case the hon. member for South Essex refers again to the record of his speech, I think it would 'be well to place the record of the House beside that speech. I shall quote from the Votes and Proceedings of 1892.


Mahlon K. Cowan: What date ?
-Mr. INGRAM. 3rd March.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Look at May 11, and 1 think you will find the vote.


Andrew B. Ingram: I know the date just as well as my bon. friend.


Mahlon K. Cowan: It is May 11.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the Votes and Proceedings of March 3rd, 1892, I find the following :
The following Bills were severally introduced-


Mahlon K. Cowan: That is the introduction. Look at May 11, when the vote was called.


Andrew B. Ingram: If my bon. friend will have patience, he will have an opportunity of speaking.
The following Bills were severally introduced


George Taylor: -Bill (No. 6) to prohibit the Importation and Migration of Foreigners and Aliens under Contract or Agreement to perform Labour in Canada.
That is the introduction of the Bill. At page 180, you will find the following :
Mr. TAYLOR moved, that the Bill (No. 4) to prohibit the Importation and Migration ef Foreigners and Aliens under Contract or Agreement to perform Labour in Canada, be now read the second time.
That was moved on March 21, 1892.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON moved an amendment thereto, that the word ' now ' be struck out of the motion and the words * this day six months ' added at the end thereof ;
And a debate arising thereon, the said debate was, on motion of Mr. Ingram, adjourned.
At page 392 of the Votes and Proceedings will be found the following record :
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Taylor that the Bill (No. 4) to prohibit the Importation and Migration of Foreigners and Aliens under Contract or Agreement, to perform. labour in Canada, be read a second time, and the motion of Sir John Thompson in amendment thereto, * That the said Bill be read a second time this day six months.'
And the question being put on the amendment, It was agreed to. I
I want my hon. friend from South Essex to point out where* the name of my lion friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) appears in a division as voting for the amendment.


Mahlon K. Cowan: He agreed to the amendment that the Bill should be read six months hence.


Andrew B. Ingram: I want my hon. friend from South Essex to turn his head around to his good-natured friend who sits behind him, the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Maelaren). Does he charge the hon. member. for Huntingdon with having voted against his cigarette Bill ? His leader moved that a certain thing be done with the Bill. Do I understand that the hon. member for South Essex, because the hon. member for Huntingdon did not rise up and demand a division, asserts that the hon. member for Huntingdon supported his leader on that occasion ? Will the hon. member for Huntingdon say that he did so ? Did the hon. member for Huntingdon vote against, his own Bill ? The answer is very plain, that the hon. member for Huntingdon did not vote against his own Bill. The hon. gentleman was not supporting the government on that occasion or the course which the government took upon his Bill. He saw that he was under the very great misfortune of being in the minority and, by reason of that minority, his common sense told him that it was a useless waste of time to protest against his leader's action, and his leader's motion was carried. It is reported ' agreed to,' of course. That is the parliamentary way of doing these things, and you cannot quibble about it. This is the record of the facts as they occurred.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I do not want to prolong the discussion more than to say that fortunately the record of the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) did not stop in 1892. He introduced the same Bill, I think, each and every session, at all events, for several sessions, after 1892 until 1897, and each and every time it would stand for a couple or three months on the order paper and then be dropped. I made the statement at the outset and it has been challenged, but fortunately proved by my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), that the hon. member for Leeds introduced bis Bill, and that when his own leader made a motion to give it the six months' hoist, he voted against his own Bill and with his leader. I make the statement now, and I reiterate it; I say that it is true in substance and in fact, and nobody knows that better than the hon. member for East Elgin.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has distinctly denied that he voted against his Bill, and I want your ruling as to whether the hon. member for South Essex has any right, in face of that denial, to persist in saying that he did. I ask your ruling.
Mr. DEPUTY ' SPEAKER. If I understand the hon. member for South Essex, he draws the inference from the record of the


George Taylor: House that wlieu the question is put and agreed to, each and every member of the House has agreed to it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not the point of order.


Peter Macdonald: Mention the point of order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The point of order 1 raise is this : The hon. member for South Essex made the statement that my hon. friend from Leeds introduced a Bill and then voted against his own Bill.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I say the records of the House prove it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My hon. friend from South Leeds denied it. I say that the hon. member for South Essex has a right to accept that statement, and I ask your ruling upon it.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I do not understand


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I wish to discuss the point of order, and I have a perfect right to discuss the point of order. What I say is that ' Hansard ' shows that he did, and X say that the records of this House show that he did. The hon. member for South Leeds can get up and deny it if he chooses. The statement that I make is that he must have done it, that he did do it, the records of the House prove what I say, and in support of that


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. Mr. Chairman


Mahlon K. Cowan: Wait until I get through. If the hon. member for South Leeds did not vote for the resolution, the record of the House would have said ' carried on division,' but it does not. It says that this House agreed to it, and nobody knows that better than the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). But why quibble, if that were not agreed to ? If a man has a principle in his breast quite as strong as the hon. member for South Leeds asserts that he has, and his leader and hon. members behind him think he is wrong, he is a mighty poor advocate of that principle if he has not the manliness to stand up and demand a division upon his Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) denies the statement of the hon. gentleman from Essex (Mr. Cowan) and that hon. gentleman is bound to accept my hon. friend's (Mr. Taylor's) statement.


Andrew B. Ingram: I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) if he could produce the division list, and he said he could.


Mahlon K. Cowan: There was no division ; it was unanimous.	.


Andrew B. Ingram: In 1892 the hon. member fo,r Leeds (Mr. Taylor) could not get a sufficient number of members to demand a division for such a Bill.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Where were the members of the committee that made the report ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The record for 1892 distinctly disprove the statement made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan).


Peter Macdonald: It appears to me that the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) as to the incident should be accepted. If the vote is not recorded, the hon. gentleman might have been out of the House when the vote was called for, and though he might not be in accord with the motion no vote would be taken. Unless the records of the House show that the Lon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has voted, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) is bound to accept his statement.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I most cheerfully accept the ruling of the chair. I am very glad that the chair has made the suggestion to help the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) out of a hole that his own ingenuity could not get him out of.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The hon. member for Leeds does not say he was absent from the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I most cheerfully withdraw, and accept the ruling of the chair, but I would advise


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Surely I can give a little advice to hon. gentlemen opposite. I would advise that as the clerk of the House who made that record is now dead, and cannot be fired, but as the ' Hansard ' reporters also put the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) down as having agreed to it, I would' suggest that they should be fired and hired over again.


George Taylor: There is no record in 'Hansard' or anywhere else that I.agreed to it; and as I have denied absolutely that I either consented or agreed, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cowan) must accept my statement.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Were you here and did you challenge the vote ?


Peter Macdonald: The committee is out of order.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: Is there no rule in this House to put an end to this squabbling ? A large number of us are anxious to get home, and yet we have wasted an hour and a half over this personal quarrel between the hon. member for Leeds and the hon. member for Essex. The country is not interested in that. Let us go on with the business of the House.


Mr. GERVAIS.: Before the question is put, I wish to say a few words on this Bill. For my part, I wish to protest against



tlie statement made by the hon. gentleman from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and the bon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule), that this Bill is a fraud, and an attempt to humbug the people of Canada. I challenge these statements as being inaccurate and in order to confute them, I will read a telegram which I received this morning from prominent leaders of the labour organization in the city of Montreal. I translate:
Honors Gervais, M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
After having read and examined the Bill to consolidate and amend the Act respecting alien labour, we the undersigned, in the name of the Canadian labour unions declare that said Bill as it is printed and as it has been presented to the House of Commons is in accordance with the wishes as well as the needs of the workingmen of Canada.
That telegram is signed by :
N. Houle, president of the National Trades and Labour Congress of Canada ; T. J. Griffiths, secretary of the same organization ; T. Beaupr#, president of the Shoemakers' Union; Louis Lavalligre, secretary of the same organization ; D. Verdon, president of the Coopers' Union ; Joseph Lapointe,, president of the Carpenters' Union ; P. Levy, president of the Tailors' Union ; Joseph Despatie, president of the Plumbers' Union ; Joseph Houle, president of the Central Trades and Labour Council ; A. L. Gareau, organizer.


George William Fowler: Did those people know when they sent that telegram, that section 7 of the Act had been striken out ?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: As soon as the Bill was printed and distributed I had 25 copies of it sent to the leading workingmen of Montreal. They convened their brother workingmen, and deliberated upon the Bill as printed. I asked them for an expression of opinion and I got fifteen replies, and all these workingmen endorsed the action of the Minister of Labour. They endorse the action -of the present government in this matter, and I say that these organizations represent the combined labour world of Canada. You may laugh at their action if you will ; you may deride their opinion ; you may ridicule their judgment, but let the election come on and these workingmen will speak out in their own names, and in the name of the whole community in favour of the Liberal government which has introduced this legislation for their protection. Mr. Chairman, 1 approve most decidedly of this Bill in its entirety, and I will have pleasure in voting for its passage through this parliament.


John Dowsley Reid: With section 7 struck
out.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I approve of the Bill just as it is.	/
Mr. FOWLER, The hon. gentleman does not know that section 7 which protects Mr. GERVAIS.
these workingmen for whom he pretends to speak has been striken out, and that they are gold bricked. Now, these Italian labourers can be brought to Canada in ship loads.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


George William Fowler: Yes they can. Then the statement of the Minister of Labour was a misleading statement, because, in answer to the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd), who complained that Icelanders would be prevented from bringing their friends over to work on their farms, he said this applied only to countries which had similar laws with reference to alien labour; and that only applied to the United States. That being the case, the gentlemen whom the hon. gentleman who last spoke professes to represent, will not be protected by this Act at all. The Act as submitted to them contained section 7, on the strength of which they sent the telegram which the hon. gentleman has read. I represent labouring men, not perhaps as many as the hon. gentleman does ; but I will attempt to look after their interests as the hon. gentleman tries to look after the interests of those in his constituency. The hon. gentleman need not have spoken as he did about people laughing and sneering. Nobody in the House laughs or sneers at the labouring men. That remark was entirely gratuitous on the part of the hon. gentleman. When we see a fraud being perpetrated on the. labouring men, we denounce it. When we; see a gold brick being handed to the labour-' ing men, we expose it in their interest, which is as dear to us as it is to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. The Minister of Labour, who never attempts to stick to facts when he speaks in this House, spoke for half an hour about the Italians who were landed at Montreal, and now he has the coolness to say that this Bill does not apply to them at all. That was the worst kind of claptrap, because it was intended to mislead this country. If the hon. member for St. James would submit this Bill to the Trades and Labour Council emasculated as it is by the striking out of section 7, he would not get from them such a telegram as he has received.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I decline most respept-fully to be taught my law or the meaning of this Bill by the hon. member for King's. I know what is the meaning of this Bill. I have been, I may admit very candidly, somewhat instrumental in having this Bill brought before this House, and I am not ashamed of it. On the contrary, I would boast of it. Even with clause 7 omitted, the working classes of Canada will congratulate this government upon the passing of this Bill.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: I want to ask the minister if, with section 7 struck out, section 6, which has special reference to the

publication and circulation of advertisements, will apply ?


William Mulock: Yes. There is no intention on the part of the government to drop section 6. It is the section which will deal with the classes of cases such as the Italians to whom I alluded when moving the second reading of the Bill. The observations I made had distinct reference to section 6, and when we reach that section, it will be in order to discuss its provisions. At present we are on section 2.


George William Fowler: How will that prevent these people coming in ? 'Suppose a man in Italy publishes an advertisement there, how are you going to get at him ? This is another gold brick.


William Mulock: I have no desire to enter into any controversy with the hon. gentleman as to what is or what is not a gold brick. It is not a very parliamentary suggestion. But perhaps he would be good enough to reserve the discussion of section 6 until section 6 is reached. Then I shall be ready to discuss it with him.


John Dowsley Reid: Surely the hon. gentleman is not sincere in trying to push this Bill through this session.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK Why not ?
Mr. .1. D. REID. Because it requires, so much discussion that I would think the hon. gentleman would give the members time to consider it. It will only be six months till the House meets again, and I think the members should have time to consult their constituents on a Bill of this kind.


George William Fowler: I do not think the minister will lose any time in discussing these matters as they come up. He answered the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Smith), and I do not see why he refuses to answer me.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has not the hon. gentleman already apprised us that there is no way to prevent people publishing misleading statements in Italian, German or French newspapers ? And if the elimination of clause 7 makes the Bill applicable only to aliens coming from a country which has a similar law on its statute-book, then these misleading advertisements may be published in Italian, German, French, Austrian, or Russian newspapers, and men may be induced by these advertisements to come out to Canada. What clause, in this Bill will prevent them coming here ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Clause 6. As section 7 is to be eliminated, section 9 of the Act of 1897, which it was intended to repeal, will remain ; that is to say, this Act will apply to such countries as have an Act similar to ours, not to other countries. For my part I agree with what was said a moment ago by my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), that this law is not one of which any country has reason to be proud. We introduced it years ago, after agitation by my hon. friend from Leeds and others, because we found that the law of the United States, as applied to citizens of Canada, was so illiberal in its character that it would not do for the Canadian people any longer to *submit to a slap in the face, and turn the other cheek every time. We thought it would be well for our own protection to introduce such a measure. It had the desired effect. My hon. friend from Essex gave an illustration a moment ago. The town of Windsor is separated from Detroit by a very narrow sheet of water, and it was not an uncommon thing to have Canadians deported from Detroit to Windsor, but since this (clause has been on the statute, that has ceased. The two parties, on the one side and the other, have agreed that men may go to rvork from Windsor to Detroit and vice versa and no question asked. In this instance, the law therefore has served a good purpose, but I would not apply such a law to any country which had not a similar law applicable to us. Therefore that provision will remain as it is. But apart /from that altogether, section 6 provides that every person in Canada who causes false representations to be published regarding the state of the labour market in Canada, shall be punished. There is no limit to this clause.


George William Fowler: Does not section 9 of the old Act, which is not repealed, apply to this ?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is all wrong. Section 6 applies to the whole world as a little reflection will show.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The very first question I asked the Minister of Labour was whether this would apply to the case of farm labourers who had been induced to come from the old country under a contract of labour and he said it would not, because it did not apply to any country which had not a similar law against us. And he referred me to section 9 of the Act of 1901.


Wilfrid Laurier: Under the law, you cannot bring in contract labour from the United States, apart altogether from the question of representations. But under this Bill, any one who by means of false representations, induces immigrants to come to Canada, whether from England or Italy or anywhere else, is liable to be punished.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the Postmaster General who answered me. I read the clause and gave the circumstance, and I ask if these parties, who had been engaged as farm labourers in the old country, could be brought out, and he said they could.


William Mulock: There was no question of false representations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cited the first section of this Bill which provides that it shall he unlawful to assist the importation or immigration of any alien into Canada under contract to perform work.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman asked me if it would be lawful to bring people from Ireland or other parts of the United Kingdom and I said the Bill only applied to aliens. The citizens of Great Britain are not aliens.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked could you bring them from Italy and he said certainly under section 9, because Italy has no such law against us. He further said that one of the objects of this Bill was to keep out aliens.


William Mulock: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I said that the object was to prevent people making use of Canada as a basis of' operations, by circulating misrepresentations from this country to.be published in foreign countries. Section 6 is applicable to that kind of thing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman falls back upon clause 6, which provides that we can get hold of Canadians


William Mulock: Any one who does it in Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the claim was that it was not done in Canada but by one man in London and another in Scotland.


William Mulock: If we cannot get hold of them, we cannot punish them, but we can go as far as the law of Canada allows us.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You cannot touch them. If it will not keep out a German, an Englishman, a Scotchman or an Itaiian, what good is it going to do the labour men ? We are justified in saying that the labour men are being gold-bricked. Take the Bill of 1897, when that was discussed, we said over and over again that it would not be effective. So experience proved and it was amended by the Bill of 1901. We said also that that Bill would be of little value because you have to get the consent of the Attorney General before you can prosecute and that cannot be got.


William Mulock: Does the hon. gentleman know of any case in which it was refused ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have watched the reports In the press, and it was shown that the labour unions after several eases in Toronto, gave the matter up as hopeless under the provision of the law.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman said that the consent of the Attorney General could not be obtained. Does he know of any instance in which the Attorney General refused his consent ?


William Mulock: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I remember distinctly reading in the papers that efforts were being made by the labour unions of Toronto and they finally gave it up because they found they could not succeed.


William Mulock: Gave up what?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The attempt to put these parties out of the country.


William Mulock: My hon. friend said that the consent of the Attorney General to bring suit could not be obtained.
Does he know of a case to warrant that statement ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know of any case.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Let me remind the minister of the fact that the late Minister of Justice (Hon. David Mills) refused his assent on the ground that negotiations were going on between the United States authorities and the Canadian authorities. That was on an application that was made to him from the city of Hamilton.


William Mulock: I do not know to what case he refers.
Mr. CLaHKB. If the hon. gentleman will inquire in the department he will be able to ascertain.


William Mulock: The consent may be obtained from a great number of different persons, a superior court judge, a county court judge or the Attorney General. Thus there are a number of people who can give consent.
Mr. RALPH'SMITH. I want to ask the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) if I am to understand from his speech that he is opposed to legitimate immigration in this country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not talking about that at all.


Ralph Smith: The hon. gentleman said that the Bill did not provide for the different classes in England. The fea-son I ask about section No. 6 is this : The labour men of this country are not objecting to the immigration of labouring men into this country. They are objecting to the principle of contracts being made with working men outside of this country for work in this country, but when the workingmen voluntarily come to this counti-y or come during the process of the regular immigration work of the government, no working men in Canada have any objection to this. They say that the importation of labouring men under contract to Canada is due to the false representations made by the people in Canada, that the false representations in England are due to the efforts of the Manufacturers' Association who have their agents there and have created false

labour bureaus in England and have agents there making false representations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you think you can punish them under clause 6 ?	.


Ralph Smith: That is the reason I ask the question, and I have an answer in the affirmative. To me it is a most important thing, and if clause 6 stands as part of the Alien Labour Act then so far as I am concerned, it is a very important provision, although section 9 makes the Bill apply only to the United States.
Mr, FOW LER. What I want to get at is an understanding of how far that applies. Does section 6 apply only to the United States ?


William Mulock: To all the world.


George William Fowler: How do you make that out ? How are you going to select one section out of this Bill and say that it applies to all the world and that another section applies only to the United States 1
Sir WiLLIAM MULOCK. What is there in this Bill saying that ?


George William Fowler: Section 9 of the Act 97 :
This Act shall apply only to such foreign countries as have enacted and retained in force, or as enact and retain in force, laws or ordinances applying to Canada of a character similar to this Act.
That is the Act of 1897 and this is represented as a consolidation of the laws and being a consolidation it should contain all the laws remaining in force respecting alieu labour.


William Mulock: We are not by this section amending the existing Act. This section 6 is an independent section applying to all the world. The title of the Bill has nothing to do with' the scope of the Bill. There is nothing in section 6 connecting this with the Alien Labour Act at all. This is a more comprehensive Bill than the Alien Labour Bill and it is intended to amend the title because the last part of the Bill deals with immigration which is not at all concerned with the question of alien labour. This is an omnibus Bill and therefore the title will be more general. The Bill is to be entitled ' An Act respecting aliens.' This is not circumscribed by section 9 of the Act of 1897.


George William Fowler: The title is ' An Act to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting alien labour.' If it is an Act of consolidation it is supposed to take in all the Acts respecting alien labour.


William Mulock: It does not intend to.


George William Fowler: Then it carries a lie on its face. A man wishing to inquire into |
the laws would only have to look into this Act to find every enactment respecting alien labour. That is what it claims to be and then it says in section 9 which is not repealed, that the Act shall only apply to such foreign countries as have similar laws. The great difficulty as I understand it is that in countries outside the United States false representations are made with respect to the condition of the labour market in Canada. Contracts are made in order to coerce the labouring men of this country into accepting lower wages and conditions such as they do not wish to accept by making contracts in other countries, in England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany whenever this labour can be procured. This is used as a means of coercing the labouring men of this country. What I want to know is whether this Act which is to be passed is going to embrace all the countries where these difficulties arise. It seems to me that by the section we have here that is not done. I cannot understand the principle of elimination by which the minister makes section 6 apply to the whole world and the other only to the United States.


William Mulock: There is no thing in the Act which says that section 9 shall apply.


George William Fowler: Section 7 does. You expressly repeal section 9 by section 7 of this Bill.


Sir WILLIAM ML LOCK.: My hon. friend can imagine the Bill becoming law with section 7 omitted. If it passes in that form, and is entitled ' An Act respecting aliens ' will he tell me how he can read into that any connection with the statutes of 1897.


George William Fowler: Here is an Act passed to consolidate and amend the Acts in respect to alien labour. If you do not repeal anything of the former Acts that which is not repealed is still in force. Therefore, you have section 9 of the Act of 1897 still in force because you do not put in section 7.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman is accustomed to the rules governing the construction of statutes.


George William Fowler: Yes.


William Mulock: Does he mean to say that the title of this Bill, if it were changed, would determine the interpretation of the enacting sections ?


George William Fowler: Not only does the Bill say that but the hon. gentleman, when section 2 was under discussion, stated himself that this Bill and the elimination of section 7 only applied to foreign countries where there were similar Acts.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.

After Recess.
.Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: ' Before this discussion goes on I wish to say that when our leader (Mr. R. L. Borden) went away he gave us to understand that an agreement had been reached between the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and himself to the effect that an effort would be made to close this House on Saturday or Monday and that for that purpose certain Bills which it had been intended to push through would be allowed to drop. A memorandum of these was given and it was intimated as well that there would probably be one or two more dropped from the order paper and amongst them the one that we were called upon to consider this afternoon. I do not say that the right lion. Prime Minister named any Bill, but somehow or other there was an impression created on our minds that this was one of the contentious Bills which would likely be dropped, or otherwise we could not carry out the agreement reached between the right hon. the leader of the government and the hon. leader of the opposition. We have wasted most of the afternoon over this Bill and probably the discussion will continue all night. If it is intended to carry out the understanding to have prorogation on Saturday or Monday it will be absolutely impossible to do so if you continue to take up these Bills that we thought were not going to be taken up by the House during the present session.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would be very sorry to believe, in view of the part which my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has taken in the discussion this afternoon, that we have wasted our time. I am not prepared to admit that or to say that of my hon. friend. I have a copy of a letter which 1 addressed to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I gave him not only the substance but a list of the measures which we intended to drop and we have dropped them. I stated at the same time that perhaps other measures would be dropped but I said no more than that. There was no other understanding than that. It was possible or not possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In some informal discussion which took place between members of the House on both sides it was understood that this was one of the contentious Bills that would be sure to take up time. I do not know how the impression got abroad but it was believed that the Bill was not Intended to be pushed through because it would take up time and if so the understanding could not be carried out. We may not, as the right hon. Prime Minister has said, have entirely wasted our time, but what I mean to say is that if we go on with the Bill the time would be taken up and it will naturally take a good deal more time be-Mi*. FOWLER.
fore we get through with all these Bills, so that the hope of proroguing the House on Saturday or Monday must be abandoned.


George William Fowler: When the House rose at six o'clock we were discussing the question of the application of section 6.


Peter Macdonald: Before this discussion starts again I would like to say that this afternoon there was a good deal of irregularity. I think we had better confine the discussion to the section under consideration so that we may get through.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When one section bears upon another you must naturally refer to other sections than that which is immediately under discussion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A general discussion and conversation on all the clauses might enable us to eventually pass them all.


George William Fowler: I understand it was informally agreed that after we had discussed these different sections when it came to passing them they would all go through without special discussion on each.'


William Mulock: I do not want to interfere with my hon. friend's wishes. If he finds it material in discussing section 2 to refer to other sections I am quite satisfied to allow him to be the judge of what is necessary for him to elaborate his argument, but I am sure he will, as much as he can, confine the discussion to the section which we are considering. We might consider the whole of section 2. Section 2 is a long section. The first part is strengthening the section in the original Alien Labour Act and the subsections are sections providing a remedial measure. We might discuss the whole of these sections in one discussion.


George William Fowler: And then discuss section 6 when we come to it.


William Mulock: I think perhaps it might be better to allow my hon. friend to pursue whatever course he prefers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In the matter that we were anxious about, as to the scope of section 6, we understood from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour that section 6 was of universal application, referring to every country, while section 2 that we are discussing, had special reference only to countries which enforced alien labour laws against Canada ; and the only country I believe in that category, is the United States. Now if that is correct, then section 2 provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to assist or encourage the importation of or immigration of American citizens into Canada. Then the section prohibits under penalty the importation or assistance of United States citi-

zens, or inducing them to come into Canada, while, if I understand it aright, there is nothing illegal in assisting to bring in foreigners who are not citizens of the United States, such as Kalians, Assyrians, Galli-cians, Hungarians, Austrians-all the races of Europe may be brought in, while American citizens are debarred. I would like to know if that is correct ?


William Mulock: Section 2 purports to be an amendment to section 1 of the original Alien Labour Act of 1897, and if we amend a section of the Act of 1897, the amendment must relate back to the original Act itself, and be subject in other respects to the general provisions of that Act. Section 9 of that Act makes its scope applicable to countries having similar legislation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This Act of 1897 reads as follows :
From and after the passing of this Act it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership or corporation, in any manner to prepay the transportation or in any way to assist or encourage the importation or immigration of any alien or foreigner into Canada, under contract or agreement, parole or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or immigration of such alien or foreigner, to perform labour or service of any kind in Canada.
Then section 9 of that Act provides that this enactment shall only be put into force' against countries which enforce an alien labour law against Canadians.


William Mulock: We have one on their statute-book, not enforced.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is right, I will read section 9 :
This Act shall apply only to such foreign countries as have enacted and retained in force, or as enact and retain in force, laws or ordinances applying to Canada of a character similar to this Act.
Now if the section we are considering is to take the place of section 1, and section 2 can only be enforced against citizens of a country which has enacted and is enforcing an alien labour law against Canada, then the prohibition under section 2 would only apply to American citizens. Is that right ?


William Mulock: That is correct, that is the meaning of the Act of 1S97.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am not authorized to speak for anybody in this matter but myself. I believe the labour organizations have gentlemen here looking after their interests, and *who are specially interested in promoting the interests of labour here. If they are satisfied with these sections, I do not propose to take up the time of the committee in discusssing them, further than to say that it seems to be an unusual thing that we are making a law to prohibit men who
speak the same language, who live practically under similar institutions as ourselves, while we are admitting all the races of Europe to come in and compete with the lower grades of Canadian labour. There seems to be no limit under this law to the importation of that class of labour.


Samuel Barker: As I understand section 2 of the Bill, it proposes to re enact practically what is already in the statutes, adding only half a dozen words, that to me seem almost insignificant, and amending the Act very little, so little I think that if there were not other clauses in the Bill, I doubt whether the Minister of Labour would ever have thought of introducing this Bill at ail. The words added are with reference to the means by wThich the importation of labour from the United States-I use that word because only the United States is affected by this clause-may be assisted or encouraged. The words added are :
By way of promise or offer of employment.
Well, the intent of that, I think, is lalready practically covered by the law-. The last three lines are new, but I do not think they really add anything to the law as it stands. The words are :
The entry into Canada of an alien whose importation or immigration has been so assisted or encouraged, is hereby prohibited.
If it is unlawful to import the person, it seems to me a surplusage to say that his importation is prohibited, that it is contrary to the law. That I understand- the Minister of Labour will correct me-that is all the alteration made by this section. With regard to section 7, it is connected only with this section 2. In fact, if the Minister of Labour were to strike out section 2 and section 7 we would be just where we have been under the Act of 1897, as amended in 1901.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Practically there is no difference in this Bill.


Samuel Barker: No material difference except as to the method by which the importation may be assisted ; adding a promise or offer of employment as one of the methods that may not be adopted to induce importation. I do not know whether the minister considers that very important, but that is the only change I see that he makes in the law by his section 2. Clause 6 is for an entirely different object, and the wording of the clause shows that it is intended to put an end to the use of false representations to bringing labour into the country. On the face of it, clause G applies not only to the United States but to Great Britain and to every part of the world outside the limits of Canada. It is an entirely different subject-matter from that to which the old clause 9 applies. Am I right in putting it in that way ?


William Mulock: Yes.

8G04


William Alfred Galliher: I quite agree -with the remarks made toy the hon. member from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). Take subsection 1 of clause 2 of the proposed Bill. I do not think that the addition of the. -words enlarge the scope one iota. I think the words ' promise or offer of employment ' are included in the words ' contract or agreement, parole or special, express or implied,' and I feel fairly clear on that. As my hon. friend has stated, I think, it would not make a bit of difference if the words had not been added. If we take the rest of section 2, we find a means provided under which labour may be brought in, but the method outlined in the Bill by which that labour is to be had is so cumbrous as to be practically useless. So, in my opinion, if th >
whole of clause 2, with the subsections, were struck out, leaving the law, as far as that is concerned, as it is to-day, it would meet every requirement, and leave us in a better position than we would be in by passing this subsection.


Mr. PUTTEE.: I am not quite prepared to agree with the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) that subsection 1 of section 2 does not add anything to the law. We have the words ' and the entry into Canada of any alien whose importation or immigration has been so assisted or encouraged is hereby prohibited.' To my mind, that is something. About two or three years ago I had occasion to inform the Labour Department that two car-loads of Italians were being despatched from Boston to come into Canada in contravention of our Alien Labour law, and I asked to have them stopped. The reply was that the remedy under the law was to proceed against the persons who brought them in, that there was no power under the law to prevent these immigrants from coming here. Surely it is an advantage to be able to stop these people. You still have the remedy against those who do import alien labour under contract. That is the only reason, as far as I can see, why these words appear in this section. And, if the intention indicated under a later section, to appoint officers to enforce the Act, is carried out, surely it will be their duty, when attention is called to the fact that aliens are being brought in under contract, to prevent these people from coming into the country.


Samuel Barker: How 1


Arthur W. Puttee: I suppose that would be done under regulations to be made. Bui under the present Act, as I understand it, these people are not prohibited from coming into the country, but we only have the remedy against those who help them to come in. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) referred to the general scope of the Act. I want to say th'at, within the last few years, I have been at almost numberless gatherings of labour men throughout the country, and I have never Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
yet heard any of them endorse the policy of retaliation, as contained in the Alien Labour Act. Labour does not stand for the retaliatory principle at all. The only thing they want in the Act is the anti-contract feature. They have not been able to get it. but we have a measure of it under this Alien Labour Act. For my part, I believe that the minister would be well advised to keep in section 7, and, keeping that in, to strike out section 9 of the Alien Labour law. I never did endorse the policy of retaliation. I am not by any means committed to the idea that we should let other countries legislate for us. Labour stands for the anti-contract idea. Labour does not object to immigrants coming into Canada to take their part in the ordinary way in building up the country. But what they do object to, and what they have reason to object to, because they have suffered from it for year's past, is the system of bringing in bodies of men under contract, men who, in many cases, do not know the conditions of labour here, but who are brought in to take work from men who are already here. There is some relief in this Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) has just referred to a point which I would like to have made plain. Take a case of this kind : I have known Italians to be brought over to the town of Prescott from the American side of the river and employed against our own Canadian labour. As 1 understand it, by sti'iking out section 7, these Italians will not be counted as aliens, because this only applies to the United States. If there are a number of Italians on the American side, an Italian leader, as he is called, may go over there and tell them there is work to be had in Prescott. They are not American citizens and, as I understand it, they would not be counted as aliens under this Bill. And what applies to Prescott might apply to the whole of Canada. What is there to prevent that under this Bill ? Or, suppose these people come from Italy direct to New York to seek employment. Some labour agency in New York might tell them that there is work to be had in Vancouver, Toronto or some other Canadian city. Would this Act prevent them from coming ? As I understand it, section 7 applies only to the United States, and a person coming from any other country would not be counted an alien under this Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: He is an alien if he is not a British subject. If an Italian came from the United States


John Dowsley Reid: But if he came direct from Italy, would he be counted an alien ?


Wilfrid Laurier: If he is not a British subject he is an alien, no matter where he comes from. As my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) says, this is anti-contract. Now, the anti-contract law is applied to the United States. For, as I

understand it, there has heen no cause to legislate so far against bringing in contract labour from any country but the United States, because few, if any, contract labourers come from other countries.
Mr. .1. D. REID. A great many come from Italy.


Wilfrid Laurier: I believe that when labourers come from Italy they do not come under contract. Many of these people are navvies, and they roam all over the continent seeking for work. If they come from the United States they are subject to the law.


Mr.   .T. D. REID@: Many Italians come to this country of their own will. When the Grand Trunk Pacific is started, it is likely they will come here in thousands to compete with Canadian labour. But, if they come without having made any previous arrangement they cannot be kept out.


Ralph Smith: It is not intended to prevent anything of that kind. We do not want to prevent free immigration to this country at their own cost. What we object to is employers in this country making contracts with people outside, and bringing them in for that purpose. Surely we do not want to object to the principle of voluntary immigration. We are willing that people who pay their own way should come.


Mr. WALTER SCOTT.: Do you not make it an offence to invite people to come ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not an offence to invite people to come here. It is an offence to invite them to come under false pretenses, by representing that there-is labour for them when there is none.


Ralph Smith: There is nothing in this Bill to prevent any one inviting miners to come to the mines in British Columbia. It would depend whether there was work for them when they got here. If it were proven that the man who invited them deceived them, from a personal motive, that would be a violation of the Act. But it is not against the law, or intended to be, for any one to come to tile country who has not been deceived.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are plenty brought in who are not deceived, hut who, when they come, take the places of others. The labour unions have declared strongly against that.


Ralph Smith: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. No man comes to this country to take the place of another man. If he does, that very fact is prima facie evidence that he has been deceived.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the man is not deceived. Representations are made that certain mechanics, if they come to Canada, can get employment. When they come, they 273	-
find that there are vacancies in certain shops. There may be strikes, but they know nothing of them, and they go to work in those shops. Cases of this kind occurred in Toronto, and this is what the labour unions protested against.


William Alfred Galliher: The chief objection of the labour unions, so far as I have had any conversation with them, is this, that misrepresentations are made to labourers in other countries as to the existing condition of the labour market in Canada. Persons have gone so far in some cases as to represent that there was not a strike on at the very time a strike was in existence. That is what the labour unions have objected to, and rightly objected to, in my opinion; and it is to avoid such a state of affairs that section 6 is proposed. A man in Canada who, by any act of his, causes misrepresentations to be published abroad can be prosecuted under this Act. It is impossible to peach the people abroad who publish them ; but you can reach the man in Canada who causes them, whatever means he uses. In view of what I said before, and what the hon. member for Hamilton said, I would again suggest to the Minister of Labour that the whole of section 2 should be struck out.


John Dowsley Reid: I would say, in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith), that I do not wish the impression to be conveyed that I was objecting to immigration to this country ; but I do object to the class of Italians that have been around my section of the country. I judge from the remarks of the hon. gentleman that he is quite willing to have that class of people brought into this country to compete with Canadian labour. We do not object to English immigrants, but we do object to a lot of Italians who are not good citizens being brought to this country to compete with the legitimate labour of the country.


Ralph Smith: The hon. gentleman speaks of bringing people in, which implies a contract. I am speaking of people coming in voluntarily, on their own responsibility. I say you cannot have any law against that. What we want is a law against contracts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that the hon. gentleman says that the labour unions have no objection to immigrants coming to this country. Here is a statement by Mr. Alf. Jury of Toronto, a labour union man, and now Dominion immigration agent in England, whom I presume the hon. gentleman knows very well.


Ralph Smith: I have met him, that is all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Alf. Jury spoke at a meeting in Toronto, where he said :



He stated that the men whom the labour unions should attack were Leopold, Graeme, Hunter and others in the employ of the transportation companies. The unions also should keep the English press well advised as to conditions in this country. The speech was followed by a hot discussion, and W. T. R. Preston was scored for his exaggerated statements in regard to this country.
The gist of that was that an attack was made on Mr. Preston, the government's immigration agent in England, and they recommended that this attack should be kept np until Mr. Preston was dismissed. Surely the hon. member for Vancouver cannot be speaking for the labour unions, or this report must be incorrect. I take it from the Montreal ' Star ' of to-night, and I believe it to be correct. The hon. member for Vancouver must either be right or wrong. If he is right, the labour unions are wrong,; but I rather choose to believe the labour unions as they express themselves than to believe what he says claiming to represent them.	i


Ralph Smith: The names Mr. Jury mentioned were those of the representatives of the free labour bureau in the old country, and his complaint against Mr. Preston was that he thought he had encouraged those people, who are sending immigrants to this country by false representations-the very thing I am complaining of. They are employed in the old country and sent out on false representations as were these mechanics in the city of Toronto, referred to by the bon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) the other day. That is the thing that I am complaining of. Mr. Jury was criticising the actions of three immigration agents in sendiug these people out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Preston was scored for his exaggerated statements. It was not Jury who was criticising him, but the labour union.


Ralph Smith: Who were they criticising ?
Mr. SPROliLE. They were criticising' Preston. Jury was not criticising Preston, but Stewart, Leopold and these others. The labour unions were criticising Preston, who was the government immigration agent, jet the bon. member says the labour unions are not against immigration.


Arthur W. Puttee: Let me explain bow that is and_what is the complaint of the men in Toronto and Winnipeg and the other cities against Preston. It is this, that he is repeating statements made by these other agencies in Great Britain and therefore, putting the government stamp on those statements.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: According to the labour unions, then, the government should call Preston home.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Arthur W. Puttee: I should think so.


Ralph Smith: But according to vour statement, the unions are not opposed to the general immigration policy of the government and that Is what I say.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They are opposed to the man who is at the head of the business and attempting to carry it out according to Ills own light.


Thomas Walter Scott: It seems to me that this is exceedingly drastic- legislation, and before assenting to some of its provisions finally, I would like to have a better understanding of what the effect is going to be. By subclause 1 of section 2, it is provided that it shall be unlawful for any person to assist or encourage the importation or immigration of any alien into Canada by way of promise or offer of employment and so forth. Let me put a case to the minister. In Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, the business of wheat raising has now grown to such proportions that we require from
15,000	to 30,000 harvest labourers during the harvest season. Up to the present we Lave secured them in eastern Canada, hut very soon the aggregate wheat crop in western Canada will be of such proportions that it will be impossible for that country to obtain the required number of -harvest labourers within our own borders and we will have to look for a portion of them in the western states. It seems to me that this subclause would make it a criminal offence for a settler in western Canada to write to the western states and invite anybody into our country to assist in the harvest. That is simply one instance, and I would like to have an explanation whether any exception can be made to cover such a case.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister'does not reply and it seems to me the question is one which deserves a reply. However, since he does not wish to answer one of liis own supporters, perhaps a member of the opposition will receive better treatment. Does not that section 7 make this Act really only apply against the United States?


William Mulock: I cannot see where my hon. friend is embarrassed in the matter. I thought that my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) made it extremely plain. What is the hon. gentleman's embarrassment ?


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, this Bill will apply only against the United States, and I would like to see how it will vs ork with regard to Italian labour. In my county there have been every year several hundred Italians brought in to compete against our own Canadian labour.


William Mulock: From where?


John Dowsley Reid: From Montreal and some from New York. Is there any way of protecting our Canadian labour from that low class of Italians who compete against them ? They are really at the mercy of contractors, because there is a lot of these Italians brought in and they are employed on government works, too. The minister has taken care to make this Bill only apply to railways. He does not make it apply to canals and harbours. But in every harbour from Vancouver to Halifax there are large government contracts given out, and this Bill will not apply to the men employed on these works, fully one-tliird or one-lialf of whom are Italians. The reason they are employed is because they work for about one-half what a British subject will demand. I would like to have it understood if these men can be brought in against our own Canadian labour. Speaking on behalf of the labour men of my county. I wish to pro test against any law which is practically a gold brick. I would like to be in a position to tell the labour men of my constituency that we have a law now which will prevent the competition of Italian labour. Otherwise I shall have to tell them that the government have passed a Bill which means nothing.


William Mulock: I am extremely pleased to learn at last that I have a convert in my hon. friend. It is only a few hours since he asked with much anxiety whether we intended to force the measure through before the end of the session. Now he wants it forced through.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman has submitted a Bill to parliament. He introduced it on July 29th, and this is the first time I have had an opportuniy of seeing it,-and I venture to say the same of two-thirds of the members of this House. And then the hon. gentleman, immediately after presenting his Bill, cliahges the whole thing entirely by striking out clause 7. He will not give me the slightest opportunity of consulting the men interested, the labour union right in my own town. Here is a Bill that should Lave been presented four months ago, yet lie wishes us to assist him in forcing it through. I may say to the hon. gentleman that I am now, as I have always been, a supporter of anything that is in the interests of the workingman, and if this Bill is iii the interests of the workingman, I shall hold up both hands for it, but I do not wish to be a party to putting a Bill through that !s really deceiving them, and which would place me in the position, when they asked me, ' Why do you not ask the government to deport these Italians ' that I would have to say that the Bill was really no good. The minister is taking the responsibility of forcing this Bill through, and of course I cannot prevemt him, but I wish it distinctly un-2733
derstood that I am not opposing this with any view of killing it, for the purpose of injuring Canadian labour in this country, but I want to get a Bill that will protect Canadian labour, and not one that is really no good.


William Mulock: I would ask my hon. friend which is he in favour of ? This Bill may not accomplish everything that is possible, there is no finality in legislation, and good measures are the result of gradual growth. Are my hon. friends tonight in favour of passing whatever the committee can reasonably approve of, or of throwing this Bill over for another session ?


John Dowsley Reid: So far as I can understand this Bill it is really nothing more than the Bill we now have. I am in favour of getting a Bill that will really protect Canadian labour, and not a Bill that will deceive them. I believe this Bill which we have is not going to accomplish more than the Bill now on the statute-book.


William Mulock: Is that my hon. friend's reason for opposing it '(


John Dowsley Reid: It is because it is making the labour men believe they are getting something more than they had before ?


William Mulock: I see.


John Dowsley Reid: For that reason I think the minister should give the members an opportunity of studying the Bill. With a proper discussion from both sides of the House I am quite satisfied that a Bill could be put through that would he quite satisfactory to every member of this House and to the labour unions or working classes of this country as I believe the minister, myself and every member are anxious to do, not ito get a Bill that is only going to cause trouble and be of no use to the working men. That is the only reason why I asked that the Bill be laid over. I think it is most unfair to labour unions to put a Bill down before us and ask that it go through within three or four hours, because this is the first discussion we have had. It was understood that we were to get through tomorrow or Monday and we have no time or opportunity of discussing it or putting It in such shape that it would be to the interests of the labouring class of this country.


William Mulock: I of course would not expect my hon. friend to support a measure which he says is deceiving the labour men. I hoped that he was by my side in pressing this measure through. This Bill was distributed on Monday last. It was introduced a week ago to-day, o.n Friday last. I made some brief explanation of it at that time. It was printed on Saturday and I asked the King's Printer to send to the leader of the opposition a number of

copies, I think fifty, so that he might have them to deliver to his friends. I would not expect that my hon. friend would get his on Saturday but it was distributed on Monday. My hon. friend's constituency is within a couple of hours from this city, and I think it would not be unreasonable for me to expect him, if his people are so interested, to have made a spec'al effort to endeavour to consult with them upon the subject. However, he has his engagements and his duties and it is possible it was not convenient for him to do this, and I am going to assume that he had good reason for not doing it. Nevertheless, there are some good features in this Bill and at the same time some features which are strongly opposed by people throughout this country and by some members in this House. I desire, as far as possible, considering the lateness of the session, to secure, at all events, the features of the Bill that are conceded to be good. I do not wish to develop antagonism to the Bill by forcing it through, but I think there are three salient features as I said before, about which there should be no controversy and upon which I would hope to secure unanimity. These are section 6, section 8, the one with respect to railways, and section 10, dealing with undesirable immigration. My hon. friend has made a strong appeal to me. 1 mentioned when introducing the Bill-and a similar view has been expressed by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker)-that I attach very little importance to the words proposed to be added by subsection 1 of section 2.	1 do
not think myself they add much strength to the original section but they were introduced here simply because the United States Act is so worded. That Act was amended and it seemed well for us to follow on all fours with them, and then adding to our amendment certain other provisions of a remedial character. However, I shall yield to the suggestions that have been made, and I therefore move to strike out section 2. To that extent I am acceding to my hon. friend's view. That is reasonable is it not ?	I


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes, that is reasonable. From the first I did not wish it to be understood that I was opposing the Bill. My sole idea was to get a clause in to prevent that low class of Italian labour and I have not had time to get a clause in such shape as I would like to have inserted. That is one of my reasons.


William Mulock: We will have to do what we can this session, and take the remaining matters into consideration at a future date. I move that section 2 be struck out, carrying with it the subsection.


Mr. T. I. THOMSON.: A short time ago the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) introduced a Bill for the purpose of protecting Canadians who earn their liveli-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
hood on the great lakes, the masters and mates. The Americans have a law whereby no Canadian can sail an American vessel or hold' the position of master or mate on an American vessel unless he is naturalized as an American citizen. Americans, however, can hold similar positions in Canada while still maintaining American citizenship. I would ask the Minister of Labour if this Bill will protect Canadians of that class in this respect.


William Mulock: Section 1 of the Alien Labour Act prohibits the importation of aliens under contract if coming from a country that has a similar law. That is the provision to which all cases must be brought. If they are brought here under contract in violation of that law the offender is liable to the penalties.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: That is hardly an answer to the question. Is there anything in this law that will prevent Americans from sailing Canadian vessels as long' as Canadians are excluded from sailing American vessels.


William Mulock: I cannot add anything to what I have already stated.


Mr. CLANCY.: The question is a plain one. The hon. gentleman has avoided the direct question lay saying that he refers only to those who come into the country under contract. The question was whether, under the hon. gentleman's Bill, aliens, whether residing in Canada or not, could sail Canadian vessels, while on the other hand Canadians going to the United States were prevented from sailing American vessels. The hon. gentleman I think could have said that there was no attempt at- a provision of that kind. Now I desire to say a word with regard to the time this Bill is introduced. The hon. gentleman lias introduced a very important Bill in the last hours of a long session, with the object of getting it through. He has had five months to introduce this Bill, and he tells my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Keid) that he should have been in his place and have taken up his Bill within the last few hours. The hon. gentleman knows that members have not had a chance to consult their constituents. It would be impossible to send these Bills out and have them considered by the labouring classes and others concerned. The hon. gentleman has introduced this Bill at a time when he knew the House could give it but a very imperfect consideration. The hon. gentleman says he has struck out all of clause 2 ; there is not much of his Bill left now. He says that he is retaining clause 0, but clause 6 is utterly useless, utterly unworkable. There is no person who would be more liable to be put in prison than the Minister of the Interior and those immigration agents who bring people iuto Canada. Half of our ad-

vertisements in this country declare there is abundance of labour for all.


William Mulock: We have not come to that yet.
Section amended and agreed to.


William Mulock: Section 3 is a section largely rendered necessary because of subsection 1 of section 2. I wish to amend section 3 of the original Act in the manner I mentioned in the course of the day. A judicial decision has recently been rendered holding that the word ' knowingly ' in subsection 3 was to be construed literally, and that you could not convict unless the accused person actually knew. I gave the illustration that the committee is familiar with. I do not think that is a decision that would commend itself to most lawyers ; still, inasmuch as this law is applied by persons who are not very skilled in the law, magistrates and so forth, I think it better to define more clearly the meaning of the word * knowingly.' Therefore I move that section 3 be amended by striking out the word ' knowingly ' and by inserting after the word ' Canada ' in the 7th line :
Knowing or having reasonable ground for believing that he was then an alien or foreigner.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would ask the minister if this clause is of general application, or if it is, like the one we have just struck out, applied only to the importation of American citizens.


William Mulock: If an amendment to a section of the Alien Labour Act is made you would read it into the original Act and the amendment hereby proposed and the amended section would be interpreted as if it were part of the original Act.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And this penalty will only be imposed on persons who bring in American citizens.	[DOT]


William Mulock: Who bring in aliens from the United States.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of course as I understand it these two sections will only he operative against a country having on the statute-book an alien labour law directed against Canada.


William Mulock: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Well these two sections will only be operative against American citizens.


William Mulock: I do not know about that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And all other classes of foreigners may come in.


William Mulock: The Act does not say American citizens. The Act applies to aliens.


Samuel Barker: As a matter of fact we know that under the circumstances it will only apply to the United States.


William Mulock: It will only apply to the United States as a country but it may apply to any alien who comes from the United States.


James Clancy: It will be well that the committee should know whether the hon. gentleman proposes to strike out section 7 before passing this section, because the statute will have an entirely different meaning if section 7 remains in. I do not know what the hon. gentleman intends to do with section 7 but if he strikes out section 7 it simply means that aliens from all other countries, in other words, countries which have no alien labour law against Canada, will he permitted to come into Canada without any check whatever.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman must have been absent from the House to-day. This point has been discussed a good deal. The law as an alien labour law is applicable to such countries as have on their statute-books similar legislation. It is just as general as the proposition would suggest and no more. We are not enlarging the extent of its applicability.


James Clancy: I regret very much that that should be the case. The alien labour law which has been placed upon the statue-book imposes a very great injustice on the labouring men of this country. I have personal knowledge of Belgians being brought into this country under the Alien Labour Act without any let or hindrance. I know that they came into towns, villages, and in some cases into rural districts, and lived eight or ten in a room probably not ten feet square in a state of squalor that was unfit for civilized beings and yet the honest labouring men of this country are supposed to take on themselves the duties of citizenship, educate their families and compete against that class of people. I say it is not fair to permit that class of persons to come into this country under contract who are not citizens of the standard that we would like to see in Canada. It is unfair to our labouring men, and I repeat that it is a matter of sincere regret that the hon. gentleman has not thought it proper to amend the law in that most important respect. I know of no amendment to the law that would be more important or that would confer a greater benefit or be a more reasonable one than an amendment which would include aliens from all countries of that particular undesirable class. If we must have men coming in under contract let us make a choice of evils and have the better class come in. Let a class come in that will compete on fair terms with our own people, people who have been brought up under similar institutions,
8G15

who have lived under a similar form of government and whose habits of life are somewhat similar to those 'of our own people. I think it will be a great disappointment to the country if the hon. gentleman does not restore section 7. I hope that even yet the hon. gentleman will reconsider the view that he has expressed upon that subject.


William Alfred Galliher: To adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend from Bothwell would simply mean that we would be starting out on a system of legislation against every country in the world inviting them to pass laws not only of this nature against us but also laws of other kinds. We would be inviting these nations to place on their statute-books retaliatory legislation.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman not think that we should exclude undesirable classes from coming into this country to compete with Canadian workmen ?
Mr; GALLIHER, Yes. To do that would mean that we would have placed on our Statute-book a law which would prevent men simply because they were Italians coming 'freely and at their own expense into Canada.


James Clancy: No, no.
Mr. GALLIHER, We would. That is exactly what we would do. We would prevent men walking over into Canada of their own free will from the United States and taking their chance of getting employment. I do not think that there is a single labour organization in Canada that wishes parliament to enact such a law as that.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is answering an argument that I do not make at all. What I said was that the Act should prevent men coming in under contract while enabling men to come into this country freely at their own expense under ordinary conditions. I did not state the case that the hon. gentleman is answering at all.


William Alfred Galliher: What did the hon. gentleman mean when he said that the government should pass a law which would prevent an undesirable class of Italians from coming into this country to compete with labour ? Such a law would restrict the entrance of men into the country under contract or not under contract.


Mr. LANCASTER.: The whole Act applies to men coming in under contract.


William Alfred Galliher: I know what the Act is. I am discussing what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) was discussing.


James Clancy: I did not say that.


William Alfred Galliher: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. gentleman.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is doing it.


William Alfred Galliher: The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) also referred in the Mr. CLANCY,
same way to men coming across the border and asked if this Bill would prevent it. I am answering him at the same time. I will withdraw my remarks as regards the hon. member for Bothwell and I will answer what the hon. member for Grenville says, i said that in order to prevent men coining across the border we would have to place on our statute-book a law which would preclude any man from walking across the border to get employment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If he came under contract.
Mr. GALLIHER, No, the hon. member for Grenville went further than that. He asked ; Can we not prevent these Italians coming across the line and competing with our men ?
Mr. .1. D. REID. They are always brought in under contract.


William Alfred Galliher: Well then, most decidedly we can prevent them. Reference has been made to Italians. Of course there may he a certain class of Italians who are undesirable. There are numbers of Italians in British Columbia, in the district I represent. Let me tell yon what a number of these people are engaged in. Many of them are British subjects. A number of them have been settled in the country for many years. Some are engaged as merchants, some more as farmers, a number of them as seetionmen. and otherwise, on the railways. These men, perm t me to say, are not an undesirable class of subjects. So, I think that the casting of a stigma on the Italians should not be passed over without remark at least by myself, when I have a number of very respectable people of that nationality in my own district.


James Clancy: Tlie'hon. member (Mr. Gal-liher) probably refers to what I said about Belgians. I think he will give credit to this side of the House for having at least some knowledge of what the law is at present. That law is directed against persons coming-in Under contract. I stated that I had personal knowledge of a contract being made with an authority in Belgium by which a large number of Belgians were brought to Canada. I say they are an undesirable class. I do not say they were undesirable because they happened to be Belgians, but that they were undesirable I know. I say that we should prevent the coming in under eont net,, especially "of undesirable people, and it makes no difference from what country they come, or whether that country has an alien labour law similar to that of the United 'States or not. The people of whom I speak came in and competed with Canadian labour. The section of the Act should go far enough to prevent people of that kind being brought in under contract, no matter where they come from.


William Alfred Galliher: If the hon. gentleman will turn to section 10 of this Bill he will find that what he refers to is covered to a certain extent. There is already a law to keep out undesirable people, and this section carries it further. It specifies, for instance, idiots, insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge, professional beggars, persons afflicted with a loathsome or dangferous contagious disease, polygamists, anarchists or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force of the constituted authority of the country or of all law or the assassination of officials, besides other classes.


John Dowsley Reid: In my constituency there is a case of this kind :	About thirty
Assyrians were brought into Prescott, and they are there now, and all living in one hbuSe. And these ipeoiple compete with Canadian labour.


Thomas Walter Scott: Have you any idle Canadian labourers 1
Mr. ,T. D. REID. Canadian labourers have had to leave the town because of the competition of these people and of a lot of Italians who were brought there. Our peo pie cannot compete with that cldss of labour.


Mr. LOGAN.: tVere the Assyrians brought in under contract ?


John Dowsley Reid: One Assyrian learns from a contractor that employment is to be had for twenty or thirty men, and he goes and brings them from Montreal. In that case a contractor would not be guilty of a violation of the Act.


Hance James Logan: How can you prevent him from bringing them from Montreal ?


John Dowsley Reid: But we can prevent them from being brought from a foreign country. I do not wish it to be understood that I am objecting to immigrants from Italy or any other country. But what I object to is the introduction of this low class of labour to compete with our native labour. The hon. gentleman from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) read the list of classes who are prohibited under clause 10. But I do not think that, under that section, these people of whom I speak would be excluded. But though they are not among the objectionable classes named in the section, they are not really people who would be called good citizens.


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) has suggested a method of meeting the hon. gentleman's (Mr. J. I). Reid's) views. He suggests that we should make our Alien Labour law applicable as against all countries. Speaking for myself alone, I take occasion to say that I am entirely opposed to any such proposition. It is only seven years ago that parliament first adopted an alien labour law. It was adopted with an apology to which every person in parliament and in the country assented. The
statement was made and assented to universally that it was a semi-barbaTous law, but we adopted it simply because the United States had adopted such a law and was applying it as against Canadians. It seems to me that we in this parliament and a good many people throughout the country are allowing ourselves to grow nearly crazy in our expressions of opinions about aliens and foreigners. What is the fact as regards Canada ? The statement I make, I venture to say, will be assented to by everybody, that practically the only limitation to our material development at the present day is the smallness of our numbers. We have a country which is probably richer in natural resources than any other country in the world, and the only reason why those resources are not developed more than they are is because we have not enough people here. We are six millions of people in this immense country, in a country where sixteen millions would scarcely make a greater impression than our present population, a country with resources to sustain sixty millions. Yet no impartial observer, listening to the discussions that have taken place in this House during this and other sessions of recent years, or reading the articles that appear in our newspapers from day to day, or listening to the talk on our street corners, would imagine this to be the fact. We have spent about half the time of this session and last session devising means to stop people from coming into this country. We passed a law witli regard to one class upon whom we put a head tax of $500. Yet one of the main obstacles to our progress is the lack of labour in every portion of the Dominion. In Nova iScotia, in Quebec, in Ontario, the same complaint is heard. The farmers throughout Ontario tell us that they cannot get men to help them in their work. In the west we have millions of acres of the best agricultural land in the world lying idle for lack of people. We have in British Columbia the richest mineral resources of any part of the world undeveloped for lack of people. Yet we are spending half our time in trying to discourage and prevent people coming in and assisting in the development of these resources.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And spending eight or nine hundred thousand dollars per year in trying to bring them in.


Thomas Walter Scott: And, as the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) suggests, on the other hand, we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to induce outsiders to come to this country. I do not understand the hon. gentleman to object to that. Let us be consistent. This cry of ' Canada for the Canadians ' has been run to death, it has been worn threadbare, In my opinion. As long as we deem it proper for this parliament to vote $700,000 to induce the alien and the foreigner to come to this country and help us to develop its resources, we

should cease this talk in which we have indulged about the alien and the foreigner. The United States, now a country of about
80.000.	000, and rapidly becoming one of the strongest countries of the world, if it had indulged in talk of aliens and foreigners, such as we have heard in this House, would not be the great and prosperous nation it is to-day. There would not have been
3.000.	000 of Canadians and their descendants living in the United States to-day if the people of the United States had drifted into the idea that we have been expressing in recent months about the alien and the foreigner.
What is the fact with regard to Canadians who live in the United States ? And let me say, what is within the knowledge of every person, that the United States Alien Labour Law was not framed to be directed against Canada at all. It was framed for a very good and necessary purpose, and it was directed chiefly against Southern European countries, from which, notwithstanding tl.eir law, nearly 90 per cent of their enormous immigration of last year, amounting to a total of nearly a million, came. The United States law is perhaps necessary under their peculiar conditions ; but our conditions are entirely different. They have within their own borders all the workmen tney require ; but if we are to have our agricultural lauds occupied and our mineral resources, forest wealth and other enormous resources developed, we have to invite and bring to our country the alien and the foreigner. I have been in perhaps half the states of the American union, and I have never been in a town in that country where I did not find Canadians occupying the very best positions in the community. The Canadian in the United States is not treated as an alien or a foreigner in the sense in which we have come to use those terms. He is treated as one of themselves ; and if we are going to continue te get the good class of immigration from the United States that we have got in the past two or three years to come to our western country, we have to stop this senseless talk about the alien and the foreigner. It is no disgrace to be an alien and a foreigner. Is nof the German or the Frenchman or the citizen of the United States as good as we are ? We had not formerly the same idea about the alien and the foreigner that has grown up in recent years. What is the reason that in Canada, with its six million people where there are room and resources sufficient to sustain a population of sixty millions, we have come to regard the term alien and foreigner as a term of opprobium, disability and disgrace? Is it not because of the criticism that has been made in season and out oi season by hon. gentlemen opposite and their newspaper press against a certain class of aliens and foreigners who in the last seven or eight years have been com-Mr. SCOTT.
ing in some numbers into this country ? I refer to the Galicians and the Doukhobors.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman say that the United States do not enforce their law against Canadians and treat them as aliens and foreigners when they go In undeV contract to work ? Djoes he say that the class of Canadians he speaks of as holding the positions which he eulogizes the United States for giving them, are not dealt with in the same way as this Act proposes to deal with aliens ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I have already referred to the well-known fact that the United States Alien Labour Law was not enacted to be enforced against Canadians ; and, except in a very few cases, which have all been very religiously reported throughout Canada, and except at a very few points like Buffalo, where they had a lunatic named Du-Barry for a number of years, the United States law has not been enforced against Canadians. We had the evidence this afternoon of the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan), who lives in a border town, and who told us that not scores but hundreds of Canadians cross the river every day to work in Detroit. I was referring to one of the reasons which have brought about this distorted idea that to be an alien or foreigner involves some disability or disgrace. Let me repeat that the chief reason in my opinion is the incessant criticism and condemnation. in season and out of season1, which has been directed by hon. gentlemen opposite and their newspaper press against the Galicians and Doukhobors who have come to this country in the last seven years, and who have been admitted by the leader of hon. gentlemen opposite to be a very desirable class of settlers. The hon. leader of the opposition took occasion to state during the present session that he had been very agreeably surprised, on his trip to the west a year or two ago, to And that the opposition to the Galicians and the Doukhobors was mistaken, and he was pleased to believe, from what he had seen, that the next generation of Galicians would be difficult to distinguish from our own people. However, I apologize, at this hour of the evening and at this stage of the session, for having been led into making such extended remarks on this subject; but the suggestion that was made by my hon. friend from Botbwell I deemed it my duty not to let it pass without some protest.


Arthur W. Puttee: Might I ask the hon. gentleman. has he followed the evidence of the Winchester Commission as it has been published ?


Thomas Walter Scott: That suggests to me another point. I have followed with some care the reports of the evidence which has been taken by the commissioner. Up to the pre-
[DOT]8621

sent time the complaint with regard to immigration into Canada has been directed against, first, the Chinese, secondly, the Galicians and the Doukhobors, and, thirdly, the particular pets of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) the few scores of people who happen to stray in with a sore eye. But what do we find to-day ? So far have we been led away that the chief complaint of this session has not been against any of these classes. I admit there is room for argument for the $500 tax against the Chinese ; I do not object to that although some of the reasons given for it do not appeal to me : I admit that there may have been some ground for objection to the Galicians and the Doukhobors ; and I certainly tnink it would be well to exclude the gentlemen with sore eyes. But surely, we are not going to place the civil engineers of the United States, who belong to the highest type of intelligence and citizenship to be found anywhere in the world in the same category with the Chinese, the Southern European or the gentleman with the sore eye. We are allowing ourselves to drift into a state of frantic craziness on this subject.


Hance James Logan: I do not agree with a good many of the statements made by the hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). It is all very well to get people into our country ; but I would prefer to have 5,000,000 good citizens in Canada to having
10,000,000 comprising anarchists, hoodlums and Dagos, the rough-scuff and off-scour -ings from all parts of the world. The hon. gentleman speaks of the greatness of the United States. The greatness of the population of the United States is their weakness. They would probably be better off if about 10,000,000 of their people were out of their country at the present time.
One of the recognized weaknesses of the United States is the hoodlum population they have brought in which cares for neither law nor order, neither God nor man. We do not want any such people in Canada. X quite understand that this is a. very difficult question to solve. I agree with my hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) that there are Italians who become good citizens ; and if a man comes of his own free will from Italy or elsewhere across the Atlantic, there is no reason why we should not welcome him. But the trouble is that in these large consignments of foreign labour, you will find a considerable number who carry the stiletto under their belt and who are apt to become a source of danger to the community. But if a good Italian comes of his own free will and not under contract, are you going to treat that man, coming from a country which is in alliance with the motherland, as if he were an outcast, and deport him immediately on his arrival, back to his
own country ? Are you going to treat au Italian, who may be a highly educated man, as you would treat a Chinaman ? I do not think my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) has made it very plain that the Syrians and Italians, of whom he complains, come from Syria or Italy. I think he will find that they come from the United States and generally come under contract. This Alien Labour law will nit these people. It will prevent their coming into this country from the United States under contract. I believe that law should. be enforced. I do not believe in any honest Canadian workingman being asked to work for a wage, on which 'no cannot support his wife and children, simply because a lot of Dagoes may be had to work at fifty cents a day. This law would prevent the bringing in of people of that kind under contract. Aiid if it should be found that these contracts are being made in Italy as well as in the United States, it will then be time enough to consider whether we should not extend the prohibition against southern European countries. But at present our grievance is not with the bringing of labour from Italy but with the bringing under contract of u/rians and Italians from the United States-these gangs of navvies who travel all through the country north and south. We object to such men being brought in to supply the labour market when we have people of our own to do the work. I am sorry that we cannot devote more time to the consideration of this measure. Still, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, it seems to me that if we cannot secure all the legislation which is contained within the four corners of this Bill as originally introduced, let us at least get what legislation we can through this session in the interests of our workingmen, and next session we can take the matter up again. It seems to me that there are many men in Canada who, while they mark on their goods and letter-heads ' Cnnada for the Canadians,' have within the last week or two been preaching the doctrine of Canadian labour for anybody in the wide world.
I am in sympathy with the oujects of this measure and trust we shan make such progress with it that it will be of benefit to the workingmen of Canada.


Mr. KENDALL.: I desire to congratulate the hon. Minister of Labour for having resisted the strong pressure brought to bear-on him to induce him to withdraw this Bill.
I do not disagree entirely wim the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). In fact I agree with what he says in part. But only two years ago I found myself face to face with a situation which was anything but agreeable. About some three or four years ago a great company of capitalists undertook to establish steel works in the county of Cape Breton. In the


Samuel Barker: Mr. Chairman, I really feel that as a member of the House I ought to object to going into the whole discussion of the long and short hours or eight hours or anything else, on a Bill that has nothing whatever to do with such subject. I do not want to interrupt anybody but I think that at this stage of the session we ought to try to keep somewhat within the ordinary rules.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I take it that this Bill is intended to benefit the conditions of the labour element in this country. I admit that I am not confining myself closely to the Bill but I am speaking on the cognate subjects, and I think the bon. gentleman who has just interrupted me has on very many occasions in this House, and very lately too, also travelled far afield on some subjects on which he has addressed the House. Of course if you rule me out of order I must [DOT] agree and sit down but I will take an opportunity a little later on in the session to put myself in order.


Peter Macdonald: We are in rather good humour to-night and there has been a good deal of departure from the rules of the House since the discussion of this Bill commenced. As the hon. member from Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) very seldom speaks, perhaps the committee would be iudulgent and allow him to proceed.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: If it is the pleasure of the committee I will proceed, and I promise to be brief. Now in Great Britain there is a movement on foot, as there is in the United States and in all parts of the world, to shorten the hours of labour. It is believed that a ten hour day, even the year round, calls for more energy than most men are able to supply. Now, John Rae has written a book on this subject, and here is what he says in the introduction :
I may take this opportunity of supplementing the account in the text of the experience of the eight-hours system in the engineering trade, by stating here the results of the year's experiment of the eight-hours day in Messrs. Mather and Platt's iron works at Salford, which have only been made known while the sheets of this work were going through the press. Mr. Wm. Mather, M.P., the head of the firm, has written a report upon the experiment for the consideration of employers and work people in the engineering and machine-making trades, and a full sum-
*8627

mary of this report appeared in the ' Times ' [DOT]of the 20th March.
The Salford iron works are a large establishment, employing 1,200 hands, and the employers *who said Mr. Allan's experiment proved nothing because it was made in a small establishment *cannot raise the same objection against the experiment of Mr. Mather's firm. Their business is making machinery, about which they *employ a variety of different trades-patternmakers, iron and brass moulders, smiths, coppersmiths, tinplate workers, engine-fitters, millwrights, electrical mechanics, tuners, fitters, brass-founders, boiler-makers, &c., and Qn the 20th of February, 1893, they reduced the hours of all trades at their works from 53 to 48 in the week-81 hours on each of the first five days of the week and 4J on Saturday. The day was divided into two spells, with a single break for dinner, instead of three spells as before ; the men took their breakfast before coming to work in the morning. After a year's trial Mr. Mather has had the results carefully [DOT]examined and'compared with the average of the six preceding years, and has found exactly as Messrs. Allan, Messrs. Johnston and Messrs. Short found in their works, that the men have ^produced more in the shorter hours than they used to do in the longer.
Although this book was written by John ' Rae, it is not an expression alone of John Rae's opinions and experiences. This book is largely a compilation of the testimony of scores of large employers of labour, to the effect that shorter hours of labour are economically sound, that more is done in shorter hours in many trades, in the run of the year, than in long hours. Now I would like to point out to the government that ten years ago, in the navy yards of Woolwich and in the cartridge factories of Great Britain, the hours were reduced from ten to eight. I would also point out that on all government works in the United States, I think, speaking subject to correction, on all works calling for manual labour, only eight hours a day is exacted instead of nine. I may mention that two firms with which I am acquainted down in Nova Scotia reduced their hours of labour from ten to nine. They did so with fear and trembling at the beginning, but these companies have since informed me that in the run of the year they have got more work out of their men in nine hours per day, or at least as. much, as formerly they did when they worked ten hours, and with the very gratifying result that the men are in better humour and take to their work much more keenly than when they put in ten hours a day. I desire also to mention that while a few men in the government employ are employed for short hours, four to six hours a day, the great bulk of Dominion government employees in manual occupations are compelled to work for ten hours a day.
Now, I come to another aim of organized labour, and that is to secure legislation that will provide compensation for injury and for death. I have already spoken in this House of what is known as the British Mr. KENDALL.
Workmen's Compensation Act. That Act was put on the statute-book of Great Britain and came into force in 1898. In 1900 the scope of its operations was extended. By this Act, iGany employee is killed or injured in certain specified hazardous occupations, he or his representatives receive compensation for death, and if he is injured, he receives compensation for time lost. This Act virtually makes an employer the insurer of his workmen at his own, not the workmen's cost. I think myself it would be well for the government of this country, in dealing with employees in certain hazardous businesses, to make a more generous provision than it has been doing for losses by death and by accident. I am glad to be able to compliment the Postmaster General on the fact that on several occasions when employees of his department have been killed in the railway mail service, he has come to parliament and has asked in each case for $2,000 for the family of the employee killed. It. is to be regretted that on the Intercolonial Railway where brakemen, couplers, firemen, engineers and others are being frequently disabled or killed, there is no such generous provision for these men. Now, I think that when a man loses a leg or an arm on the Intercolonial, some provision should be made for compensating him. I would strongly urge that since in an old and conservative country like Great Britain, the government has adopted legislation of so advanced a character as I have referred to, now eight years afterwards, the government of this country might prudently move to put a similar Act on our statute-book for the benefit of its own employees. I believe the province of British [DOT]Columbia has a similar legislation on its statute-book, and has had it for two years. Down in Nova Scotia some four years ago an Act called the Employer's Liability Act was adopted, which embodied many of the best features of the Workmen's Compensation Act. With regard to old age pensions, another aim of trades unionism, I shall say nothing beyond the fact that the British parliament has recognized the principle of the scheme to this extent, that it has voted an endorsement of it. I may also mention that our trades unions will also urge for legislation to give them a fairer chance in the courts of law, but on that point I will uot dilate at present. To sum up the points I have been making, I think I may say that the government, as a great employer of labour in this country, should be a model employer, and that as far as possible the principle of a fair minimum wage, shorter hours, compensation for injury and death, and old age pensions should be provided for.
Now one word more. As I said in the beginning of my remarks, I believe the day is not far distant when the labour element of this country will make itself felt in this parliament as it has never done before. What I am about to say I can say without

being reproached that I am catering to the labour vote, because circumstances have about forced me out of public life.
Before sitting down I wish to accentuate what I have already said as to the elective power of the labour element. They have only two labour representatives, they should have more, but if my voice and advice reach the leaders of the labour party in Canada I would say to them : Do not attempt the impossible. Do not attempt to send into this House any great number of straight labour representatives because if you do you will fail to send five here. To my mind there is an effective method which can be used to secure legislative power for the workingmen and that is for labouring men in every county where the labour element is an elective factor to pledge their candidates, jGrit and Tory alike, to support a moderate labour platform. Some Liberals will be elected and some Tories, both being free when they come to Ottawa, to join their parties on every question except those connected with labour matters but on labour matters they would come pledged to unite together and form a party to forward labour enactments. By this method only it seems to me, at least for the next ten or fifteen years, can labour make itself felt as a factor in the development in Canada. What I advise should take place in Dominion elections I also advise with reference to provincial elections. With very little expense and difficulty the present labour organizations could form a Canadian Legislative labour league whose duty it would be to direct the labour policy and see that all candidates for public honours subscribed to their tenets, and if in some constituencies Liberal and Tories arrange to ignore that plaform then it would be in order for the labour elements to thrust their own candidates into the field. I have just a parting word and it is this; I am glad that certain advanced men in' the Liberal party in this House, have during the last few years, endeavoured to make progress along the lines I have indicated and I sincerely hope that the labour element of this country will give due credit to my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock). I know that he has not accomplished for them all that the labour element wish to be accomplished, but in spite of the difficulties which have surrounded him at every turn I know that he has effected a very substantial change in the legislation regarding labour in this country. I would like to say to my Liberal friends that the labour element the world over is the natural ally of Liberalism and that it is the duty of the Liberal party to stand by its own allies. I wish to point out, just to accentuate this idea, that Mr. Gladstone, when asked once what was the difference between Toryism and Liberalism said : The essence of Toryism is distrust of the people ; the essence of Liberalism is confidence
in their ultimate good judgment. Though some people in this country may think that it will be a dangerous experiment to send a strong labour, radical element to this parliament I believe that in the future of this country, if we are to develop and grow, we must place our confidence in the labour element. The schoolmaster, as I said before, has been abroad in the labour element. The labour element is dissatisfied and is bound to make itself felt and once more, Mr. Chairman, I ask the great Liberal leaders of this country to see to it that our natural ally Is not alienated from us.
The patriotism of our labour element is as strong as in all other classes, and I know that the responsibility of influence in this House would show the aims of the Canadian labour element in a light that would be a pleasant surprise to people who now regard those aims with anger or with dread.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) Before the amendment is put, may I be permitted to inquire frdm the hon. minister entrusted with this Bill (Sir Wm. Mulock) whether, under the new Act, our farmers will be allowed to import old country Frenchmen to work on their farms ?


William Mulock: I am sorry that I cannot answer my hon. friend (Mr. Leonard) in his own beautiful language.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: Do you understand the question ?


William Mulock: Yes, I understand the question quite well. My hon. friend asks whether under this Act it will be permitted to bring in aliens to aid in the cultivation of the farm.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: Yes.


William Mulock: This law applies the same way to all classes of the people. Section 1 of the Act of 1897 is undisturbed and unaltered. My hon. friend is quite familiar with the law as it is today. We leave it just as' it is in regard to that class of labour.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) I am satisfied with the answer given by the hon. minister, and I would only tell him that I think this part of the Bill should be amended by inserting a clause to the effect that the Frenchmen from France, the best or about the best farmers in the world, shall be admitted into our country.


William Mulock: (Translation.) Not the Frenchmen from the United States V


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) No, the French farmers from France. This Bill, if I understand it right, is mainly for the purpose of preventing aliens from coming into this country and competing with our own people in an unfair way ; but at this momeiit the farmers-I refer to the Quebec farmers

especially-are suffering grievously from the scarcity of farm labour. You cannot find a sufficient .number of farm bands in tbe district of Montreal tbis year to do tbe barvesting. Then, they will start working at balf past seven or eight o'clock in tbe morning and stop between five or six in tlie evening, and no later, and still you must pay them from $1.75 to $2 a day. I would be very glad if tbe bon. minister would see that this law shall not apply to tbe French peasants settling in Canada as farm labourers or farmers. " I have no hesitation in saying that we, tbe French Canadians oi Quebec, are so loyal and have given such evidence of our profound and sincere loyalty to our mother country of to-day, as to be in a position to declare frankly and emphatically, and without giving rise to suspicion, that we still feel in our hearts a filial love for France, our mother country of old and of which we are proud. It would only be doing justice to the French minority in our country to exempt the old country Frenchmen from the disabilities imposed on foreigners generally. For seven or eight years past the province of Quebec has treated the government as its spoilt child and elected many of its supporters in consideration ol which the government should not discriminate against that minority in the matter of immigration.
The government are spending millions every year for the purpose of bringing settlers to our shores ; we are spending large sums of money on immigrants from Russia, Belgium, Germany. It seems it would be conferring no very great favour on the province of Quebec, to amend section 3 in such a way as to allow the French peasants to settle in Canada.


Mr. TALBOT.: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised that my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard) should appeal to the hon. minister to amend the Bill in that way, and to discriminate in favour of French immigration. I cannot conceive that an hon. member, wall posted as regards this question, knowing how averse the French peasantry are to the idea of leaving their native country, should insist on such an exception being made on their behalf. When the French peasant has once made up his mind to leave his native soil, it is to settle in some of the French colonies, and Canada is a British possession.
But we are broad-minded enough, hospitable enough, and proud enough of our past history to greet with open arms those who come to us from old France, the country we 'love so much. However, I do not hesitate in saying that the proposal of the hon. member for Laval, that we should make all exception in favour of the French peasant, is unworthy of a man who pretends to know anything of the real needs of the Dominion.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: (Translation.) Why V Mr. LEONARD.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: (Translation.) The more so that there is absolutely nothing in the law which distinguishes between the various nationalities of Europe. All immigrants who come to us from Europe, whether from Switzerland, Belgium or France, are on the same footing; there is no difference made. I fail to see on what grounds the government could be asked to discriminate in favour of the French peasant. Everybody knows-and no one better than the hon. member for Laval-that it is an exceedingly difficult matter to induce the French peasant to leave France.
Under the circumstances, I trust tlie hon. member will not insist on his proposal being-adopted.
Sir WILLIAM (MU-LOOK. Perhaps I maybe permitted to say that, with a correct knowledge of the law, neither my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Leonard) nor my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) would discuss a state of affairs which is really imaginary. It is permitted to-day for people to, come to Canada voluntarily from any country in the world.


Joseph-Édouard-Émile Léonard: But it is not permitted to ask them to come.


William Mulock: Yes, it is permitted to ask them to come from any country in the world that has not an alien labour law against Canada. France has no alien labour law against Canada, nor has Germany, nor Belgium. In fact, so far as I know, only one country in the world has such a law. Therefore, there will be nothing to prevent a citizen of France coming here under contract or voluntarily if he be so disposed.
Mr. FOWLER, Where does the hon. minister find in the Act anything that justifies the statement he has just made ? I ask for- information.


William Mulock: Can my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler)1 point out anything in the Act which would prevent these people being brought from France ?


George William Fowler: Yes ; this section does not except anybody.


William Mulock: Which section ?


George William Fowler: Section 2.


William Mulock: We have dropped that.


George William Fowler: Oh ; the hon. minister has dropped it. Well, what is left ? Is the title left ?


William Mulock: That is the last thing we touch.


George William Fowler: He is going to change the title, is he not ?


William Mulock: We will deal with the title by and by.
8633'


George William Fowler: Surely when so little is left of the Bill, he will not give it such a high sounding title ?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister says that ' alien ' would apply to any other country ?


William Mulock: An alien is an alien.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, why would it not apply to France as well as to any other country ?


William Mulock: Because section 9 of the Act of 1897 says it shall not apply to any country that has not an alien labour law against Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not understand it yet. The minister states in one breath that the word ' alien ' applies to any other country-


William Mulock: I did not say that the word ' alien ' applied to everybody. An alien is a citizen of a foreign country, and, so far as Canada is concerned, all the world except British subjects are aliens.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I heard the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) and the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) speaking in favour of French immigration ; and yet, if I remember correctly what has been said this session and for several sessions past, you have complained of the number of French people that are in the country today. You say that we lack loyalty, though we are the descendants of men who came here two or three centuries ago. To-day. for a purpose, you are advocating making special mention- in this Bill of French peasantry or French immigration ; and yet, if I remember what has been said during this session, you And fault because there are too many French-Canadians in Canada to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: You accuse us of want of loyalty. You are willing that a special clause should be inserted to provide for bringing peasantry here from France, when you have no faith in the descendants of men who came to this country from France three hundred years ago. If you are serious, I would like to know it, and I would like to know upon what you base your strong appeals in favour of French immigration.


George William Fowler: I have been attacked by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot). He has stated that the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) has said there were too many French-Canadians in this country.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I take exception to that I did not say


George William Fowler: The statement of the hon. member for Bellechasse is an utter falsehood


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I rise to a point of order.


George William Fowler: I throw the insinuation back in the teeth of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Talbot).


Peter Macdonald: Both gentlemen will please take their seats. Now, we will hear the point of order.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I never said the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) or the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) objected to French immigration or to French people living in Canada. But I question their right, and I question their sincerity, in asking now-in order to make a point- that exception should be made in this Bill in favour of French immigration, because I stated that, from the other side of the House, ever since this session began-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) may shrug his shoulders. He may smile. That is what I stated, and I stick to every word of it.


George William Fowler: State your point of order.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: This is my point of order. The hon. member has no right to put words in my mouth which I did not use. I ques tion his sincerity now in making a special point of French immigration.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman (Mr, Talbot) has not stated any point of order. He did state-and I am in the judgment of the committee when I say it-that the member for King's and the member for Grenville had said there were too many French in Canada.


Peter Macdonald: Order.


George William Fowler: The members of the committee know perfectly well what the hon. gentleman said


Peter Macdonald: I have settled this point several times. If an hon. member is accused of making a certain statement and says he did not make that statement, other hon. members, whether they believe it or not are bound to accept that denial.


George William Fowler: I always bow to the decision of the chair and I do it with special willingness when you. Sir, occupy the chair. I am quite willing to accept the ruling of the chair. And when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Talbot) makes the statement that he did not say what we heard him say, and what fifty or sixty witnesses here know he said, I am perfectly willing to accept his statement.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I leave i.t to ' Hansard.'


George William Fowler: I trust my explanation will be satisfactory to the hon. gentleman

(Mr. Talbot). Now, the hon. gentleman has said that I was speaking in favour of the immigration of the French peasantry. As a matter of fact, I never mentioned the French peasantry. It may be that the hon. gentleman is in such a condition of mind that he cannot understand a plain statement when it is made. If that is the case-and we must judge from his words and conduct it is-of course we must excuse him. YVe will not pursue that.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I appeal to yon. Mr. Chairman. if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) has the right to make an insinuation of that kind. If the hon. gentleman says things of that kind in the chamber .perhaps he will be man enough to say them outside.


George William Fowler: I am man enough to say them anywhere so far as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taibot) is concerned.


Peter Macdonald: The two gentlemen have had their little breeze and we had better get back to business.


Mr.   .T. D. REID@: As the hon. member for P.ellechasse has referred to me. perhaps I may he allowed to say that I fancy it was the hon. gentleman beside me (Mr. Leonard) who made the remark about the French peasantry. For my part, I did not mention the French peasantry or the French people at all. I would like to see immigrants from all countries come to Canada-that is a good class of immigrants. If the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) made a special appeal for one class he did it of his own fiee will and without any suggestion from me. In fact, I did not know that that was what he was saying, because, I am sorry to say, I do not understand a word of the French language. I do not wish the hon. member for Bellchasse to attribute to me sentiments that I have not expressed. I repeat that I shall be glad to see as many people as possible come to Canada, so long as they are of. the proper class, no matter what country they come from. But I have been objecting to a low class of labour that if brought into this country, and the only nationalities I mentioned were Italians and Syrians. So far as French labour is concerned, I never mentioned it. In my county we have had from time to time French workmen, and they have been a first-class lot of workmen, and I am sure it is the same throughout the whole Dominion. No member on this side of the House has made any reference to any other class of labour than Italians. Syrians and Cuinese, and therefore the hon. member for Bellechasse is stating something most unfair to us on this side of the House.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I want to be well understood.	[DOT]


Peter Macdonald: This discussion is out of order.


George William Fowler: 


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I did not say a word in regard to what the hon. gentleman said! with reference to French immigration that was not in accordance with the facts. I said I was surprised that the hon. gentleman spoke as he did.


Peter Macdonald: I hope the hon. gentleman will pay attention to the chair. He continues to speak when the chair is addressing the House. This discussion [DOT]is out of order. I wish that to be clearly understood.


Nathaniel Boyd: I want to ask the minister who has charge of the Bill if I understood him correctly to say, in answering the hon. member for Lavai (Mr. Leonard), that the Bill, with respect to people sending for farm help, will apply only to countries which have an alien labour law of their own. In that case would American settlers who are now in Manitoba and the Northwest, who send to the United States for help to take in their harvest, as they undoubtedly will have to do, be subject to this fine ?


William Mulock: There is nothing in the Bill that deals with that subject at all. Whatever their rights are they are determined by the Act of 1807.


Nathaniel Boyd: Will the minister tell us to what extent the law of 1897 would affect them ? Could not some clause be inserted to make it clear that this law does not apply to farm help ? This is a very serious matter to the west, because it will take at least
25,000	additional hands to take off this year's crop in Manitoba and the Northwest. It took 20,000 two years ago, and it is conceded in all quarters that we have a greater crop to be harvested this year, than we had two years ago : and nothing must be done that will interfere in any way with that work. This bears out the objection which I raised this afternoon against introducing such a contentious measure into this House at this late hour of the session. There is no excuse for it, and I think the minister should take a little time to frame a clause to make it sure that the measure will not interfere with that work in any way.
Mr. FOWLER, I think there is a great deal in what the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) says. What the "minister aims at is to prevent the bringing in of mechanics and labouring men in case of a strike to assist manufacturers to coerce the working men of this country. You want to be careful, in trying to remove that difficulty, that you do not create a greater one. It is very important to the settlers of our western country that they should have an opportunity to get labour cheaply, and that the American settlers should be able to bring their relatives from the United States to assist them on their farms, with the view of eventually becoming settlers. I think the minister would be wise to take this into

863S
advisement, and come down next session with a first-class Bill which will do what he desires to accomplish by this Bill, but which I do not think it will accomplish. It shows how ill-digested this Bill is, that as introduced it has a title that does not fit it at all ; but after it has been cut to pieces, and left with only two sections, and one of these with only two lines, it makes the Bill a perfect laughing-stock.


Arthur W. Puttee: I wonder if the hon. gentleman and others who have spoken are aware that there -is in this Bill section 8, which'is evidently intended to deal with the construction of a new railway, and which affects the question which some of these gentlemen have paid a good deal of attention to this session, namely, the employment of aliens. The hon. gentleman is asking that this Bill be killed.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Who said so ?


Arthur W. Puttee: I am putting it in plainer language ; but that is what the hon. gentleman meant by asking that the Bill be put over till next year. We have had a commission taking evidence ; and, although the report has not yet been made, it may be anticipated that the charges made bv the Amalgamated Engineers of Canada have been practically sustained, and that foreign engineers are almost altogether in charge of the preliminary work for the construction of the new railway for which this country is going to pay public money. Is this matter going to be put over a year ? That is what these hon. gentlemen are asking. This little bit of an amendment, which we have been on for three hours, amounts to nothing at all, and it is being discussed to keep us from getting to these other material sections of the Bill.


Thomas Walter Scott: I see by the newspaper reports that a number of these engineers have been deported to the United States, so evidently we have a law which covers the case. We are now in the first week of August, 1904, and probably another session will be called next winter or spring. There is no great likelihood of many millions of these undesirable Italians being brought in under existing conditions before we meet again.


Arthur W. Puttee: I do not want to let that statement go uncontradicted. I have the contradiction of it here. It is from the secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. He says :
To the best of our belief to the time qf writing this, letter, not one single alien has been disturbed. H. A. Kyle who wrote the letter disparaging Canadians, A. G. Allen who spoke of the King as a blackguard and all the others are still here, receiving high salaries, although the evidence proved they were grossly incompetent and capable and qualified British subjects are out of employment and their families in want.
They state that not one man has gone out, but they are all in the same positions in the Grand Trunk Railway just as before Judge Winchester investigated.
Mr.- FOWLER. Under the existing law these men can be deported. That is the understanding we are given. One of these engineers has been arrested by erder of the Department of Justice, according to the reports in the papers. If we have a law at present under which these aliens can be deported, why is it necessary to pass thi-s particular section ?


Arthur W. Puttee: Is the law sufficient at present ?


George William Fowler: The Department of Justice is proceeding under the law, because this man is under arrest, and we have the statement made that they had all left the country. It has been insinuated by an hon. gentleman who poses as a stalwart labour representative that I want to kill the Bill and am an enemy of labour. Why, I have been trying to advocate the rights of labour, and it is not in the interests of labour that an undigested measure should be put on the statute-book. Much better to. have a properly considered measure than one under which the proceedings taken will be uretty sure to be declared null and void. So far as I can see, these men who pose as the greatest friends of labour are not always the true friends of labour. One hon. gentleman who poses as a sort of radical in this House read to us an essay a little while ago on this labour question. I want that hon. gentleman to understand, that so far as I am concerned, and I believe so far as the other members of this House are concerned, we do not represent the capitalists of this country, but the people of this country, and all men have rights in this country even though they are unfortunate enough to be capitalists. Members on both sides are independent represep-tatives of the people, and I think the insinuation is one that should not be allowed to pass unchallenged which the hon. member for Cape Breton made a little while ago.


Nathaniel Boyd: I would suggest that yon add at the close of the clause 1 save an 1 except labour for agricultural purposes.' I again wish to draw the attention of the minister to the importance of this amendment. because otherwise thousands of people will be subject to a fine of $1,000.


William Mulock: Section 5 of the original Alien Labour Act, 1897, co i-ta'ins a proviso to the effect that nothing i i the Act shall be construed as prohibiting any person from assisting any member of his family, and so forth.


George William Fowler: That gives some latitude but would not cover the case of farm labourers.



KEVISED EDIT'ON COMMONS

James Bell Klock: I do not think you will ever hear of anybody enforcing the law under such circumstances. Bringing in a farm labourer when there were none to be had would never be regarded in a community as an offence.


George William Fowler: Why should you not make that amendment, just say 'farm servants'?


William Alfred Galliher: If you were to do that, another application might be made for another class of people. You cannot legislate for any one class. I do not think that my hon. friend's fears are justified.


John Dowsley Reid: I would again appeal to the minister in view of the fact that there are fifteen sections to this Bill and we have only reached the third, to allow the Bill to remain over until next year.


Nathaniel Boyd: The clause to which the minister has referred has no application to the case at all.


William Mulock: My hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) is asking us to pass some legislation, but the hon. gentleman on his left (Sir. J. D. Reid; wants the Bill to be dropped.


Nathaniel Boyd: I am not looking for legislation. I asked that if yon are going to pass legislation this should be done. I raised the objection to this measure being brought down to the House at so late a stage.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5,
William Mulock: I move to strike out section 5.


George William Fowler: Why strike it out ?


William Mulock: In order to meet the wishes of my hon. friends opposite and to avoid waste of time, ndt because I do not think it is a good clause.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section struck out.
On section 6,
George William Fowler: I would ask the minister to make a slight change here by inserting after the word ' induce,' the word ' deter,' so as to make it work both ways and have a penalty for circulating false representations to deter people from coming to this country.


William Mulock: I am not able to agree. Section 6 is intended to prevent a wrong done to individuals, inducing them to come to Canada by false representations. That is an entirely different thing from & person in Canada setting afloat some statement that may or may not be true as regards conditions in Canada. Preventing people from coming to Canada is a very different thing from inducing people to come to Canada by fraud.


George William Fowler: 


Mr FOWLER.: We believe Canada is the best country in the world, and if by representations you prevent men from coming here to better their condition, you are doing an injury not only to the individual but to the nation. Whenever men come here, if they cannot get work in the line they expected. they can get it in some other line. No man in this country need go - begging for work. I cannot see any force in the reasoning of the hon. gentleman. It seems to me that the injury is alike to both parties, so far as the individual is concerned, it is certainly an injury 'against the state.
I do not see why the section cannot be amended by the addition of the word ' deter ' which would prevent that state of things from being carried on.


William Mulock: We might all sometime or other be chargeable perhaps with having offended against such a law, some of us might say something that was not as patriotic as it ought to be. There are many statements afloat from time to time that may be said to injure our country. That is a different class of offence from using Canada as a base of operations to attract people from abroad for the purpose of defrauding them. That is an offence against individuals-to use our country as a base of operations for a thing of that kind. But general observations or statements that may affect the movements of people in another country, but who do not come here, are not at all in the/same class of transactions.


George William Fowler: I do not think the minister is correct in saying that all of us say things that are not patriotic.


William Mulock: I will admit that my hon. friend is an exception.


George William Fowler: If that is the general rule, I certainly am.
On section 8,


William Mulock: I propose to amend this section by adding the following to the end thereof :
And shall be recoverable in the same manner as are the penalties mentioned in said section 1 as amended.


John Dowsley Reid: I would ask the minister to add these words in line 14 after the word 'railway,' ' or any public work.' The clause would then read :
The construction of a railway or of any public work.
I would like to see that provision apply not only to railways but to canals, or dredging, or any. other government work. I do not think it should be limited to railways. We have very large contracts on canals, in fact larger than on railways.


William Mulock: My hon. friend from Grenville asks to have this clause

amended by making it applicable to public works generally. There is no reason in principle for not acceding to that proposition, but it is a new doctrine, and we have to approach it with some degree of caution. This amendment is the outcome of a discussion we had in the House when considering the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill. The government then announced that before the session closed they would propose a general measure applicable to all railways aided by the government, instead of, as was then suggested, having such a provision applicable to a particular railway. We have not considered the proposal except in connection with railways. There are a good many railways now being constructed, and this in itself will be an important departure. After it has been working for a time we will have an opportunity of seeing whether it is wise to extend the principle generally. I am favourably disposed towards that view myself, but I have not reached a conclusion. All we said was that we intended to invite the consideration of the House to a clause in substance the same as the clause adopted in regard to the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. That is the clause we have adopted here with perhaps some slight changes, but, the substance is the same. That is the only clause we have had under consideration. My hon. friends are aware that there will be a session again before a great while.
Mr. ,T. D. REID. That is a reason why this Bill should remain over.


William Mulock: It is important that this clause should pass now because there are some of these works that are likely t<- go on at an early date. I trust that the Grand Trunk Pacific, eastern and western divisions, will be under construction without any delay. Surely the preparatory work at least will be undertaken. As soon as this Bill passes we will be able to apply it to the work under construction. It would be very unfortunate if we allowed four months to ielapse before doing anything. In four months a good part of this work might be under contract. We want to catch the work before they get it under contract.


Thomas Walter Scott: Would it make a difference in the prices of contractors ?


William Mulock: I believe the railway companies say so, but I do not think it will make any difference as to that, because under this clause they can employ Canadians, all the immigrants that come into the country and if there is not enough labour to be obtained of this class the government can allow them to import other classes of labour from other countries. My own opinion, and I think it is the opinion of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Siftonl that when the opnortunity is given him that this scheme will afford he will be able to import all the labour that 274}
is required that cannot be got in the country from desirable parts of the world, whereas, if we left out this section we would have the road built, doubtless by navvies who come and go, who would not be citizens of this country and the only fruit of whose labour would be the actual work constructed. They will go away when the work is completed. take away their wages, and as far as they are concerned leave the country as empty as when they came. We think it will be a means of enabling us to control seme of the classes of people who are coming here, but not necessarily reducing tfie volume. This clam e will give the government power to control the selection of as many people as are required from desirable parts of the world to build the road. I do not think it will have any appreciable effect on the cost of the road. I can understand the companies making a campaign against this measure, I can understand the railways desiring to have freedom to retain their old methods and carry on the work in the old way, but I doubt that it is in the interest of the country that great roads such as the Transcontinental should be constructed without any regard to the people who are to build them and without any regard to the settlement of the country. This is the measure which will be approved of throughout the whole of Canada. I believe that the principle involved in this clause in its application to the Grand Trunk Pacific, will receive general approval and I am sure it will be one for the benefit of Canada.


Samuel Barker: I wish to call the hon). minister's particular attention to the first ten lines of clause 8 of his Bill which seem to me to be utterly foreign to the general purpose of the Bill. These lines do not affect the question of labour. They probably would be proper provisions to put in some public works Act or some other Act about subsidies from the country. They relate simply to the letting of contracts, not to the labourers employed by contractors. The provisions of these ten lines would require very careful consideration, far more consideration.it appears to me, than has been given to this clause. We all know that with the enormous amount of work likely to go on in Canada, such as the Grand Trunk Pacific, the branch lines being 'built by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and by Mackenzie and Mann, the comparativelv few contractors of Canada would hardly be able to undertake all the work, and certainly it would Be a very serious handicap to the Grand Trunk Pacific, to the government itself in letting contracts for the eastern division, to Mackenzie & Mann and other companies, if it were impossible for them to accept tenders from any contractor except a Canadiau. I do not think that has been fully considered by the hon minister.

The comparatively few contractors in Canada. finding an enormous amount of work going on in the next three or four years, might put their heads together and practically hold up the railways which are forced to do an enormous amount of work in a very shprt period of time. I do not mean to say that I do not desire to see Canadians get the work, but this part of the clause requires a great deal more consideration than it is possible for us to give at this late stage of the session. I think the hon. minister should take up that subject specially with those particularly informed upon and interested in the question. Conceding that work in Canada subsidized by the country should be undertaken by nobody but a Canadian, it is a very serious question and requires very grave consideration. t\'e might find an enormous expense laid upon the companies, and I do not think it right to act hastily. I repeat that I want it distinctly understood that I will go as far as the hon. gentleman will in his desire to give work to Canadians but we must behave reasonably and sensibly.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) says that this question has not received consideration. I desire to call his attention to the fact that during the discussion upon the Grand Trunk Pacific measure in this House, this particular question was discussed at considerable length by members on his side of the House and that it was pointed out by several hon. members that this very proposal that we are now considering should he embodied in that legislation. The hon. gentleman proceeds to argue that the matter has not received sufficient consideration. To my own knowledge the matter has been considered at great length by members of this House, particularly by members on his own side.


Samuel Barker: I tried to make myself clear, that I am in favour of a proposition by which Canadians shall get this work. But I do think that we are going rashly to put on the statute-book a general law that for every railway subsidized by the government, no one but a Canadian contractor shall be allowed to tender.


Alexander Johnston: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) but X would like to point out that, from my point of view, it would be as fair to have a general law as to have a particular law dealing exclusively with one company as suggested by hon. gentlemen on the other side. The position I take is that if we are to have any legislation on a matter of this kind it should be general legislation and not an enactment directed against one particular company.


Samuel Barker: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to state the difficulty


Alexander Johnston: X appreciate the difficulty.	[DOT]


Samuel Barker: 


Samuel Barker: I do not say it is impossible to frame this law, but I do say that the framing of it is a very serious matter. If the Grand Trunk Pacific and other lines are to lie built as rapidly as it is said they should be built, and if we say to Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann and to all the railway concerns subsidized, you must have none but Canadian contractors, then we may find ourselves in the position of desiring to have railways built and no contractors to undertake them.


William Mulock: They will not get them if the country does not give them a chance.


Samuel Barker: I do not know the circumstances well enough to speak with certainty. I am only saying, following up what has been said on this side


William Mulock: No, the hon. gentleman is differing from what was said on that side.


Samuel Barker: I am following the lines pursued by hon. gentlemen on the point, that we are driven to discuss the Bill during the last moments of the session, when therle is no fair opportunity to consider such an important question. Moreover, I say this is introduced into a Labour Bill though it is not a labour question.


William Mulock: An omnibus Bill.


Samuel Barker: It is a question as to letting contracts for public work, and is as distinct from a labour question as any question can be. It is one thing to deal with the labourers employed by the contractor, and it is another to deal with the letting of the contract. I am prepared to consider a clause to enable our Canadian contractors to secure work, and I think it might be quite possible to put on the statute-book a proper clause to that end. But I think this too important a matter to be stuck into a Bill with which it has no relation. I would further point out. with regard to the other part of the Bill, that there is a provision here that for either wilful or negligent violation of any of the provisions of this section there shall be penalties, and large penalties. Now. I do not think it has been usual under our law to make mere negligence a punishable offence. It is a new departure. I point that out now but 1 have already spoken to the hon. minister on the subject.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the minister was referring to me when he spoke of some hon. members differing from the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) in desiring certain words inserted. I was not differing from the hon. gentleman, but I was taking it for granted that this clause was designed to effect a certain purpose. The minis-
8645	AUGUST 5, 1904	8646
ter has stated that during the session we have voted a large amount of money to be expended on a government railway. This Bill is to be rushed through in order to make certain that this money shall be distributed amongst Canadian workmen. Well, now, is it not a fact also that we have voted large sums of money this session to be expended on public works-canals, harbours, &c. ? And is it not a fact that we have to-day American dredges with every man in their crews an American citizen, employed on government work ? The contract is probably given to some Canadian, but he immediately sublets to Americans who bring their plant, men, tools and everything over to this country and do the work, and not a dollar of the money goes to the Canadian workman's pocket. If the hon. minister is so anxious to make it certain that the country's money shall go into the hands of Canadian contractors, why will he not allow the money as spent on public works by the government itself to be spent under similar conditions ? The hon. minister has explained why this condition should apply to subsidized railways. But if a man gets a bonus of $6,400 a mile for a railway, he has to Spend more than twice as much money himjelf that does not come from the public tre.pury. Under this rule the contract must 1* given to Canadians, but we have public works every dollar spent upon which comes out of the public treasury, and yet the minister has nothing to say when we lind that money going into the hands of American citizens. Is not this class legislation of the very worst kind ? The hon. gentleman ways he had not time to consider the quesWin of public works.


William Mulock: I did not say that.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, if the hon. minister had time, so much the more is he to blame if he did not consider them.


William Mulock: I did not say we did not consider them.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood from the minister that they did not come to a conclusion. That they would insert this condition, and I suppose there must be some reason why they will not do it.. Is it because he wants Americans to get these contracts?-because they are the only ones to Compete against our contractors and they are really making our Canadian dredge men tie up their dredges. When they get through with a work ou the American side, they have their fleets there ready to bring in and, they are ready to compete practically at cost in order to tie our dredges up. Therefore it seems to me most reasonable that the minister should add these words so as to make this provision apply to all government works. In the case of public works every dollar of the money spent is
public money, whereas in the case of a railway the country pays only about one-third of the cost, while private funds must supply the remainder. A great many railways receive bonuses this session, and I, would ask the minister if this would not apply to all these as against the Grand Trunk.


Alexander Johnston: Certainly.


John Dowsley Reid: Some of these railways will receive $3,200 a mile, yet everybody knows that a railway cannot be built for that money and the balance must come from private capitalists. Surely, if it is reasonable to make this a condition with regard to railways, it is reasonable to make it as regards public works every dollar of which is paid by the public.


Ralph Smith: A contractor on a public work does not receive any gift from the government.


John Dowsley Reid: I mean a contract given by the government.


Ralph Smith: But I want the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Reid) to see the difference. The bonus to a railway is something given to the company, whereas public money given to a contractor on a public work is given in exchange for the work which the contractor does.


Samuel Barker: But surely if when we give a portion of the cost of the work we insist upon it being done by a Canadian contractor, all the more should we insist when we do the whole work.


Ralph Smith: What I point out is that iu the one case you are not giving anything and the wqrk belongs to the people; but the Bill refers to work for which you give some money, while the property afterwards belongs to the company.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is quite willing that a contract should he given to American citizens, because they are the only competitors.


Ralph Smith: I agree with the hon. gentleman entirely as to what he wants ; but as members halve already objected to the length the Bill goes, I think it would be foolish to extend it any further.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member says that when a contract is let to Americans, the people get the advantage by its being a little cheaper. But in the case of a railway which is granted $3,000 a mile, the people get the benefit of that.


Ralph Smith: The company own the railway, while in the other case the gov-vernment gets the benefit.


Mr.  J. D. RETD@: I object to it entirely on the ground of Canadian money going out of this country. Of course, this Bill will

not apply to present contracts ; but there -will be a lot of contracts let to American citizens, and I think the money should be kept in this country. Every hon. member knows that this Bill has been got up entirely for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. There may be some reason for that when the government are practically building the Grand Trunk Pacific ; but is it fair that the minor railways to which we have been granting about one-third of the actual cost should be put in the same position ? If this Bill is to apply to them, you are going to increase the cost of these railways to the extent of the bonuses that are given to them. This Bill is unfair to the contractors who build these railways as well as to the public in regard to public contracts. Therefore I again urge the hon. minister to take into his consideration my suggestion to add the words 1 or any public work.'


Hance James Logan: When the hon. gentleman's friends were in power and a contract was let in the Public Works Department or in the Railway Department, there was no safeguard whatever for the workingmen of Canada. But since the fair-wage resolution was adopted four years ago, this clause has been inserted in every contract let by the Public' Works Department :
All workmen employed upon the work comprehended in and to be executed pursuant to the said contract shall be residents of Canada, unless the minister is of opinion that Canadian labour is not available, or that emergencies or other special circumstances exist which would render it contrary to public interest to enforce the foregoing condition in respect of the employment of resident Canadian workmen.
Iu every contract awarded by the Railway Department there is the following distinct clause :
No labourers shall be employed on or about the works hereby contracted for who are not citizens of or resident within Canada, but the minister may, in writing, waive the provisions of this clause, either in general or to a limited extent, should he deem it expedient so to do.
These clauses make it part of the contract that the labourers employed must be citizens or residents of Canada.


George Taylor: Let me ask the hon. gentleman what benefit that is to Canadian labour ? Let a man obtain a contract from this government with that clause in it, and all he has to do to employ labourers from the United States is to have them come to Canada yesterday, reside here during the night, and engage for work the next day. They are then residents of Canada. That clause in the Public Works contract is just like the Alien Labour law7, a perfect humbug There is not a public work being carried on in this country on which men of that class are not working. X can point to several! public works where this thing is happening, Mr. J. D. REID.
and Canadians cannot get work because it is given to men who come in from the United States.


Hance James Logan: With all due deference to the hon. gentleman's knowledge of law, I . venture to submit my opinion that the statement he makes as to what comprises residence in Canada under these clauses is absolutely ridiculous. No court would construe that a man was a resident of Canada -who simply came in last night and engaged to work on a public work, and would probably leave the country when the work was completed.


John Dowsley Reid: I have known cases in which the government let a contract to a firm, and the moment it was let a great number of employees who have been with the firm moved to the locality, secured houses, and were ready to proceed with the work. Would not these men be residents of Canada ?


William Mulock: Under this clause, if they satisfied the immigration officer that they were Irvna fide immigrants, they would be entitles i j do work the next day.


John Dowsley Reid: '3s.iy move over their household effects, auAthey state that they are moving into this * mtry to settle ; but as soon as the contract is over, they move to the United States again.


William Mulock: Then, what does the hon. gentler an propose ?


John Dowsley Reid: * * oropose to insert the words ' on any public J wk.' The contractor would then be a Camll^.an. Every man that takes a contract has his own- gang of men to work with him. If an American citizen, with his dredging fleet, receives a contract, he will bring a lot of men over, and they will bring other labourers in their train, and really most of the work will go to American citizens and the money will go out of the country. If the minister would see his way clear to include public works, that would make the clause very satisfactory to the workingmen of this country and the country as a whole, because the millions we have voted this year for public work will be given entirely to Canadians and the money be kept in the country.


Mr. LENNOX.: It seems to me that it some hon. gentlemen were not so anxious to drag iu politics from time to time, we would get along much better. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) was very anxious to point out that the former administration made no provision in their contracts regarding the class of labour they should employ. Even if that were the case, it would not affect the argument one iota. But let me tell the hon. gentleman that the statement he made was not founded upon fact. If he will search the records of the departments, he will find that in the majori-

ty of contracts, if not in all, there is a provision that none hut British subjects shall be employed.


Hance James Logan: Will the hon. gentleman tell me of one contract before the year 1900 in which that provision was ever put in ?


Haughton Lennox: Yes ; I hold one in my hand, which was let by the former Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Haggart). It is a contract which was let in 1895 or 1896, in connection with the Trent Valley canai, to Corry & Laverdure, and it contains this clause-not a printed clause, but expressly written in : 'It is hereby agreed and understood that none but British subjects shall be employed in and for the work hereby contracted for.' Let me tell the bon. gentlemen who try to excuse their own wrong-doing by bringing up the wrong-doing of former administrations, that if they would spend the time as I have done in looking into the contracts let from time to time they would become familiar with this clause, and know that in the majority, if not all the contracts let by the Conservative administration, these words are to be found.


Hance James Logan: 
George Taylor: I submit to the Finance Minister that as it is now midnight, and we rose at 2.30 this morning, the committee should rise and report progress and resume early in the morning. He cannot find fault with the opposition, for we have done everything possible to facilitate the carrying out of the arrangement between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition to close Saturday if possible and not later than Monday. But the two Bills, which have taken a great deal of time, it was not specially mentioned would be proceeded with.


William Mulock: The last clauses we have to pass are not at all contentious in their nature. We have dealt with the undesirable clauses, and there is no reason why we should not finish the Bill.


George Taylor: After the way in whiFh the Bill has been mutilated, it ought to be reprinted so that we may know what we are doing before we are asked to go on and complete it. No one now really knows what the Bill is at present.


William Mulock: If you get through the committee, I am willing to leave the third reading until to-morrow morning.


George Taylor: Surely you do not want the third reading until it is reprinted V


William Mulock: Why not have it put into some shape so that we can put it through all the stages when we do put it through.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite agree that hon. gentlemen opposite have facilitated the business of the House for some days and we all appreciate that. 1 think they should accept the suggestion to pass the Bill through committee. If it does need to be reprinted, there is so much more reason for dealing with it to-night. The committee stage being disposed of the third reading may stand until to-morrow, especially if the matter remaining is not a contentious character.


George Taylor: I am sure there will be a certain amount of discussion on every clause. If the hon. gentleman wants to wind up the estimates, I will be willing to remain an hour or a half an hour for that purpose.


William Mulock: Will you pass this within one hour to-morrow ?


George Taylor: I would not promise anything.


William Mulock: If my hon. friend does not wish to delay it, I am willing to have it passed through the committee stage, and to leave the third reading for to-morrow.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman want-s the measure put through there is no desire to delay it. Since we are dealing with it at all we want to make it as perfect as possible but there is no disposition to delay it.


William Mulock: It is desirable to have this out of the hands of the House at the earliest possible moment as the Senate is waiting for measures. The Senate does not pronounce on estimates, but it does on Bills, and I think this should be completed to-night.


George Taylor: Does the minister expect that the Senate will swallow the Bill in 24 hours ?

Sir WILLIAM MtTLOCK. I would not form an opinion as to what the Senate will do, but I think the sooner we give it to the Senate the sooner they can proceed with it.
On section 9,


Samuel Barker: I would suggest to the minister that in line 5 after the word ' that,' the word ' unlawful ' should be inserted. It is quite possible that a man may improperly enter the country and may have been assisted by some one without being unlawfully assisted.


William Mulock: I have no objection to that section as amended agreed to. [DOT]
On section 13,


William Mulock: In view of having struck out section 2 of this Bill it will not be necessary to have the following words in ' of the said Act of 1897 as amended or.'


Samuel Barker: I think this clause 13, might he left until the morning.


William Mulock: I think I know what is in my hon. friend's mind, but when I explain the matter I am sure he will see it is not serious. This section 13 only applies to the class of immigrants named in section 10, namely those undesirable ones, persons of unsound mind, diseased persons, prostitutes, and so on.


Samuel Barker: Had you not better say section 10 ?


William Mulock: I had that in the margin at one time, but in view of our having struck out subsection 1 of section 2, I thought we need not mention section 10. 1 am willing to leave the section as it was. The immigration agent has no power to finally deport but he has the power to detain these people so as not to allow them to get into the interior.


George Taylor: Who has the power to deport ?


William Mulock: Finally it is the minister. The cases are reported to him. I would move that we have the section read:
Any alien of any of the classes mentioned in section 10 who enters or is brought into .the country.
Section as amended agreed to.


Peter Macdonald: The title can be amended on the third reading.


George Taylor: I would suggest the title of the Bill be ' An Act to mutilate the Alien Labour Act.'


William Mulock: I hardly think my hon. friend would press that. I offer another suggestion and I leave it to the committee to choose between us. I move Mr. TAYLOR.
that the title of the Bill be an Act respecting Aliens and other matters. It is an omnibus Bill. But I will not press that matter till to-morrow.
Bill reported.


Peter Macdonald: When shall the Bill be read a third time ?


George Taylor: I suggest that we have it printed.


William Mulock: I do not think my hon. friend will press that, it only means delay.


William Stevens Fielding: I am glad to avail myself of the generous suggestion of the hon. gentleman that we spend an hour or so in clearing up the estimates.


George Taylor: But the proposition was not accepted. We should have to leave a few contentious items, as there are one or two hon. gentlemen who have some matters to bring up which will take some time.


William Stevens Fielding: I realize that we are in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite. As they have helped us very much in expediting the business we won't press the matter. I move the adjournment of' the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: Consideration of the third reading of the Alien Labour Bill, subsidies to railways and supply.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 12.10 a.m.-Saturday.

Saturday, August 6, 1904.