1905-02-08

Mr.   II@: GERVAIS (St. James, Montreal) moved that the first report of the Select Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.
Committee appointed to supervise the official report of the Debates of this House during the present session, which is as follows :
Your committee recommend that their quorum be reduced from eight to five members.
be adopted.


Mr. FOSTER.: What is the number of that committee ?


Mr. GERYAIS.: Fifteen.


George Eulas Foster: And you reduce the quorum to what ?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: To five.


George Eulas Foster: Why ?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I understand that this has been the rule for the last three years.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  E. A.@: LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 44) respecting certificates to masters and mates of ships. He said : Perhaps I should inform the House that this Bill is intended to take the place of the Bill (No. 3) which I introduced in the earlier part of the session, which now stands for a second reading. As there are objections to one clause of that Bill, I propose this as a substitute ; it is practically the same Bill with the objectionable clause removed. When the order for the second reading of Bill (No. 3) is reached I shall allow that order to drop.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	How many persons are now upon the staff of the Railway Commission ?
2.	What are their names, and what salary and allowance does each receive ?
3.	How many persons now constitute the staff of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Commission ?
4.	What are their names, and what salary and allowance does each receive ?
5.	Who selects the engineers in charge of each of the surveys of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in the district east of Winnipeg ?
6.	Under whose direction and supervision are engineering parties made up and managed, and to whom do the engineers report' ; and have any interim or other reports been received ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Twenty-one exclusive of the commissioners.

2.	A. !). Cartwright, $3,000 per annum ;
J. E. Duval, $2,200 per annum ; E. A. Primeau, $1,800 per annum ; James Hard-well, $3,500 per annum ; Geo. A. Mountain, $4,800 per annum ; A. G. Blair, jr., $2,500 per annum ; E. C. Lalonde, $2,200 per annum ; J. H. TeSsier, $1,800 per annum ; T. L. Simmons, $1,800 per annum ; G. A. Brown, $2,000 per annum ; L. J. Lewis, $000 per annum ; B. Chevrier, $800 per annum ; L. M. Cameron, $550 per annum ; F. C. McGee, $800 per annum ; C. E. McManus, $800 per annum ; Jno. W. Thompson, $800 per annum ; H. W. Messenger, $900 per annum ; Norman Ham, $900 per annum ; T. Chandler, $700 per annum ; D. Langelier, $500 per annum ; Wm. Woodruff, $60 per month. No allowances are made except actual reasonable travelling expenses when travelling on government business.	'
3.	Thirty exclusive of the commissioners.
4.	H. D. Lumsden, $500 per month ; M. J. Butler, $375 per month ; A. W. H. Stimp-son, $125 per month ; C. J. Jones, $80 per month ; Fred. Dillon, $80 per month ; A. L. Ogilvie, $150 per month ; R. L. Landry, $70 per month ; Alice Seed, $25 per month ; R. M. J. McGill, $125 per month ; Jos. Clement, $100 per month ; R.' H. Lang, $60 per month ; II. A. Collins, $85 per month ; John Neighorn, $75 per month ; R. Ronan, $70 per month ; D. Lefebvre, $20 per month ; P. E. Ryan, $208.33 per month ; R. F. Uni-acke, $150 per month ; Jos. H. Roy, $100 per month ; O. P. Schreiber, $60 per month ; Fred. McCourt, $70 per month ; Percy Wright, $30 per month ; F. W. White, $100 per month ; Geo. O'Reilly, $15 per week ; A. T. Gow, $150 per month ; W. R. Saults, $75 per month ; R. Lagimodiere, $60 per month ; A. Beaudry, $70 per month ; G. Heidmann, $80 per month ; P. Larocque, $70 per month ; John O'Malley, $50 per month. No allowances are made except actual reasonable travelling expenses when travelling on government business.
5.	The engineers in charge of parties are appointed by the board upon the recommendation'of the chief engineer.
6.	The engineering parties were made up in the first place by the board, on the recommendation of the chief and district engineers, and changes in same are made upon the recommendation of the chief of parties and the district engineers and approved by the chief engineer. The engineers in charge of parties report to the district engineers, who report to the chief engineer, and he reports to the board. Interim reports are received from time to time from the parties in the field and district engineers.



INSPECTION OP PENCE WIRE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFTJRGEY-by Mr. Lancasterasked :
In view of the fact that much hardship and loss arises yearly to the farmers of Canada from the purchase of fraudulent and inferior
wire for fencing, is it the intention of the government to institute such inspection of fence wire, -whether made at home or abroad, as will safeguard the farmers from losses so arising ?
Hon.   H.@: If the hon. member for Prince
were present, I would have to observe to him that this question is out of order, as it contains a statement of fact, which is contrary to the rules. However, I have no objection to answer the question, and to inform the hon. gentleman that it is not the intention of the government to appoint such an inspector.



TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.

Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: What is the total number of officers, civil engineers and other employees now engaged in the surveys of the Transcontinental Railway, and works connected therewith, under the Ti ansoontinental Railway Construction Commission ?
2.	What is the name and place of residence ot each of the above persons at the time ot appointment ?
3.	What are the functions and salaries of each of the above ?


Hon.   H.@: R, EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) : As the answer to this question would be a very voluminous one, I would ask my hon. friend to put it in the form- of a motion. It involves a list of the axemen, roadmen and all other employees all over the service.



CORNWALL CANAL DREDGING. .

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PRINGLE-by Mr. Lancaster-asked ;
1.	To -whom was the contract for dredging at the head of the Cornwall canal given ?
2.	Were tenders called for ?
3.	If so. in what manner ?
4.	If by advertisement, in what papers ?
5.	How many tendered for the work ?
6.	Was the work given to the lowest tenderer?
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	W. J. Poupore (Limited).
2.	Yes.
3.	By newspaper advertisement.
4.	Montreal-1 Herald,' 1 Witness,' ' La Presse,' 1 Le Canada ;'
Ottawa-1 Free Press,' 1 Danebrog,' 'Le Temps ;'
Cornwall-1 Freeholder
Morrisbnrg-1 Herald ;'
Prescott-1 Journal ;'
Kingston-1 Canadian Freeman,' 1 British Whig ;'
Toronto-1 Globe,' 1 Star,' 1 News ;'
Peterboro-Times.'
5.	Five tenders were received.
6.	The lowest tenderer having withdrawn, the contract was awarded to the next lowest.



MONTREAL, HARBOUR SHEDS.

Mr. AMES asked :: 1.	Have any claims for extras been made by Messrs. P. Lyall & Sons in connection with their contract for the construction of two-story sheds in the port of Montreal ?
2.	If so, what was the amount and the grounds alleged in each case ?


Hon.   H.@: I would ask my hon. friend to move for the papers, in order that he may get the information he wants.



PENNY BANKS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HENDERSON-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	How many charters have been granted by the Governor in Council under the Penny Bank Act of 1902 ?
2.	Have any of the said banks so chartered transmitted statements of their business to the Minister of Finance, under section 33 of the said Act ?
3.	If any such statements have been sent, what are the names of the banks so reporting, and what is the name of the place where the chief office of each is situated ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	One.
2.	The bank so chartered has not yet received the certificate of the Treasury Board permitting the institution to carry on business under the Act, and accordingly no statements under section 33 have been received.
3.	Answered by 2.



COMMUNICATION WITH PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

Mr. A. MARTIN asked :: 1.	When was the winter boat ' Stanley,' now in conjunction with the steamship ' Minto ' attempting to maintain communication between Prince Edward Island, built, and how long has she been in the public service ?
2.	To what extent has the ' Stanley ' been weakened by time and contact with heavy ice.
3.	Has she been strengthened ? If so, when, and in what respect ?
4.	When was she inspected, and what was the report of the inspector ?
5.	Has the government considered the necessity of building a new boat ? If so, would sbe be ready for service in the winter of 1905-6 ?


Hon. J. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: In this case I think it would be better for the hon. gentleman to move for a return.



THE RAILWAY COMMISSION BOARD.

Mr. BLAIN asked :: 1.	What was the date of the first sitting of the Railway Commission Board ?
2.	What amount has been paid in salaries to each commissioner ?
3.	What amount has been paid to date in connection "with the Railway Commission Board other than salaries ?


Mr. EMMERSON.: 4.	How many private secretaries are employed by the board, and what are the names, and the salary paid to each ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	The first public sitting of the Railway Commission Board was on the 9th of February, 1904.
2.	Hon. A. G. Blair, $9,045.31 ; Hon. M.
E. Bernier, $8,300.99 ; Mr James Mills $8.300.99.	'
3.	$37,965.55.
4.	None.



I. C. R.-RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES.

Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What are the total receipt's and expenditures of the Intercolonial Railway, including all branches, for the current year up to December 31, 1904 ?
2.	What amount has been expended on the Intercolonial Railway and its branches, including the purchase of railway lines, from capital account, for each year from 1896 to 1904, inclusive ? What' amount since June 30th, 1904 ?


Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of
Railways and Canals) :	
1. Working expenses,	$4,104,018.93 :
ceipts, $3,621,263.91.	
Year. [DOT]	Amount.
2. 1897		$ 145,142 00
1898		252,367 20
1899		1,081,929 94
1900		1,796,348 29
1901.. .. 			3,633,836 57
1902		4,621,841 05
1903		2,254.266 68
1904		1,880.856 60
From June 30th, 1904 to	
December 31st 1904..	733,221 29



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC COMMISSION-STAFF AND SALARIES.

Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What are the respective dates of appointments of the commissions and working staff of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Commission ?
2.	What is the total amount expended thereon
to December 31, 1904, under the beads, (a) salaries of commissioners ;	(b) salaries of staff ;
(c) expenses ; (d) rental of quarters ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways) :: I shall have to ask the hon. gentleman to move for a return.


George Eulas Foster: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to make the motion now ?
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIC Give notice.



WORN SILVER COINS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Lancaster-asked:
Is it the intention of the government to take any steps in the near future towards calling in and redeeming at the face value worn silver coins ?
Hon.   H.@: This matter is under consideration.



EXPORT OF HAY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. A. Martin-asked :
How many tons of hay were exported from the province of Quebec to Boston, TJ.S.A., for the months of October, November and December, 1904, respectively ?
Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: Tlie customs returns of exports as compiled show the countries to which goods are exported from Canada, hut do not show the ports of destination. I am therefore unable to answer the question just as the hon. gentleman asks it, but the answer which I am able to give him now will perhaps suit his purpose. The quantity of hay exported from the province of Quebec to the United States during the months of October, November, and December respectively was as follows : October, 3,927 tons ; November, 2,508 tons ; December, 4,327 tons.



MONTREAL HARBOUR SHEDS.

Mr. H. B. AMES (St. Antoine, Montreal) moved :: For copies of all correspondence exchanged since the 1st of October last between (a) P. W. St. George, government superintendent engineer, Montreal Harbour sheds, and the Honourable Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and between (b) the Honourable Minister or the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, regarding the plans, specifications or contracts for the new sheds in the port of Montreal.
He said: My object in asking for the correspondence is that its production may tend to reassure the commercial interests of Montreal and the country generally, which are much perturbed by certain disquieting rumours to the effect that the decision of the government in favour of two-story sheds may be changed. I hope that we shall have some explanation from the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine), on this occasion, of a reassuring character and that the correspondence, when produced, may be of such a nature as will lead us to conclude that the government will adhere to its intention, and the contracts be completed as given out. In order that hon. members may understand that it is not without some reason I have felt compelled to move for this correspondence, let me point out the reasons which have led us to think that possibly the government may be contemplating some changes regarding the construction of steel sheds in the port of Montreal. In answer to a question of mine put on January 25 in this House, the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries said that, at his instance, Mr. P. W. St. George, the government engineer on the construction of sheds in the port of Montreal, had prepared independent plans, and that these had been submitted to the minister and were now under consideration. And we are able to
obtain some idea as to the main feature of these plans from a statement made by Mr. Reford the other day at a meeting of the Harbour Board, when he asked that no further progress be made by that board because the government had under consideration certain other plans for one-story sheds. As reported in the Montreal ' Herald,' Mr. Reford said :
The Shipping Federation had appealed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and Mr. St. George's plans for one-story sheds were being Investigated.
Further, on November 15 last, the Harbour Commissioners received from the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries a letter from which I shall read the following extract :
I have the honour to forward herewith, copy of a letter received from the engineer appointed by this department to inspect the contract for the new harbour sheds, accompanied by memorandum and alternate plans, representing that the sheds now contracted for are not suitable for the requirements of the port and proposing some alterations therein ; and I am instructed by the minister to request you to lay the whole question before the Harbour Commission for their discussion and opinion.
And, as a further Indication that there is an element of doubt in this matter, I would refer to u report of a recent meeting of the Harbour Commissioners at which the chief engineer of the port of Montreal stated that it would be hardly possible to have the first group of sheds, given out under the contract, completed by June 1, and that the second group could not possibly be finished in the time called for in the contract, namely, July 15, showing that in the fulfilment of the contract there was evident delay. And my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier( Mr. Monk) stated to this House a few days ago, he had reason to believe that that delay was owing to uncertainty as to whether the present plans would be continued or new plans adopted of an entirely different character.
These are the indications we have that the work of construction is at present being somewhat delayed in view of the uncertainty prevailing as to whether the original plans will he carried out in their entirety. I wish to more especially address my remarks to the members of the government, speaking as a representative of the commercial interests of Montreal. As such I sincerely trust that the government have no intention of reversing their previous decision. My right hou. friend, the first minister, will remember that when there was laid before this House on June 11, 1903, the estimate upon which this House voted $3,000,000 to he advanced to the Harbour Commissioners for the construction of steel sheds, it was distinctly specified that the sheds were to be two-story; and it was on that basis and on that estimate prepared by the Harbour Commissioners that this House concurred in the Bill empowering the government to advance

$3,000,000 to the Harbour Commissioners. TJhe subsequent Act, 3 Edward VII., c. 36, distinctly stipulates that the estimates, plans and specifications should be submitted to the Governor in Council and that before the work could be gone on with the approval of the Governor in Council was necessary. The commissioners, realizing how necessary it was that they should show good reason for the plans they might approve, actually took the entire summer in their preparation. Their engineer was occupied four months preparing these plans. He had made extensive studies, travelled through a number of cities, and finally produced his plans of two-story sheds. These were considered by the Harbour Commissioners at the end of September last, at meetings to which all parties interested were invited to be present. There were present representatives of the shipping, the Board of Trade, the Chambre de Commerce, the Corn Exchange and the Cartage companies, and in fact all those particularly interested in the Port of Montreal. The Harbour Commissioners, in a number of successive sittings, gave these interested parties a full hearing and finally decided to recommend two-story steel sheds, and this recommendation was sent to the government on or about November 1. The government also took careful steps before giving the approval required by law. The Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries went to Montreal and sat with the Harbour Commissioners and heard all the interested parties. On a subsequent occasion the Prime Minister himself, and one of his colleagues were present at a meeting of the Harbour Commissioners and again heard the representations of the parties interested. After keeping these plans nearly two months in Ottawa, after having them inspected by the engineer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and an engineer of the Department of Public Works, these plans, on recommendation made by the Ministers of Fisheries and Public Works, were finally approved by Order in Council dated December 21,1903, and were duly signed and transmitted to the Harbour Commissioners. In due course the Commissioners called for tenders. It was stipulated in the Order in Council that the commissioners should not give out contracts without the approval of the Governor General in Council. Consequently when they decided to give a contract to Messrs. Peter Lyall & Co., it was sent to the government and ratified by it, so that the government stands absolutely pledged to the plan of two-story sheds. It was upon this basis that the money was voted, the Order in Council issued, and the contracts let for the 15 sheds to be finished at three different dates. It is therefore, to say the least, surprising that there should now be any question whatever as to whether these plans shall be adhered to. I wish to point out to the ministry that it will be a very serious matter for the Port of Montreal Mr. AMES.
and the shipping interests generally if the plans should be abandoned and replaced by plans for single-story sheds.
It must be remembered that the space available in the port of Montreal is comparatively limited. The upper harbour of Montreal, where the great bulk of the commerce is done, lies between St. Mary's current and the foot of the rapids below the bridge. It is necessary that this space should be utilized to the fullest possible extent. One of the jirincipal objects in adopting the two-story shed plan was that they might have, as it were, the double wharf space. Another advantage of the two-story sheds is that they will be able to keep the through freight and the package freight separate. The through freight is increasing in volume every year. The railway companies demand and require practically the entire surface of the wharf for their business. And it is proposed that the package freight shall be handled on the second story, leaving the first to the railways. There will be no clashing of interests, while there will be a saving of time, and a reduction to the minimum of danger to life and property. It is necessary to point out that the whole tendency throughout the large ports of the world is in the direction of two-story and even three-story sheds. I could name a dozen or fifteen of the large ports that have been equipped with two-story sheds and some even with those of three stories. And if the port of Montreal were restricted to sheds of one-story it would certainly greatly diminish its power to handle its incoming and outgoing freight. So, I sincerely trust the government wrill not go back on its previous decision. I admit that the plan of two-story sheds is not absolutely acceptable to all concerned. Some companies that have small ships coming to the port of Montreal, and some cartage companies that are afraid of the incline, prefer the one-story shed. But I would point out the fact that the tendency in the port of Montreal is to have larger ships year by year coming to do the business. In 1894 the average vessel that came to Montreal was 1,500 net tons ; in 1900, the average 2,000 net tons, and in 1904, 2,400 net tons. So, you will see there lias been an increase. within the decade of GO per cent in the net tonnage of the freightcarrying vessels. The average tonnage of an Allan liner is 6,645 tons gross; of a Dominion liner 7,117 gross, on the line that runs from Liverpool to Glasgow and 5,000 on the Antwerp line ; of the Canadian Pacific Railway liners 7,060 gross, and of the Reford liners 2,400 net or about 3,700 or 3,800 gross. I would point out that most of the objections to the two-story shed and most of the arguments in favour of the single-story shed come from those who are interested in the smaller boats. But there is ample provision for these boats in other portions of the harbour, and there is no need why they should claim to remain in that portion of the harbour

where two-story sheds should be built. And so I have moved for the return in the hope that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine), speaking for the government, may take occasion to allay the anxiety that prevails amongst the commercial elements of the city of Montreal as to the possible change of front on the part of the government with reference to the two-story sheds in that port. X move for it also in the hope that, when this correspondence is brought down, we may find that this which I have cited simply means that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine), with his usual courtesy, has opened a discussion with the interested parties, but with no intention whatever of changing the original decision at which the government has arrived.
lion. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries). X have much pleasure in stating at once that there is no objection whatever to the production of the papers. They will be laid on the table without delay. As regards the anxiety of which the hon. member (Mr. Ames) has spoken as existing among the business people of Montreal, I must admit that there is such anxiety. But it exists not on account of the one-story sheds but on account of the two-story sheds. That is the position in which the question stands at this moment. So far as the department is concerned, we approved of the two-story shed after a good deal of consideration by the different bodies of Montreal and by the Minister of Public Works as well as by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. But it was discovered afterwards that the effect of having two-stories would not be to give the satisfaction that the shipping conference expected from this work. The shipping conference really represents the maritime interests of the port of Montreal. They unanimously began an agitation to l'.ave the plans remodelled. Their difficulty was that there were too many columns in the first story of the sheds and that these columns were too near together. They were set at about 15 feet centres. It was thought that the lower story or at least a part of it, would be practically useless by reason of the presence of these columns. The question of modifying the plans was referred to me as minister responsible for the execution of these works, of course, under the superintendence of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. I referred the- question to the engineer in charge appointed by the government. He had many conferences with the shipping federation, and he came to the conclusion that if the plans of two-story sheds were maintained, the difficulty caused by the too numerous columns could not be avoided, and there should be one-story sheds at least on those piers which were supposed to be used by the largest steamship companies. Mr. St. George prepared plans therefore, and showed that with the one-story shed and the absence of columns he could
get more space than with the two-story sheds. So, I might say with good reason that it is not a change of front on the part of anybody, but simply a change of the inside disposition of the sheds. As I am not an engineer, and am not supposed to know these things, I referred the whole matter not only to the shipping federation but to the Harbour Commissioners. That was as far back as November or December last. The construction has gone on since that time. The question has been decided whether the sheds are to be two-story or one-story. But the Harbour Commissioners have acknowledged through their chief engineer, that these columns which were supposed to be absolutely necessary to carry the second story are not necessary at all or at least one-third of them. On consulting a competent architect they have been given this advice. This consultation was by the Harbour Commissioners themselves. They did not consult the superintending engineer of the government, but consulted Mr. Marchand, a young architect of great talent, one who has had a great deal of experience and who is now directing the construction of some of the most important buildings in Montreal. The result was that I had a communication this morning from the Harbour Commissioners themselves, asking for a change of plan as regards the columns of the first story, which would involve a cost of $35,000, thereby admitting that the plans first made out were not what they should have been. I may repeat that this is not a question of two stories or of one story ; it makes practically no difference to the marine and shipping interests of Montreal whether there is one story or two stories. But they want one of the stories at least to be useful for the heavy freight they desire to bring into Montreal.
Now, as regards the assertion made by the hon. gentleman that it was only the owners of small steamers who were opposing the two story plan, quite the contrary is the fact. They want to get the most space possible in the first story, and if it was found impossible to do away with some of the pillars, then they want the shed to be reduced to one story. Others, including all the owners of the large steamers, are really discouraged, and the correspondence will show they stated in the most formal way that if the first story were to be constructed in that way it would be perfectly useless, and they would be driven from the port of Montreal. In face of such representations I think we were perfectly right in trying to conciliate the opposing views and bring them to an understanding. I must say that the shipping conference, when they approved of the original plan, did not notice, for one reason or another, how disadvantageous would be the first story with columns of about 15 feet centre. Of course if that objection had been discovered sooner, this discussion about taking away

some of the columns would not have arisen. I am quite sure that the question will be settled satisfactorily to the business men in Montreal and to the shipping federation especially, composed of those who are particularly interested in having the sheds made in such a way as to prove most advantageous to the port of Montreal.
The papers and all the correspondence will be laid before the House. But I am quite sure this is not the last time this subject will come before the House at "the present session, because other measures will be brought down which will permit a full discussion of the whole question. It is not an ordinary question. When I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this question has been agitating the business men of Montreal for the last ten years, it is not strange that some difficulties and some misunderstandings should have arisen regarding the construction of these sheds. There will probably'be some difficulty until they are finished, which will not be for three or four years. But I do not think that anything has been done by the Harbour Commissioners or their officers, or by the government, in any way to jeopardize the usefulness and advantages to be derived from the construction of these sheds.	.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. KEMP moved :: For copies of all circulars or instructions, regulations and rulings made by the Customs Department, together with any Orders in Council, relating to section 19 and subsections thereto of the Act to amend the Customs Tariff, If87, assented to August 10th, 1904, commonly known as the ' dumping clause.'


William Paterson: I suppose the hon. gentleman does not mean all the rulings, but only the general rulings under which the decisions are given.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Out.).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Em-merson), if he were here, a telegram which 1 received a few moments ago from a gentleman whom I well know :
Springhill Junction, N.S., Feb. 8, 1905.
Three trains stalled here for over 12 hours many passengers without food, please bring matter up in parliament.
I have discharged the gentleman's request by bringing the matter to the attention of the government. I had a somewhat Mr. PREFONTAINE.
similar experience myself, but I did not suppose it could be controlled, because the storm was very severe at the time. I trust the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurler) will bring the matter to, the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals, will send him over the telegram.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has read a telegram in reference to the stalling of trains at Springhill. I may say that about one o'clock I received a telegram from a gentleman signing himself R. A. Mcntyre, stating in effect what is contained in the telegram sent to my hon. friend. He states here that several trains were stalled and he wishes provision made for feeding the passengers. I communicated at once with Mr. Pottinger, who is in the city, and in reply to the message he says:	[DOT]
I have telegraphed down for an explanation. It was probably due to a severe storm that wc had on both Prince Edward Island and the mainland, as you will see by two telegrams inclosed. Will let you have further particulars as soon as I can get them.
One of the telegrams to Mr. Pottinger is as follows :
Snow storm with high wind set in at Halifax iast night. No. 70 stuck at Rockingham ; D. A R. special hauled out, arrived Richmond five twenty. Special with cattle and meats for mail steamer stuck at Rockingham, reached Halifax seven forty. Steamer waited. Halifax yard badly blocked. Nothing could be done after two o'clock. Took three engines to take cattle tr Deepwater.
The superintendent of the Prince Edward Island Railway telegraphed Mr. Pottinger to this effect that:
The storm of last night is still raging ; is extremely severe. All trains tied up till storm abates. We anticipate much trouble to clear the track.
The difficulty seems to have come upon them suddenly. Mr. Pottinger has wired to Springhill Junction in respect to looking after the passengers. My attention only having been called to it at one o'clock I could do nothing in the matter, but I have taken these steps since that time.



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurler) to question number 5 on the order paper :
1.	Have any claims for extras been made by Messrs. P. Lyall & Sons in connection with their contract for the construction of two-story sheds in the port of Montreal ?
2.	If so, what was the amount and the grounds alleged in each case 1
3.	Were the said claims admitted and approved by the Harbour Commissioners and by the Chief Engineer ?

4.	Were the said claims recommended for payment by the government superintendent engineer for the Montreal Harbour sheds ?
5.	Were the said claims in dispute submitted to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries ? If so, what amount did he award to the contractor in each case ?
The right hon. gentleman asked my hon. friend who moved it (Mr. Ames) to make a motion for a return. If the Prime Minister will examine the question, he will see that nearly every one of the inquiries can be answered by yes or no, except the one involving the grounds alleged in each case.


Right Hon.   S@: The hon. gentleman will see that everything depends upon the inquiry number 2 concerning the amount and the grounds alleged. Therefore the report of the engineer and the correspondence will be necessary. There are different grounds, and there is a report upon each.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
Copies of all forms and instructions issued to the returning officers in the several provinces and territories for use in the recent gen-eneral election for the House of Commons.-Mr. Barker.
Copy of the voters' lists for the constituency of Macdonald, supplied to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery prior to the general elections of 1904. Also for copies of the voters' lists supplied by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to the returning officer for Macdonald constituency for the same elections. And for copies of voters' lists Supplied to the various deputy returning officers by the returning officer in the constituency of Macdonald.- Mr. Staples,

George Eulas Foster: The right hon. Prime Minister or the hon. Minister of Justice promised, the other day, to lay on the table the telegram and letter of resignation of Mr. Blair, as chairman of the commission.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The resignation of Mr. Blair ?


George Eulas Foster: The, telegram and letter of resignation of the chairman of the commission.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has moved for an order for it and the whole correspondence will he brought down. I expect to have it to-morrow.



COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PRINCE


Mr.   ALEX@: MARTIN (Queen's, P. E. I.) Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I wish to call the right hon. Prime Minister's attention to a question
which I referred to the other day ; that is in regard to the present communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The steamers have stopped. The communication is now had between the Capes and by sailing boats. When the boats reached Cape Tormentine there is not such a thing as a special train to carry the mails and passengers to Sackviile. This has been a grievance in the province for years. The boats are necessarily irregular at the Capes because the crossing at the Capes depends on the state of the wind and of the ice. When' they reach Cape Tormentine the regular train generally has left, and the passengers and mails have to he detained there for twenty-four hours in some cases, merely because the government has not thought proper to put a special train on between Cape Tormentine and Sackviile. The expenditure in that direction would not be very large. It is only during a short period that it would he necessary, hut the inconvenience and loss sustained by the people of Prince Edward Island every year is a very serious matter. While I tell the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Postmaster General that in the reading room we find the last papers there a week behind time they will understand lion' inconvenient the situation is. I have a telegram to-day to ask to bring this question to the attention of the Postmaster General every day until we get a remedy. I hope this duty will not be imposed on me for any length of time.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-STATION AGENT AT FREDERICTON.

Mr. O. S. CROCKET (York, N.B.).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are taken up I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmer-son) when we might expect the correspondence to be brought down in regard to the dismissal of Odbur White from the position of station master on the Intercolonial Railway at Fredericton. I moved for this correspondence on Thursday, January 26. At that time I understood the hon. minister to state that there was only one letter received from Mr. White and the minister's reply, and I w'ould like to know from the hon. minister when we might expect these papers.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I trust that the impatience of my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) will be satisfied very soon. For some reason or other the papers only came under my notice yesterday, and this morning I gave instructions to have them copied at once so that we may expect an immediate return. I am also searching to see whether there are any other letters or any references to the matter in any letters which have from time to time been received from the officers of the Intercolonial Railway in connection with railway matters generally.
<399



RUMOURED APPOINTMENT OP HON.

[Stage Direction]
S.	N. PARENT TO TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY COMMISSION.
Mr.   J.@: 6. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois). Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I would like to ask a question of my right hou. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I would not like to increase liis troubles particularly since that painful amputation in Ontario of his right arm, but another one of his limbs is very much attacked just now in the province of Quebec, and there are many rumours floating around, one of them to the effect that one of the ministers of the Crown lias gone to Quebec to try and patch up the trouble. In support of that rumour this statement has appeared in some of the papers and it has been said since then on high authority that:
'The Hon. S. N. Parent, Premier of Quebec, will shortly accept a seat on the National Transcontinental Railway Construction Commission. At present he represents the government on the Grand Trunk Pacific directorate.
There was an idea prevailing in the city of Montreal this morning from the reports I have received, that a solemn promise was made by the present government, if not personally by the right lion. Prime Minister himself, that if Mr. Parent tries to fix up his government for the session he will be appointed to the construction commission when the session is over, and that the premier will then be succeeded by Mr. Gouin. I do not know if my question can be answered now, but if it could it would do a great deal to alleviate the trouble that seems to exist in the minds of certain people around the city of Montreal.


Hon.   H.@: It would be uncharitable of me were I not to alleviate the heroic statements that oppress my hon. friend at this moment. His arm seems to be sound and all right.


Mr. BERGERON.: I have lost nothing yet.


Wilfrid Laurier: The trouble seems to be elsewhere. I have no objection to say Hi my hon. friend that there has been no promise made by the government in any way whatever.



ICE JAM IN THE ST. LAWRENCE.

Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas).: Before the Orders of the Day are called I wish to again refer to a matter which I took the liberty of referring to on Monday, January 30, and to again call the attention of the government to the ice jam in the St. Lawrence near Woodland in the county of Stormont. The jam extends from that town westward for about seven miles, completely fills up the open current and the water has' risen to such an extent that it has driven people from their habitations and that they have been obliged to remove their cattle from Mr. EMMERSON.	r \
their stables although the banks are high. The water at Morrlsburg which is 12 miles from the commencement of the ice bridge is within 16 or IS inches of running over the lock gates, up current. I call the attention of the government to this condition of things hoping that they will see fit to send some expert there to see whether it will be possible to alleviate the difficulty. The officials who are there, no matter what their ability might be, have no appliances to deal with the situation, and it seems to me that the matter is so serious and threatens such danger to a considerable number of people living adjacent to the river, that some cognizance should be taken of the condition of affairs ; the winter is so cold and the ice bridge has formed so early in the winter that it is a very serious matter, because if this weather continues much longer it will prove disastrous. During the past 18 years there have been four ice bridges formed in the river. The ice bridge 18 years ago did a good deal of damage, but tile difference between the previous ice bridge and the present is that the previous bridges formed later in the year, and the spring coming shortly afterwards broke them up. But this bridge has formed six weeks earlier than in previous years and it is certainly a very serious condition of things. The people are very much alarmed at the conditions and are looking to the government for some cognizance to be taken of the conditions. I h6pe the Minister of Railways and Canals will send an expert to see if something cannot be done. I know that it is a difficult matter to deal with and I understand from those who have had some experience that it is not possible to dynamite the ice owing to the formation of what is called anchor ice, the ice and the snow particularly going under the surface forms a bottom that is not solid enough to permit the use of dynamite. But I think the government should take some action.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The difficulty referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Broder) has certainly been receiving the attention of the officers of the Department of Railways and Canals. The chief engineer, at tile very outset, took steps to remedy as far as possible any difficulty that might arise. He has, however, brought to my attention a question as to whether the difficulty is not due very largely to those who have developed water-powers along the canal. There is a suspicion among the officials of the department that possibly if the power developers were to take proper steps-and of course it would put them to some expense-the difficulty might very largely be obviated. How far this may be true I know not, but it is thought that possibly a good deal of the difficulty arises from that cause. Whatever the difficulties may be, they are receiving the attention of the chief engineer, and

the department is attempting to do whatever lies within their scope. Injuries to the canal and to adjacent properties are being guarded against as far as possible.


Andrew Broder: I think the difficulty is not caused by any people having to do with the water-powers. From what I learn from local people the ice forms in the bay, anci then, when a wind storm blows from the east for any length of time, it lowers the water in the bay by a foot or two and the ice breaks loose from the. bay, swings around, catches on the opposite side and the bridge is formed In that way. I was told by a gentleman in the locality that he was told by a man in the employ of the American company developing power at Messina, on the opposite shore, that they cut the ice loose and floated it out to avoid trouble. I am telling this only on the authority of a reliable man who had it from a man who said that he was engaged in the work. If this statement is true it is a matter that no one but the government can deal with. Those who know the situation say that if piers were built in the bay to hold the ice and prevent it from floating out, the dangers would be altogether avoided. It seems to me that the engineers of the department could easily look into that matter although it is a question that would be of an international character, because the bay is on American soil.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES (North Victoria).: I had the honour last session, and I think a previous session also, of drawing the attention of the first minister to the fact that owing to the cutting of the Hay Lake channel approaching Sault Ste. Marie, the water in the natural international channel has been lowered two feet and the water on the sills of the canal had been lowered to the same degree. The government last session, promised to take action in the matter. Has anything been done ?


Wilfrid Laurier: We have appointed an international commission composed of American and Canadian engineers to investigate the matter.


Samuel Hughes: The Chicago Drainage canal too ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Everything connected with international waters. It is a question very much larger than my hon. friend's question implies.



LABOUR UNION LABELS.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 10) respecting Labour Union Labels-Mr. Ralph Smith.
On section 1.
Mr. HAGGART.: The expression ' Laborir Union ' means every association of labour-men and women ? Does this labour union require to be registered, incorporated or anything of that kind ?


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: No. There is no provision at all for the incorporation of trades unions in this country. They can register under the Trades Unions Act, as they can in England.


Robert Laird Borden: I had not the advantage of being present when this Bill received its second reading ; but I think it would be desirable to have some intimation from the Prime Minister as to the view the government takes of the Bill. It is one involving rather important provisions, and I would like to bring to his attention what, of course, is already familiar to him, that on all important matters of legislation, it is not only the duty of the government to have a policy, but in modern constitutional practice it is the duty of the government to originate such legislation and place it before the House. In ' Anson on the Law and Custom of the Constitution,' second edition, at page 139, it is laid down that ' every important measure of legislation is now brought forward upon the responsibility of the cabinet.' In ' Todd's Parliamentary Government in England,' second volume, at page 367, the practice is also laid down as follows:-
By modern constitutional practice, ministers of the Crown are held responsible for recommending to parliament whatsoever laws are required to advance the national welfare, or to promote the political or social interest of any class or interest in the commonwealth.
Further on it is said :
But' it has only been by degrees, and principally since the passing of the Reform Acts of 1832, that it has come to be an established principle, that all important Acts of legislation should be originated, and their passage through parliament facilitated, by the advisers of the Crown.
Again, on the same page :
But the growing interest which, of late years, has been exhibited by the constituent bodies upon all public questions, and the consequent necessity for systematic and enlightened legislation for the improvement of our political and social institutions, and for the amelioration of the laws, in accordance with the wants of an advancing civilization, together with the difficulty experienced by private members in carrying bills through parliament, have led to the imposition of additional burthens upon the ministers of the Crown, by requiring them to prepare and submit to parliament whatever measures of this description may he needed for the public good ; and also to take the lead in advising parliament to amend or reject all crude, imperfect, or otherwise objectionable measures which may at any time be introduced by private members.
Further on :
Bearing this in mind, it must be admitted that the rule that all great and important public measures should emanate from the executive has of late years obtained increasing acceptance.	'	[DOT]
I make these references, which are uo doubt quite familiar to the right hon. gentle-

man, not so much for tlie purpose of emphasizing the point which I might make, that a measure of this great importance ought to he introduced, if at all, and put through parliament by the government, but more especially for the purpose of pressing the somewhat subordinate point, that when a measure of this kind is introduced by a private member-a measure which has already on at least one occasion, if not two, passed the House of Commons and been defeated in the upper chamber-we should at least have some declaration of the policy of the government in order that we may have the benefit of the experience and wisdom of the gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches in regard to a measure of so much very great importance.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no exception to take to the principle which has been enunciated by my hon. friend, that all important measures in this age should be introduced and carried on the initiative of the government, the government taking the responsibility of them. But there are measures which may be of importance to some persons, but which the government do not feel called upon to take charge of, because they do not, as a government, share the views held by the supporters of those measures. As to this measure, while the government recognizes its importance, it is not one of those on which they feel called upon to take the initiative or to introduce as a ministerial measure. As to the second principle laid down by my hon. friend, that when a measure of this importance is introduced the government should state what their policy is upon it, I have to observe that measures are often introduced into this House on which the government, as a government, does not feel called upon to exercise any action of their own. There may be measures, as often happens, on which members of the government have independent opinions ; some may favour the measure and others may not. Of course, if the measure is of such importance that public opinion absolutely requires the government to take action upon it, the government must take the responsibility of accepting or refusing to accept the measure. As to this particular measure, the course of the government is perfectly clear, because it does not come before the House for the first time. If my recollection is right, it comes for the third time, certainly for the second, and it has been passed by this House before under exactly similar circumstances to those under which it now comes before it ; that is to say, introduced by a private member. On this measure the government do not feel called upon to take action, but they leave it to each individual member to deal with according to his own judgment.


Mr. SPROULE.: That seems a very extraordinary course for a government to take, because the government must be respon-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
sible for every measure that passes this House. They are there for that purpose. The very fact that a measure is allowed to pass the House is an evidence that the government are in favour of the principle of the measure. That is the only interpretation that could be reasonably put upon the government's action. If the government are not in favour of the principle of the measure, they may allow it to pass if they have not the moral courage to say so, and then have it killed in the Senate. If the government are in favour of the principle of this measure under these circumstances, the government are responsible for the measure, because they certainly could bring the upper and lower Houses into accord, or else they ought to abandon it. So that the government must be equally responsible for the measure, whether it goes through or is killed.	[DOT]


Wilfrid Laurier: If the government must be held responsible for the measure, I suppose it must ; I cannot help that. My hon. friend says we are responsible. I have no objection to my hon. friend saying so ; that is his right ; but even if it be the right of my hon. friend to think that we are derelict in our duty in not accepting or rejecting this measure, that is a point on which I must take issue with him. But I have to say to my hon. friend, whether he thinks we are wanting in moral courage or not, that we are disposed not to affirm this measure or to oppose it, but to say to those who support us generally that on this question we have no advice to offer them. Ij; my hon. friend says that in taking that position we are wanting in moral courage, we cannot help that ; but he has to show his moral courage by saying whether he will support or oppose this measure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quite sure that if the responsibility rested here, the leader of the opposition and his followers would be prepared to do so.
Sir W'lLFRID LAURIER. They have the opportunity now. The opposition have opposed more than one measure brought in by the government.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I must confess that I am more surprised than I ever was-


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think so.
Mr. HENDERSON-at anything, by what I have heard from the right hon. First Minister. We have now arrived at the stage where a government with a large following behind them are afraid to say that they have a mind of their own. They dare not express their opinion ; they dare not tell their followers what is right and what is wrong ; they leave the question to be decided by them. I think it is a well recognized principle of legislation that the government should have a policy, not only on every Bill that

comes before this House, but on every resolution, and they should be prepared to stand up and declare what that policy is, for the guidance of the members of this House. How is the House to know what the government desire ? The government is the body that is responsible for the legislation of the country. Surely the first minister is not going to allow this Bill to pass without indicating in some way whether he thinks this legislation should or should not pass. To my mind it would be a most extraordinary condition-an entirely new condition of things in this House. We do look for something with more backbone in it than a simple declaration from the government that, although they are responsible they do not propose to state what their opinion is.
Sir WILFRID LAURIE It.	I am very
sorry, Hr. Speaker, that I have fallen so low in my friend's estimation. I am not surprised, however ; and, even at the risk of losing still more of such good opinion of the government as he may have-it is not very much I admit-I have to say to my hon. friend that, on this occasion I will not give him any advice. In the first place, I am sure, that, if we were to give him advice he would not follow it. And in the second place, I understand him too well ; I am too old a bird to be caught by such chaff as that. I can only fell him that the government will do on this occasion as it did before and leave the matter to the members of the House, to be dealt with as they please.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: But the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) forgets that he created, at large expense to the country, a Labour Department; and alongside of him sits the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock), here is a question of great importance to the working classes of this country and to the labour unions. They come here to-day with a proposition which they think is in their interest; and we are only within our rights in asking the Minister of Labour to state the policy of the government in regard to this Bill. If they believe in responsible government which they have always put forward in theory, but avoided in practice, the Minister of Labour is bound to state the policy of the government in regard to this question which is of such great importance to so large a portion .of the conlmunity.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: I suppose my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) in a mild way is endorsing the doctrine enunciated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) when he suggested that measures of importance should originate with the government. If we were to follow the view of the leader of the opposition. what would become of the functions of such hon. members as my hon. friend from South York ? There is one of 23
his measures on the paper to-day-there is one every day. And if we proposed to assist the judgment of the House and to determine the question hy the will of the majority no one would be louder in denunciation of our course than would the hon. gentleman himself. We propose to leave the House greater liberty. We want to have the benefit of the unbiased opinion of every hon. member in the House on measures of this character. As the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has said this is not a measure on which public opinion is divided. None of the members of this House, I presume, have mandates from their constituents as to how they shall vote upon questions of this kind. From time to time questions arise after the election of a new parliament upon which, no previous public opinion has been expressed, and it has ever been the practice of parliament to allow freedom of action to individual members on questions of this kind. This is the first time since I entered parliament when any government has been asked not to allow liberty to members in reference to a measure of this kind. And, in deference to the liberty of the hon. member for South York, I must stand in defence of the old practise.


Robert Laird Borden: The rule laid down by Todd in another portion of the work which I have just quoted covers the point just adverted to by the Postmaster General:
By modern practice, no sooner does a great question become practical or a small question great, than the House demands that it shall be ' taken up ' by the government. Nor is this from laziness or indifference. It is felt, with a wise instinct, that only thus can such questions in general acquire the momentum necessary to propel them to their goal, with the unity of purpose which alone can uphold their efficiency and preserve their contistency of character.
Ill England, where this doctrine is carried out, private members are not debarred from introducing measures of great importance. If a measure of great importance is introduced by a private member and attracts the attention of parliament and the country, it is the practice there for the government, if they approve the policy embodied in the legislation, to take it up as a government measure and in that way procure its enactment. And my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) suggests that that is especially the case where the measure referred to has already received the sanction of the House of Commons, as this measure has, I believe, on two occasions.


William Mulock: Some person must determine the importance of the measure. Who shall determine it ? It cannot he the opposition that shall determine whether' or not the government shall regard the measure as of sufficient importance to declare its policy upon it. The government must determine that question. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) quotes the hon.



70S
member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) as saying that because this measure has twice received the practically unanimous approval of this House, we should therefore make it a party question here. If there were force in that observation there would be no necessity for the government to guide the opinion of the House, for the House has already twice expressed its opinion. The House appears to have an opinion ; it is not drifting ; it is not at the mercy of every wind. Its opinion lias been crystallized in a Bill passed by the House on two occasions.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman (Sir William Mulock) forgets that, this measure having been blocked by the Senate, another constitutional question arises. An irresponsible portion of this parliament sees fit, against the declared policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite to block popular legislation. Gentlemen opposite are on record as being against any such interference with legislation ; in fact they are the gentlemen who made reform of the Senate one of the planks of their platform. They say this measure has twice been passed in this House with practically unanimous approval. That means that it had the approval of these hon. gentlemen themselves. Therefore, it is incumbent upon them, I take it, to find out why this legislation, which has received the endorsement of this House does not go through the other branch of the legislature. As to what the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) has said in regard to my position-that, if the government were forced to take up the questions that I have taken up in the House, I would not get a hearing-I would say that private members have to bring these proposals forward because the government refuses to do it. The only way to bring these ideas before the public and make them grow in the public mind is for private members to bring them forward. So, his argument is not apposite to the question before the House. Again I say, it is the duty of the Minister of Labour Fo tell the labour organizations of this country-a very large and respected element in the community-what is the opinion of the government in regard to this question and why, when the House of Commons favour such a proposition we cannot secure the endorsation of the other branch of parliament.


William Mulock: My hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) can readily obtain the opinion of any member of this House on this proposition ; he can exercise his right to challenge a vote upon it. We do not propose to deprive him of his rights and take away his occupation by adopting the suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition. *
On section 2,
2. Every labour union which before the passing of this Act, has adopted or used, or Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
which hereafter adopts or uses a label to designate, make known or distinguish any goods, wares, merchandise or other product of labour ai having been made, manufactured, produced, prepared, packed, handled or put on sale by such labour union, or by a member or members thereof, may register such label in the Department of Agriculture, by leaving two copies, counterparts or facsimiles thereof with the minister, or his deputy, along with one application for the registration of the label, and by filing therewith a declaration made by the president, secretary or other officer of such labour union, specifying the name of the labour union on behalf of which label is being registered, the class of merchandise and a description of the goods to which it has been or is intended to he appropriated, and stating that, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, the labour union on behalf of which the application for registration is being made has the right to the use of the same, that no other person, firm, labour union, association or corporation has the right to such use, either in the identical form or in any such near resemblance thereto as may be calculated to deceive, and that the facsimiles or counterparts are true and correct ; and, thereafter such labour union shall have the exclusive right to use such label for the purpose aforesaid.


John Graham Haggart: You are giving ail entity to some labour union and to the chairman or somebody else connected with it, who have no existence in law. I understood the hon. gentleman, when he introduced the Bill, to make the statement that the secretary or president of a labour union in Great Britain, although it is not registered at all, has the rights he is asking for here.


Ralph Smith: That is what 1 understand.


John Graham Haggart: Has the Minister of Justice looked into the question ? You are here giving a legal entity to a party who cannot he sued and against whom you can have no claims for damages.


William Mulock: Yes you can.


John Graham Haggart: I thought that the finding of the courts in the old country declaring that these unions could be sued and made liable was considered an extraordinary thing and struck terror into the labour unions. But in England they are registered and here there is no registration.


Ralph Smith: It has been clearly proven in the old country that the unions, whether registered or not, are liable in law. In the Tail Vale case, a decision was given against a union which had no incorporation and was not registered at all, and three weeks ago, a judgment was given in British Columbia against the Rossland Miners' Union, a non-incorporated body, .and the whole of its assets were taken under that judgment. We have any number of instances, especially in the old country, of individual members of unions being liable for any breach of law.


Mr. OSLER.: AVhat were the assets of the Rossland Mining Company ?


Ralph Smith: They had a large amount in the bank and a very valuable hall.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I understand that it was an American Association, and that the funds were sent at once across the line, and the judgment was of no value whatever.
Bill has been copied from a similar measure (which is in operation in 31 states of the Union. The lawyer responsible for the Trades Congress of Canada copied this Bill from a similar one in operation in these 31 states, and I should think it would be an easy matter to find them.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Could the hon. gentleman give the year they were passed ?


Ralph Smith: The union was simply affiliated with an American union, but its funds and property were appropriated as a result of that judgment.


John Graham Haggart: Read clause ten :
Nothing in this Act contained shall enable any suit, action, garnishee, interpleader or other proceedings to be brought, had or maintained against the labour union, except for the purposes of this Act.
Thus in case this Act might give them an entity, they are made exempt by clause ;10. What has the Minister of Justice to say to that ?


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: When that clause is reached, we will consider it.


John Graham Haggart: We are dealing with it now in connection with the clause before us.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. member for Nanaimo stated the other day, without any reservation, that a similar law has been in operation in England, during twelve years.


Ralph Smith: They can register in England under the Copyright Act. That is the only difference.


Ralph Smith: No, I took my statement from the lawyer who drafted the Bill.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am not asking this because I oppose the Bill, but because I have very great difficulty in forming an opinion. The leading manufacturers are so strongly against it, that one can hardly believe that they would take the position they do unless they had some very good grounds. On the other hand, the trades unions are just as strong in its favour. I would be very much relieved if I could find that a similar Bill has been in operation in Great Britain for 12 years and is now in operation in 31 states in the Union and that there is no great outcry against it.


Robert Laird Borden: It is under a general provision of the English Copyright Act that similar rights are conferred upon labour unions.


Ralph Smith: Yes, a provision in the English Copyright Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman at hand the particular provision in that Act?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I would like to have the opinion of the Alinister of Justice as to whether that is an essential difference or not.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I must confess tlicit I have looked only somewhat hastily over the Bill, and should be glad indeed if the promoter would point to me any similar legislation in any country. There is no such legislation that I know of anywhere, and there are some provisions which it will be my duty to oppose when we reach them.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I have been trying to find out in the library the Acts referred to as being in operation in England or in the United States, and have not been able to find any. He told us that exactly similar legislation has been passed in no less than 31 states of the Union. If this statement be accurate, it would facilitate the passage of this Bill for us to have copies of these Acts. I have not been able to find any nor have I been able to find any one who can tell me where to get them.


Ralph Smith: I reiterate the statement I made, that there are provisions in the English Copyright Act for the Registration of Labour Unions, and that this 23* .


Ralph Smith: No. As I have already said, I introduced this Bill entirely relying on the statements made and the information given by the lawyer who had it in hand. But it would be an easy matter to find that out. I think it was in 1892 that the unions of England asked the British parliament to make the registration of labels possible, and an amendment for that purpose was made to the Copyright Act.
Air. INGRAA1. I understand the object of this legislation is to guarantee that the goods are union made goods, are of good material, and of good workmanship.


Ralph Smith: That is the object.


Mr. INGRAM.: A document has been put into my hands-and I suppose other hon. gentlemen have received it, relating to this matter. As the House is aware, it is a common thing when legislation of any kind is introduced that may be objectionable in some quarter, and that occurs almost every session, for the interested parties who oppose the legislation to furnish the members with information to be used against such legislation. Now this document has been sent to me. signed by the officers of the Canadian Alanufacturers' Association, incorporated. They represent in this document
m


that certain advertisements have appeared in the Toronto 'World' March 24, 26 and 30 last. In looking over those advertisements I noticed that the men are asking l'or a label to be put on goods that are of good workmanship, and good material, in respect to which union wages are being paid. Now, I have looked over the Toronto ' World ' of those three dates, and I do not find any such advertisement in it. I want therefore to say that if the Manufacturers Association lias placed this document in the hands of members for the purpose of influencing them against this so-called objectionable legislation, and has done it under a false statement, then I say this House should censure the Manufacturers' Association. On other occasions I have read documents furnished to members of this House which were not correct statements of facts in regard to legislation. I think hon. gentlemen on both sides should frown down conduct of that kind. So far as this Bill is concerned, I know it has passed the House on previous occasions ; and while I am willing to support any reasonable legislation on behalf of organized labour, at the same time I believe that labour unions should he just as responsible for their conduct as are manufacturing institutions whose goods they propose to put the union label on.
An hon. member has this moment drawn my attention to the fact that in the Toronto ' World ' on April 2, there does appear in fact an advertisement such as mentioned by the Manufacturers' Association. Therefore, I withdraw my first statement, and acknowledge that they were justified in issuing this document.	.
I was saying that if the labour unions throughout the country want this kind of legislation they should be registered, they should be incorporated, so that they may become responsible for any agreement or arrangement they may make with the manufacturers. Unless they are prepared to assume their fair share of responsibility, they ought not to ask for unreasonable legislation. If they are willing to do that, then I see no reason why they should not be granted legislation giving them the right on certain terms to use the union label, which would be a guarantee to the consumers that whatever articles bore that label were of good workmanship and material, and of first class quality.
On section 4,-cancellation of label-transfer of right to label.


Edmund Boyd Osler: This gives the right to a labour union to have their label cancelled at almost any time. It seems to me this will produce complications when a union becomes merged with another.


Ralph Smith: The intention of the section is to provide that any union that has been using a label may become affiliated with another union of the same


Andrew B. Ingram: craft. But I would like to remind the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) that this label will not be used, as the hon. gentleman will see by another section of the Bill, without the consent of the manufacturers. In the discussion of this Bill we are acting on the assumption that the label can be used against the wish of the manufacturer when we are making it impossible to compel the use of the label against the wish of the manufacturer. The Bill does not oblige the manufacturer to use it, so that whatever changes occur in the operation of the label the union must have the consent of the manufacturer. Without that consent he can simply refuse to put the label on the article.
On section 5,
The exclusive right acquired for a label, when registered, shall be valid for the term of twenty-five years, but may be renewed before the expiration of the said term, by the labour union- which has registered the same or bv its transferee, for another term of twenty-five years, and so on from time to time ; but every such renewal shall be registered before the expiration of the current term of twenty-five years.	*


Samuel Hughes: I notice that the hon. gentleman who is supposed to look after the interests of justice in this House and to see that legislation is properly controlled is absent.


Mr. HYMAN.: My hon. friend the Min-istre of Justice went to the library for the purpose of looking up the Acts to which reference has been made.


Samuel Hughes: Then the Bill had better stand. The Bill should not be passed in his absence.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Would it not he well to postpone the discussion of this Bill ? If we have evidence that this Bill is in operation in Great Britain, and in thirty-one states, and if we can compare 'the clauses that will facilitate the passage of the Bill enormously, and I think it will be a satisfaction to a great many hon. members of this House if we can have that information before we discuss the Bill.


Ralph Smith: If there were no such law in England or in the United States, I would like the committee to supoprt this principle apart from whether or not there are any precedents in existence. If ttie thing is right why should we not pass it ? If it is reasonable why should we not pass it ? What does the Bill ask for ? Certain manufacturers who are using the label of the labour union are asking this House to register the label so that they may be protected in the use of it from manufacturers as well as labour unions. If the manufacturer sees fit to work with the labour union and he places the union label on his manufactured articles, what objection can there be to that ? If this Bill made any

compulsory provision for the use of this label I could understand the objection, but there is no such compulsion. It cannot be operated unless the manufacturer agrees and the moment he disagrees with anything that is done by the union he can discontinue the use of the label. The manufacturer who is working with the members of the union is asking for this. If the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) had been present when I explained the provisions of the Bill, he would have known that eighty or ninety of the manufacturers of this country have' asked for the recognition of the Union Babel.
\Ir OSLER. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, when he introduced this Bill, made this statement:
In asking for this legislation, we are not asking for anything new. Only after very serious consideration would I bring before this House any proposition for which no precedent could be'given. This legislation was passed in Eng,-land twelve years ago. In that country, the unions connected with any manufacturing interest can create a design, have it registered as a trades union label under the Copyright Act. And I have here a list of the states of the neighbouring union in which this principle of the union label is established by law, and in that list are the names of no less than thirty-one states.
When the bon. member introduced this Bill one of the chief reasons be gave for it was that be bad a precedent, which was well established in Great Britain and the United States. Now, be says that it does not matter whether that is the fact or not.
I say it matters to this extent that if we have the evidence that this Act has been in operation in Great Britain for 12 years and in 81 states for various periods, we have very good grounds for assuming that there is no fear such as the manufacturers express that the Act is going to seriously affect their business. I for one would be very much more able to make up my mind in connection with this Bill if the Acts to which the hon. member referred were laid before the House before the Bill was discussed.


Ralph Smith: I would again, in so far as I am concerned, say that I believe the principle is right and I ask the House to pass the Bill. I do not rely upon the fact that this legislation may be operating in other places. I think it is a reasonable thing, and if it is right I ask the House to pass the legislation. It has passed the House twice before in the hands Of a private member.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: 1 was very much struck with the remarks made by the hon. gentleman who has introduced this Bill {Mr. Smith). He pointed out several times that he cannot see how there can be any objection to this Bill because it is not compulsory for any manufacturer to place this label upon his goods. That, to my mind,
shows that the hon. gentleman has not the faintest conception of what the main design of his own Bill is, because nobody but himself thinks that is a matter of the slightest importance. The point is not that this label is to be put on the manufacturer's goods without his consent. I am not aware that any manufacturer is going to complain because this label is put on his goods. The difficulty is that the label is to be kept off his goods. I think the hon. gentleman entirely misunderstands the objection there is to this Bill. But, the objection shortly is that it hardly seems fair that an unincorporated body assuming no responsibility whatever should be given what every hon. member of the House must know is a most powerful means of boycotting. It is wholly apart from the question for the hon. member to state that the manufacturer is not compelled to place this label on his output. The object is to protect the manufacturer so that he will not be injured by the label not being put on his goods.


Ralph Smith: I would like to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) if one manufacturer agrees that the label shall be placed on his goods what objection any other manufacturer can have ?


William Barton Northrup: I can quite understand the circumstances under which one manufacturer perhaps wisely has occasion to have the labour union in his factory, because he will be entitled to have the union label on his goods, while another man might be paying just as good wages, employing just as many and as worthy men as those who belong to the union. But, they do not belong to the union and he cannot have this label put on his goods. Are we going to say that you shall boycott this manufacturer without any possibility of redress since t here is no organized incorporated body from which he can obtain damages ?
Mr, RALPH SMITH. Will the hon. gentleman tell us what injury will be done to the manufacturer who is not operating the label by the fact that it is operated by another manufacturer ?


William Barton Northrup: It again seems to me that the hon. gentleman is wholly ignoring the gravest objection to his own Bill. Nobody complains in the slightest that under the provisions of this Bill the label has to be put on some manufacturer's goods without his consent. Let them placard the goods from top to bottom if they like. The other class now that we refer to, the class of manufacturers who cannot get the label on their goods, and I think the hon. gentleman can see that if one manufacturer has this label on his goods and another cannot get that label on his goods, although he may have as good men and have as many hands, paying them as high wages, because his hands do not happen to belong to the labour union one man has an advantage that another has

not. One man can be injured by not being allowed by law to use the union label, and if he can, there should be some correlative of responsibility on the part of those who are placed in a position to inflict this injury upon him.


Ralph Smith: I cannot understand how it is that a manufacturer cannot have that label on his.goods. If he is paying the same wages, as my hon. friend says he is, why can he not have the label on his goods ?


William Barton Northrup: Because my hon. friend provides by this Bill that three or four individuals who form themselves into ,a Union can get a label that nobody else can use.


Ralph Smith: My hon. friend must remember that if this manufacturer is running his business in a manner satisfactory to his men he will have no difficullj in getting his men to combine for the purpose of creating a design, and having a registered label. What is to prevent it ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Supposing the label is given to the manufacturer to use on condition that he carries out a certain agreement or arrangement ; then something turns up and he violates the agreement and justly so perhaps because the workmen may not have carried out their part of the contract. The label is withdrawn from him and the very moment the label is withdrawn from the manufacturer, then the boycott is instituted and it injures the manufacturer. That is where the injustice comes in, in the legislation proposed. Both workmen and manufacturers must be reasonable, and where there is a responsibility each party should bear their fair share of responsibility in order to have the Act work smoothly. Does the Act ensure that ?


Ralph Smith: There is nothing to prevent a boycott now. If a combination of men working with the manufacturer authorize him to use a label now without it being possible to register the label, they can withdraw the use of that label if they see lit. What is to prevent them ? Nothing in the Bill will make it more possible than at present. How can they boycott them ? They can advertise that the goods have not been made by union labour, and if the public sentiment of this country will induce people to refuse to purchase goods because they are not made by union labour that is evidence that the sentiment is in favour of trades unions. This is only a moral influence. Every day we see in advertisements : ' These goods are made by white labour,' or ' by union labour.' What objection can there be to that ? It is a simple principle. One man says : I agree to supply the conditions of employment asked by the trades unions. The union says in reply : We have a design and label and will place It on the articles you produce because the conditions of em-Mr. NORTHRUP.
ployment are satisfactory. If the employer supplies the conditions he will have no difficulty in getting the benefit of the label.
Mr. JvORTHRUP. I think possibly that by discussing this matter we can agree. We both recognize that a boycott is perfectly possible, we all recognize that they have existed that they do exist and will probably exist in the future. My hon. friend however, wants to invent new machinery to make a boycott as simple and practicable as possible. There are some who think that a boycott is not in the best interests of the country and is not the best form of modern commercial and industrial warfare. Those of us who represent the people of Canada, the overwhelming majority of whom do not belong to unions, think that a boycott being undesirable, it is our duty not to take any steps to make this undesirable method of carrying on an industrial dispute any easier. My hon. friend (Mr. Smith) is right from his point of view in making it as easy as possible ; those of us who do not believe with him are reasonable in declining to assist to set up conditions under which those who desire to establish a boycott can do so as effectually and as harmlessly to themselves as possible.


Mr. CALDWELL.: The manufacturer is not afraid to grant his men a right in the way of a label, but he is afraid that bygranting anything of this kind he may give to his employees a monopoly or a weapon that they may hold over him. The manu-. facturer is not afraid to grant to his workers lair play, but sometimes an irresponsible body is not very thoughtful when it comes to strikes and things of that kind. Take a manufacturer who is manufacturing a good article. His people insist upon his putting on their label ; he may grant that request but when he has marketed his goods and his goods are finding a ready' sale, then the employees may say, for some reason : We will remove that label unless you grant us some particular point upon which we have disagreed. That label may have become identified with that particular line of goods and it might be a great hardship to the manufacturer to have that label removed, and yet of course the Bill say's that the manufacturer may use his own judgment as to whether he shall have the union label or not. The manufacturer is not afraid to grant a label, but he is afraid of that label being used to injure him. The union is not a responsible body while he is responsible.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the manufacturer had violated any agreement then lirobably he should suffer for the violation of that agreement. I would go so far as to say that, but the withdrawal of the label from his goods, particularly if they are established in the market with the label attached would be sufficient to injure him if nothing more, because those who have been in the habit of buying goods with that label might with-

draw tlieir patronage when the label is withdrawn from the goods. So far as the Manufacturers' Association and the workmen are concerned, I am one of those who believe that the workman has a right to sell his labour at as high a price as he can get. He has a right to ask for reasonable protection through legislation just as much as the manufacturer has. I do not know of any greater monopoly than the legal profession ; they are surrounded by every possible safeguard.
An lion. MIlMBiiit. What of the doctors '?


Andrew B. Ingram: There is some justification for the doctors, because life and death are involved, but our legal gentleman are pretty well guarded and they can fairly well boycott the public generally. I do not think they ought to be too particular about passing a little legislation to help the workingman. I think that this Bill should be put in such a shape that it cannot be used for an unreasonable boycott, or a means of unreasonably boycotting a manufacturer who is endeavouring to do what is right.


Ralph Smith: What would the hon. gentleman propose as an amendment '!


Andrew B. Ingram: I would not like to propose an amendment as I am not handling the Bill.


John Graham Haggart: I would suggest that the union should be incorporated.


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps it might be well to require that the union be registered and then incorporated so that it would become responsible for any action that might be taken. I think that would be one strong step towards meeting the objections of those who are opposed to the legislation.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I would like to ask the promoter of the Bill what effect this would have on the position of the manufacturers and workmen in the constituency which I represent. We have in East Lamb-ton some fifteen manufactories employing about 400 workmen. There is not a labour union or a branch of the labour union in the constituency to my knowledge. The hon. gentleman has admitted that there are boycotts. that railroad men connected with unions in distributing goods throughout the country have instituted boycotts, and that in other ways the goods manufactured by any firm might be boycotted. I would ask the hon. member what effect this Bill would have upon the position of the labouring men and manufacturers who are not connected with a labour union in any way ?


Ralph Smith: They would be in exactly the same position as they are in now. The union is operated at the present time very extensively in this country and the hon. gentleman admits that there is no such thing as a boycott.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman who is promoting this Bill has told us that legislation of this character exists in thirty-one states of the American union. Would he be good enough to supplement that inior-mationby informing the House how long it has existed in these states and what the effect of its operation has been, whether or not any of the evils which have been referred to to-day have been found to prevail in consequence of this ? I think information of that kind would be very useful to us.


Ralph Smith: I understand that union labels in these states have been operating for some years, and none of the unions are registered. Of course, there is very strong opposition to the existence of the union label in the United States, just as there is in this country, on the part of the manufacturers and other employers ; but I have heard of no complaint about the label itself. It is considered a legitimate measure of defence on the part of the unions. Hon. gentlemen talk about a boycott. It is true, a labour union may boycott ; but no labour union in any country has ever been in a position to boycott to the same extent that an employer has. There is nothing to prevent an employer in this country saying to his workman, ' I will not employ you, because you belong to a labour union.' Why should not the labour unionist, in the same way, if he has sufficient influence to bring to bear on his employer, say to him, ' We will insist on your employing none but union men ?' I stand for neither of these positions. I may say that I am in favour of the incorporation of labour unions. I recognize that if they are to have the strength they ought to have, they must be intelligent and responsible bodies. I pressed this view before the unions, but they are afraid of incorporation. They have not confidence in the judges of the country. Probably that feeling emanates from the United States. But that is the feeling of the labour men-that they cannot get justice at the hands of the judges, and therefore they are not in favour of incorporation. But, speaking for myself, I would make provision in any Bill of this kind for the incorporation of trade unions. I believe in making them responsible. I believe in making it unlawful for them to interfere with any employer because he chooses to employ non-union men. I believe in all this; but there is nothing at all in this Bill that will bring about a condition of boycott that does not exist to-day, and there is nothing in the laws of this country that will prevent an employer creating a boycott as is done in hundreds of cases, by saying to the men.
' I refuse to employ you because you are a member of a trades union.' My hon. friend has nothing to say about that, although It is a very serious boycott to a man who has to depend on his labour to live, to be turned out of a factory.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There may be a reason for that.


Ralph Smith: There may be, and there may be a reason for a labour union boycotting a manufacturer; but my hon. friend does not recognize that. To prevent a boycott in any position in life is impossible. Why should not I, who am working for one man, say to my friend who is working for another, ' There are better conditions existing where I labour than Tyhere you are; why don't you get together and organize, and create in your factory the same conditions that exist in mine ?' Is it not legitimate to use a moral influence on the community in order to bring about an organization that will result in proper and reasonable conditions for these men' ? Can there be any objection to that? I cannot see any. I cannot see that this Bill places any power in the hands of the labour unions that they have not already. They simply say. 1 Certain manufacturers agree with us to use a label on their goods, and we want that to be registered so as to prevent fraud by others using it who have no right to do so.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that he is prepared to amend this Bill to make it applicable only to labour unions which are properly incorporated under the law?


Ralph Smith: I say that I am in favour of that, but I have explained that the influences pressing for this legislation are not favourable to it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It would remove some of our difficulties if it were made applicable only to incorporated unions.


Ralph Smith: Will the hon. gentleman say that he would support the Bill if that provision were made?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not said so far that I oppose it. I am seeking for light.


Ralph Smith: Would the members of this House say that they would approve of this Bill if it were made applicable only to incorporated unions ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It seems 1o me that that would materially alter the teeliag of the House towards it.


William Findlay Maclean: Would it not follow that manufacturers' associations would also have to incorporate themselves? As I regard the agitation, honours to-day are even. The employers are moving along their particular line and the unions along theirs. Each makes a move, the one to check the other; but out of it all great benefit will come both to the employers and to the men employed. I have no objection to this. It all tends to hasten the day when labour disputes will be settled by arbitra-Mr. RALPH SMITH.
tion rather than by legislatiou or by strikes. If this move on the part of the unions is legalized, there will be another move made by the employers, and if the unions must be registered, so must be the employers, so that both parties will be responsible for what they do. We must handle these questions, hut we ought to do so in the light that arbitration and conciliation is the goal towards which we are moving for the settlement of labour disputes, rather than these special cases of a move from one side and a counter move from the other. I would like to see the fullest consideration given to the Bill, and the side of the men receive fair consideration as well as the side of the employers.


William Barton Northrup: Is it not a striking commentary on this Bill that the hon. gentleman who has introduced it has just told the committee that he is supporting a measure of which he does not approve?-that he would personally like to see eliminated from it the objectionable feature which is exciting adverse comment on both sides of the House; but that he feels convened, under the pressure which He has referred to, to press a measure of which he does not approve? Would it not be possible to let this Bill stand until he consults the forces behind him, to see if it cannot be so amended as to meet the views of both sides of tlie House and his own views? Then he would be in a position to say, ' This is a Bill which I think ought to be passed,' and would have more right to press for it than he has to-day.


Ralph Smith: I am surprised at the position taken by the hon. gentleman. What is he here for? to represent his own views or the views of his constituents ? Every member of this House has his own individual opinion, but he is here to support the opinion of his constituents, and not his individual opinion. That is exactly what I said. I tried to influence the national unions of this country in favour of the incorporation of trades unions, and I have said that I would support that, but they would not support it. But am I to abandon this measure because they do not do everything I want on this question? I do not think that would be a reasonable position.


William Findlay Maclean: I must say that I do not quite see the force of the legal profession, every one of whom has a label upon himself, and belongs to the closest corporation I know of, opposing others who wish to be labelled. In every province they have their trades unions and their trade labels. If a man should attempt to practise the profession of law and not wear the union label, they immediately boycott him and he is put out of business by the law itself.


Ralph Smith: He cannot get a living.


William Findlay Maclean: No. he canuot. It is trades unionism up to the hilt. The lawyers all hang out the union shingle. Even when they die or marry, we have a notice in the paper that Mr. So-anfl-So, of Osgoode Hall, has died or has married. Even the dentists and horse doctors and the cow doctors of this country have all got the trade label, and I have no hesitation in saying that what is fair for one is fair for another. If the workingmen want some measure of this kind, provided it is fair legislation and treats everybody equitably, I do not see any reason why they should not have it.
Mr. NORTiiRUP. For once the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has given expression to some views which are somewhat in accord with those held by most members of this House. The only reason I can And for my hon. friend giving expression to those views is that lie lias not the faintest idea of what he is talking about. If he had for a moment stopped to consider what he was about to say and really grasped the ideas he was giving expression to, he would have probably hesitated and begun to doubt whether he was really speaking words of wisdom. Every member on this side will agree with every word he has said in so far as he lias pointed out the advantage of protection, by means of incorporation or otherwise. of the various branches of industry, Lawyers, doctors, dentists, even undertakers, have* seen the wisdom of protection, and we would all like to see the trades unions recognize the advantage of protection in some way by means of incorporation. My hon. friend has rather cast a slur upon the learned professions for having done what they had a perfect right to do, and at the same time he would have the trades unions deprive themselves of the advantages which the learned professions would be only too glad to extend to them. There is not a lawyer in the country who would not do everything he could to assist the trades unions to become incorporated within the shortest delay possible ; and when my hon. friend next endeavours to draw distinctions between one class and another, he should try and understand where to draw the line of distinction and to remember that protection will be a benefit to all. and if these other branches are more fortunate than some it is because they have recognized fully the benefits to be derived from protection.


William Findlay Maclean: 
William Barton Northrup: I did not soy the principle was all right-not at all.


Andrew B. Ingram: Some years ago the government issued a commission to inquire into tlie sweat shops, and found a very serious condition of things existing. Certain manufacturers, who wanted to take an unfair advantage of their competitors, housed poor men and women in miserable shops without sanitary conditions in order that they might get cheap labour, and these cheap goods were put on the market to compete with those of respectable manufacturers iwjio, paid good wages and employed their work people in decent shops. The result of that commission was a decision to put a stop to competition of that character by legislation which would protect the working classes by compelling the manufacturers to give them decent places to work in and decent wages. That is the main object of any legislation of the kind now proposed. No manufac-urer who wants to do a fair and legitimate business will encourage the sweat shops which were proven to have existed to a great extent in this country. It is in the interests of every decent respectable citizen to haVfe that kind of thing changed, and any legislation which will do away with it, and which will not work injustice to any respectable manufacturer, the House should be willing to pass.


Mr. CLARE.: I happen to be one of the manufacturers who employ considerable union labour. In my business I have never had any difficulties with my men and the union with which we do business. I think that the manufacturers and the labouring classes would improve their positions very materially if they would try and come together. We would then not have measures of this kind on our statutes, but as things are it is probably necessary that we should have them. I understand from the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill that the position of the men is going to be exactly the same if this Bill is passed as it is at present; but there is one objection to which I wish to refer, and that is the objection pointed out by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram). Suppose a manufacturer of iron goods incorporates the union label in the pattern as part of it instead of pasting it on. To do that puts him to considerable expense, and should there be afterwards any difficulty between him and the union, he may have a large stock of goods on hand which will have to be destroyed. There should be some provision to get over a difficulty of that kind.


Ralph Smith: That is a matter entirely of agreement between the manufacturer and the union, and it would be the (business of the manufacturer to provide against any contingency of that kind before agreeing to use the label.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think if 1ke hon. member for Nanaimo would consent to a clause providing for incorporation of these unions, that

would cover almost entirely the objections to the Bill. There may be other objections which the manufacturers could point out, and which would necessitate the Bill being very carefully drafted. Personally, I would like very much to see an Act passed which would work as well as apparently does the English Act; and if the hon. member is willing to add a clause to the effect that the unions shall be incorporated, that will do away with the objections generally expressed to the measure.


William Findlay Maclean: Is this not the place for the Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock) to come in and show us a way out of the difficulty ? He has the assistance of his deputy minister, who has made a special study of all these questions and is ready to advise him, and of a staff of officers who are skilled in unravelling these labour tangles ; but instead of the Minister of Labour leading the House on questions of this kind, as he should, he sits there dumb as an oyster


George Eulas Foster: And not nearly as tasty.


William Findlay Maclean: Surely he can advise his supporter from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) how to get out of this difficulty. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has suggested that a little consideration and a little conciliation applied to the problem would immediately smooth the way-and no one is so competent in the matter of conciliation as the distinguished member for North York and Minister of Labour (Sir William Mulock). Surely, after what has been said, we shall hear from him.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON.: What is the difficulty ?


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman (Mr. A. Johnston) has his senses and can hear what is said. I cannot furnish him what he ought to supply for himself.


William Mulock: I am afraid my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is the last person in this House to admit that any person could advise as to what course he should pursue here. I, therefore, would not venture to take such a liberty with him. He knows the situation of the Bill before the House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ralph Smith) who is in charge of it has moved the Bill. If any hon. gentleman desires to amend it, there is opportunity to do so. It is not a government question. Every hon. member is at liberty to advance his views, and you, Mr. Chairman, I am sure are only waiting to receive amendments. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has been first on one side of the question and then on the other, and now he is trying to get out of his difficulty by dragging me in to do his work. I cannot so invade the hon. gentleman's preserve.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 


Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation). Mr. Chairman, no privilege can be granted but to a person who exists physically or morally. The trades-unions cannot be sued unless they are incorporated. It has been so decided by the Ontario courts in a case of ' The Metallic Roofing Company el Canada v. Local Union No. 30, Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, 5, O. L. R., 424 (D.C.) ' It was held that :-
The right to maintain an action or the liability to be sued can only be by or against persons as individuals, or as a corporation or a partnership, or where individuals are carrying on business in a name other than their own, or where they have been given the capacity to own property and to act by agents. A local union of workmen, a purely voluntary association, without such capacity, are not liable to be sued; and a writ served upon the agent was therefore set aside. Taff Vale R. W. Co. vs. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, 1901, A. C. 426, distinguished. Where it clearly appears that the association sued is not an entity, which may be sued by the name it hears, it is more convenient to set aside the service of writ on a motion made therefore than to allow the case to proceed at the trial with a certainty of its ultimate dismissal.
The same decision was rendered in the case of ' Krug Furniture 'Company vs. Berlin Union of Amalgamated Wood Workers, o. O. L. It., 403, Meredith, J.' The judgment was the same, that is to the effect that a trades-union could not be sued if it were not incorporated; that the members should be proceeded against individually, and the action should be dismissed if it had been taken against the association.
The question has been decided also in England, by the Appeal Court in 1901, in a case of ' Liuaker vs. Pilcher and others,' reported in volume ' 84, Law Times Reports,' new series, page 421. In this case the action was held valid because it had been entered against the trustees of the trades-union, but notwithstanding that decision the courts in (lie province of Ontario have persisted in dismissing the law suits brought against the non-incorporated trades-unions.
There is no doubt but that is the law in the province of Quebec.
1 would favour the idea of granting rights to the trades-unions provided these associations exist legally. I think it would be absurd to confer such privileges upon an indeterminate class of men. The exercise of a privilege requires that a person should exist physically and morally. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I move in amendment, seconded by Mr. Leblanc, that the following words: 'duly incorporated,' be added after subsection (a) of section first.
It is easy for the trades-unions to obtain incorporation; we have a law to that effect; it is chapter 131 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. According to that law trades-unions may be brought into legal existence without any heavy costs. Why should they

not submit to the law as the other public bodies do V
My honourable i'riend from York (Mr. Maclean) has told us that the lawyers, for instance, enjoyed certain rights and privileges.
This is very true, but the lawyers have a law which has brought them into legal existence as a body. I am in favour of the workmen, and I wish their unions nothing but prosperity. I recognize the fact that the workmen compose amongst our people a class which is numerous and worthy of protection. Yet, if we are to protect their rights, it is necessary that the unions which they form should have a judicial standing, and I propose this amendment in order that the rights which this parliament is about to confer upon them may have their full effect.
Mr. Chairman, as I have just stated in French, I am favourable to the principle of this measure. But, if we are going to grant a privilege, we must grant it to somebody, to some person who exists physically or inorally. If you do not grant it to an individual, you must grant it to a corporation, to a body that will exercise the rights granted and that can be brought before the courts in case of any question arising as to the exercise of that right. It has been decided in Ontario, in the case I have just quoted, that the trades unions cannot be brought before the courts-you must sue the members individually. It has been decided in England that if they have trustees that may be sued. It is very easy for the trades unions to be incorporated under the Federal Statute chapter 131. Incorporation does not cost much, and I do not see why we should not decide that this privilege of using a Union label shall be given to some person or corporation, instead of giving it to all workers. 1/ we give it in this general way, we do not know who will be the proprietors. That is why I move as an amendment to add the words ' duly incorporated ' after the words ' working women ' in the second line of subsection (a). I think that, with such an amendment no objection could be raised to the Bill ; because, when the labour unions are incorporated they will be entitled to their distinctive mark just as any other corporation is. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has said that all the high classes have privileges. That is true. But these classes are incorporated. The lawyers have privileges, but, they have duties also ; and they enjoy these privileges because they are incorporated. And by this amendment I ask that if the workingmen are to receive these privileges they shall also be incorporated. We must recognize their right, but wre must follow the ordinary rule of law.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to ask the learned and hon. member (Mr. L. P. Demers) a question. He says that the lawyers are incorporated and are responsible. Will lie say that if a person feels aggrieved by a lawyer he has any recourse against the corporation to which' that lawyer belongs ? I think not.


Louis Philippe Demers: That is no answer. The legal corporations have duties and privileges. They can be sued before the courts, but an incorporated union can not.
Amendment (Mr. L. P. Demers) agreed to.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If the committee intend to adopt the amendment suggested by my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. L. P. Demers), a very superficial examination of the Bill will show that it will be necessary to amend several sections to make them conform to the amendment.


Herbert Brown Ames: As I understand it the interpretation clause is amended and that where ' labour union ' is mentioned subsequently in the Bill it means an incorporated Labour union.


Ralph Smith: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand that these words should be inserted just where the hon. member for St. John and Iberville proposes. If these words are to be added, in order to give them proper significance, they should be just before the word 1 association.' If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ralph Smith) who is in charge of the Bill intends to assent to this amendment it seems, to me a little more consideration might be given to the exact form of the amendment to carry out the idea that has been suggested.


Ralph Smith: I do not agree with the amendment at all ; but that is not the question. If this House will not pass this Bill without the amendment, then I want the Bill with the amendment. If it conies to a vote, I will vote against it. But if the House will pass the Bill with that amendment, then I want that amendment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think it is desirable that we should have time to consider the effect of this amendment on the other clauses of the Bill. In the first place, we ought to try to give effect to the evident intention of the House. I think, therefore, the wiser course would be for the hon. member to move that the committee rise.


Ralph Smith: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-I. C. R. TRAIN SERVICE, NOVA SCOTIA.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Henry Robert Emmerson: I have received some information with respect to the question raised by the leader of the opposition

(Mr. R. L. Borden), and I feel it is but due to tlie Intercolonial management that I should give the information.


William Findlay Maclean: Have the passengers been fed yet ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: At the time the telegram came, the train was in Moncton where the passengers could readily get fed. Perhaps the difficulty was that some of them did not want to purchase a meal. This telegram is dated Moncton, February 8, and is addressed to Mr. Pottinger :
The storm which set in night before last at Halifax extended yesterday as far as St. John and Newcastle, it is now about over west of Moncton, but continues east and is particularly bad east of Springhill. Number 34-
which is the through express from Montreal east- .

which left here 14 o'clock yesterday and
numbers 2, St. John to Halifax, and 26, C. P. R., now' stuck at Springhill. 84, Moncton to Spring-hill local, with tw-o engines from here yesterday evening, now' stuck at Evans. 33, through express west, left here last night about two hours late, and, is doing fairly well. 10, night express from St. John last night, 2 and 34 arrived here about noon, 10 and 2 cancelled and transferred to 34, being held. 9, night express, Halifax to St. John, with two engines stuck one mile west of Londonderry ; 1, 3 and 4 cancelled. Apple train stuck all night at Windsor Junction, steamer waiting this train, will leave Windsor Junction about noon. Halifax yard is in very bad shape. All cars have to be moved one by one, a consolidated and five shunting engines working trying to get 20, now at Point Tupper, through. 19 cancelled.
I may say to my bon. friend that the gentleman wbo sent the telegram, a Halifax gentleman I believe, had reached Monc-tion, and no doubt bad had a good meal before we heard of his telegram in this House.


Robert Laird Borden: I am very glad he has progressed so far. I did not mention the matter by way of criticism of the Intercolonial, as 1 stated I had had a somewhat similar experience, which I had found under the circumstances to be unavoidable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 9, 1905.