1910-12-15

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: On behalf of Mr. Fielding I beg to introduce Bill (No.

50) respecting banks and banking which appears in his name on the Order Paper. The charters of our banks will expire on the first of July next and it becomes necessary to have a new Banking Act passed this session. In the absence of the Minister of Finance I beg to introduce the Bill now, so that it may be printed and gotten ready for distribution, so that the House and the country may take communication of it, and that we may be ready to consider it when we meet again after the Christmas holidays. The Bill which I am presenting is practically the same as the law now in existence. The changes are not many and with the exception of one or two are not of very great consequence. The most important feature which is introduced into this Bill is that it contains a section which provides that at a general meeting of the shareholders they can appoint auditors of their own to have the affairs of the bank specially audited, and, if the shareholders choose to do so at any time thereafter a proportion of the shareholders representing five per cent of the capital of the bank can ask for the appointment of such auditors. These auditors will have power to inspect the company's books, to have access to them, to ask for information necessary and to compel it to be furnished, and their report is to be included in the annual statement presented to the shareholders.


Mr. SPROULE.: There is no provision for bank inspection?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Mr. MACLEAN (York).: That would meet the case which arose at the annual meeting of the Bank of Montreal the other day when certain shareholders asked for information and were denied it. Under this provision in the Bill they would probably get that information.


Wilfrid Laurier: They would certainly get it under this clause. The shareholders representing five per cent of the capital can at any time ask the Bankers' Association to have such an audit made, and the report of the audit is to be included in the annual statement presented to the shareholders. I understand that this provision is taken from the existing law in England with regard to joint stock banks. Another feature which is new legislation, is, and it may be of some importance, that the annual statement cannot be signed by the president alone, but must be signed by three directors of the bank also. Another new feature in the Bill is a provision that the annual reports and statement of accounts, and the documents issued by the bank must be issued upon the authority and signature of the proper officers, upon whom if they do not acquaint themselves by actual information of the truth of what
they sign the civil and criminal liability rests. It would not be sufficient for these officials to say that they had signed in good faith as was done in former days, but every official of a bank whatever his rank or standing who under the law is compelled to put his signature to a document must personally acquaint himself as to the truth of the facts therein contained, and he becomes responsible.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: Do I understand that the signature of the president and three directors must be attached to the monthly sworn statement?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Morley Currie: Only just to the annual statement to the shareholders?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. The new feature is that when statements and documents are issued by the bank under the law, the officer signing is liable if he fails to acquaint himself by actual verification of the truth of the statement to which he appended his signature and he is responsible for it civilly and criminally. A new feature of the Bill to which I call attention is in regard to the organization of a bank. In order to remind the shareholders or intending subscribers that they are subject to the double liability it is provided that all the documents which are issued in connection with the formation of a bank shall have printed on them, the section of the law which provides for the double liability of the shareholders. It is not a matter of very great importance, but the object is to remind shareholders at all t'mes that the moment they become shareholders they are liable to the double liability. Another provision of the Bill is that if the promoters fail to organize a bank then the money paid in has to be returned to the subscribers without any deduction for promotion fees or any other expense except what is allowed by the subscribers themselves. Then, some of the old banks have their shares fixed at $50 each instead of $100 and if they want to make their shares $100 each, which is now the usual parity, they cannot do it except by special legislation. There is machinery provided in this Bill that this can be done by resolution of the shareholders. Another new provision in the Bill is as to the products of the forest which may be tendered as security to the banks, and it provides that they shall include saw-logs and railway ties as timber, and deals, boards and staves as other lumber. This we conceived was always the intention, but a decision has recently been given in a court of justice that this covers only the products of the forest as they come from the forest, that they cease to have that character the moment they undergo some process of manufacture. The object of the

amendment is to make this clear and nothing else.
A new feature is that power is given to the receiver of an insolvent bank to borrow money under certain restrictions.
These are the main features of the Bill; the others are so minor that they will not require any explanation on my part.


William Findlay Maclean: In submitting the Bill in its present form to the House have the government received any suggestions of proposed amendments from the Bankers' Association, and if so what has been done with them?


Wilfrid Laurier: None have been received.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BARNARD moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 58) to amend the Fisheries Act. He said: This Bill provides that salmon fishing gill net licenses shall not be issued on the Pacific coast to men who are not able to come up to the physical standard required by the regulations in force with respect to enlistment in the naval militia. Section 54 of the Fisheries Act provides that the minister shall have the right to make regulations for the issue of licenses. One of these regulations is as follows:
No license shall be granted to any person, company or firm unless such person is a British subject, resident in the province of British Columbia, or to such company or firm, unless it is a Canadian company or firm, or is licensed to do business in British Columbia.
I propose to amend this regulation by requiring that the licensee shall come up to the physical standard required of candidates for enlistment in the naval militia. Four thousand gill-net licenses are issued annually on that coast. Professor Prince, in his report for 1906, stated that 85 per cent of the licensees on the Fraser river were Japanese. It is well known that the Japanese are a small and undersized race, and in the event of this Bill becoming law the greater portion of these Japanese, who have heretofore taken out licenses, will no longer be able to obtain them, thus restoring the industry to our own people. In addition, a fishing population will be created on that coast from whom the government will be able to draw recruits for the naval service, a condition that does not obtain to-day.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
' Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. BOYCE:	.	_
X. When were tenders invited by the Department of Indian Affairs for the burned timber on the following Indian reserves: No. 35 B., known as Obabikong and Nos. 35
H., 32 C. and 35 C., known as Sabiskong bay?
2.	What was the date of the advertisement asking for tenders, and what was the date fixed thereby for the receipt of such tenders by the department?
3.	Who was the successful tenderer, and what was the amount of the tender?
4.	By whom was the successful tender put into the department and on what date was it received ?
5.	What are the names of the various tenderers, and the amount they respectively tendered for the timber?
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Tenders were called for 21st September,
1910.	[DOT]
2.	21st September, 1910. Noon, 10th day of October, 1910.
3.	Wm. Johnston: Pine, $8 per thousand feet B.M. and dues; spruce, $4 per thousand feet B.M. and dues; tamarack ties, 8 cents each foot B.M. and dues; jack pine, $4 per thousand feet B.M. and dues.
4.	Received 10th October, 10 minutes to 12 a.m. Handed in to the secretary's office.
5.	Statement of names of various tenderers and prices they tendered set forth in statement attached hereto.


WOODS AND CANADIAN BUILDINGS, HEATING AND ELEVATORS.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):
1.	Has the government cancelled the contract with the Imperial Realty Company, Limited, in regard to the heating of the Woods and Canadian buildings?
2.	Has the government cancelled the contract with the Imperial Realty Company, Limited, in regard to the electric power used to run the elevators in the Woods and Canadian buildings?
3.	How many elevators are there in the Woods and Canadian buildings?
4.	How much did it cost the government each year for electric power to operate them?
5.	How much will it cost under the new contract?
Mr. PUGSLEY:: 

ELBOW AND BOW RIVERS, WATER POWER PRIVILEGES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MCCARTHY;
1.	What applications, if any, have been received for water-power privileges on the Elbow and Bow rivers, respectively, in the province of Alberta?
2.	What were the dates of said applications and the names of the parties applying therefor ?
Mr. OLIVER:: Elbow river-Near Canyon creek.
14th June, 1910, Western Canada Power and Development Company, Ltd., J. I. McLeod, Calgary, and his associates.
27th November, 1903, renewed July 25th, 1910, city of Calgary.
Bow river-Kananaskis falls.
28th September, 1904, Messrs. Thomas Shaughnessy, Wm. Whyte and J. S. Dennis. , 25th November, 1904, Messrs. S. H. Fleming, Hugh Fleming and J. S. Irvin.
14th September, 1905, E. R. Wood, Toronto, and his associates.
3rd April, 1906, Roderick J. Parke, Toronto.
7th November, 1906, city of Calgary.
28th March, 1906, Western Power and Development Company.
2nd August, 1907, W. J. Budd, Calgary.
12th January, 1910, the Calgary "Power Company, Ltd.
Horseshoe falls.

, W. J. Budd, Calgary.
21st December, 1906, Calgary Power and Transmission Company, Ltd., now Calgary Power Company, Ltd.
Radnor rapids.
4th December, 1905, Alberta Portland Cement Company, Ltd., now in name of Calgary Power Company, Ltd.



NORTHWEST SCHOOL LANDS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCarthy :
1.	Are school lands in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta only disposed of by public competition?
2.	What is the complete procedure followed by the government in order to determine the desirability of offering such lands for sale?
Mr. OLIVER :: 1.	School lands in the province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are only 43
disposed of by sale at public auction except in cases where application is made by railway companies to acquire school lands for right-of-way, station grounds and other similar purposes of the railway, in which oases the land required for these purposes is disposed of to the company under the provisions of the Railway Act, that is to say, on such terms as the Governor in Council may prescribe, the practice being to have the land applied for inspected and valued by an officer of the department -and then to seek the consent of the Governor in Council for the sale of the land required for the purpose mentioned at the price determined on, and also in cases where application is made by boards of trustees to acquire the land necessary for school sites in school sections. In such cases upon the application of the trustees being endorsed by the Minister of Education for the province in which the land is situated, the land, not exceeding four acres, is sold to the board at the minimum price provided by the Dominion Lands Act in such cases, namely $10 per acre.
2.	All applications to have school lands offered for sale are referred to the superintendent of school lands, Winnipeg, who, after investigation, reports whether or not he considers it would be in the interests of the School Lands Endowment Fund to offer the lands at public auction at the' time proposed, and at the same time suggests the places and dates of sale.
If his recommendation is approved by the department the consent of the Governor General in Council is then sought and upon it being obtained a list of the undisposed of lands in the district referred to is furnished the superintendent of school lands, who then has such lands inspected and valued for the purpose of determining the upset price in each case.
It is also the practice before holding an auction sale of school lands to consult the government of the province in which the lands are situated and to submit to the Department of Public Works of that province a list of the lands to be offered so that it may notify this department of any reservations necessary for public roads or other purposes, and for any remarks that may be considered necessary.
POSTAL SERVICE IN THE NORTHWEST* Mr. McCarthy :
1.	Has the Post Office Department established a daily mail service to the villages on the line known as the Langdon subdivision of the Canadian Pacific railway, passing through Acme, Beisicker, Irraconia, Keoma, Inver Lake? If so, when was such daily mail service established ?
2.	Is the department aware that there has been a daily train service for some time past?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER :: 1.	Yes. Just established.
2.	The department had no knowledge that a daily train -was toeing run until the receipt of a petition asking for the daily mail service on the 3rd of December, when it was immediately taken up with the superintendent of railway mail servce at Calgary and a report asked for as to train connections at that point. This information was received on December 13t'h, and the service authorized on the 14th of December.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-SPECIAL TRAINS.

Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Were any special trains run on the Intercolonial railway between Quebec and Montreal in connection with the Laurier demonstration at the Monument Nationals in October of this year?
2.	Was a special excursion rate granted at that time? If so, what was the return fare from Quebec to Montreal, and from St. Hyacinths and return?
3.	What is the distance by rail over the Intercolonial railway from Quebec to Montreal and return ?
4.	Has an excursion rate equally low been granted before for the Quebec to Montreal and return trip? If so, on what occasion?
5.	What is the average cost per passenger per mile on the Intercolonial railway?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) Quebec to Montreal and return, $1.50, guarantee 200 tickets by special train, (c) St. Hyacinthe to Montreal and return, $1.20, regardless of number, by regular trains.
3.	Levis, opposite Quebec to Montreal and return, 326 miles.
4.	No, not equally as low, but the guarantee justified the rate, which was a paying one.
5.	-0193 cents for year ending March 31, 1910.
N. B.-The amount realized from the excursion, Levis to Montreal and return was $903.75. There was no special train from St. Hyacinthe to Montreal, but excursion tickets were sold, amounting to $42, which were good on any train.



MEAFORD HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS.

Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	Has the government adopted the plan or scheme recommended last session by resident engineer and approved by the chief engineer of the Public Works with reference to the improvement on Meaford harbour? If not, why not?
2.	What amount of dredging has been done in said harbour in 1910, by what dredge and the cost thereof?
Mr. McCarthy.
3.	When was said dredge started at work and when did it cease work?
4.	Will said dredge resume work in the spring of 1911?
5.	Is the work being done by said dredge in pursuance of the plan approved by said engineers for improvement of said harbour?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	The work commenced in Meaford harbour is along the lines of the plan referred to.
2.	133,891 cubic yards, cost $9,596.69 to November 30, to which will have to be added estimated proportion cost of laying-up expenses $333.
3.	September 19 to November 30.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.



RIVER ST. CROIX PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. CROCKET:: Has the Department of Public Works under consideration any proposal for the construction of any public work on the River St. Croix in the parish of North Lake, York county, New Brunswick? If so, what is the proposal?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Yes, the department has been asked to construct a wharf at Forest City. The matter is under consideration.



LAKE MANITOU FISHERIES.

Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	Has the government leased Manitou lake on Manitoulin island? If so, to whom is it leased, the length of said lease, and the annual rental?
2.	Is the government aware that Lake Manitou is said to be practically ruined as a fishing and tourist resort owing to the carelessness of the lessees of said lake?
3.	Will the government investigate the conditions on Lake Manitou?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	No. The licensing and leasing of fishing privileges in Ontario has, since the decision of the Imperial Privy Council in the fisheries reference in 1898, been carried on by the provincial government.
2.	and 3. Representations have been made to this department to the effect that owing to fishing privileges granted the Manitou Fish Company in Lake Manitou, the residents in the vicinity are not permitted to engage in hook and line fishing, and that tourists no longer visit the locality.
It may be added that the information before the government indicated that the fisheries of the province generally were not receiving the protection contemplated by the regulations, and the government has as a consequence decided in the general interest to reappoint a staff of federal local fishery officers throughout the province, following which the conditions under which

fishing in Lake Manitou is carried on, will be looked into.



SEAGULL DOCK.

Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	On what date was work of construction commenced on Seagull dock, St. Joseph's Island, Algoma West, and to what date did the work continue, and has it since been resumed?
2.	Has the work been completed?
3.	How much has been expended upon the work to date, respectively, for labour, material teaming superintendence and engineering and departmental expenses?
4.	Who was the superintendent, and when was he engaged?
5.	What is the depth of water at outer end of dock?
6.	What are the dimensions of the dock proposed in plans and specifications upon which appropriation was obtained from parliament and to what depth of water was it intended to extend?
7.	What are the dimensions of the dock now constructed?
8.	Has the dock constructed been used? If so, when?
9.	Has a wharfinger been appointed? If so, when, who is he, what is his remuneration, and what returns of dues has he made?
10.	If dock is not completed, how much is it estimated will be required to complete it?


William Pugsley: la.	October 9, 1908.
lb.	Continued until March 27, 1909.
lc.	No.
2.	March 27, 1909.
3.	Labour and superintendence, $738.59; materials, $1,046.95. Total, $1,785.54.
4.	Appointed-24 ; promoted or trans-ing.
4o. October 5, 1908.
5.	10 feet at L.W.L.
6.	No plans or specifications were prepared when appropriation was voted.
7.	Wharf consists of cribs and space 58 feet long by 16 feet wide, ailso a stone approach, 100 feet by 18 feet wide on top, with slopes of 1J on 1. The cribs, of which there are two, are spaced 18 feet apart.
8.	No information in department.
9.	No.
10.	Dock completed.



DR. KING'S RESIDENCE.

Mr. ARMSTRONG:: Does Dr. King, of the experimental farm, pay rental for the house in which he lives, built by the government? If no rental is paid, what reason does the government give for not collecting same?


William Pugsley: (a) Dr. King pays $25.00 per month for the residence occupied by him at the Royal Observatory.
43J



SEYBOLD BUILDING ELEVATOR,

Mr. GOODEVE:: Has the government been reimbursed for the $2,500 paid by them for the installation of an elevator in the Seybold building, as per letter of the Auditor General dated May 31, 1910? If so, how and when?


William Pugsley: The Department of Justice now has under consideration the question whether owner or Department should pay under the terms of the lease.
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. *


Mr. STAPLES:: 1.	How many of the following kinds of agricultural implements have been imported into Canada each year since the 1st of January, 1908: Self-binders, and width of cut, seeders, and size, two furrow riding ploughs, single furrow walking ploughs; single furrow riding ploughs; cultivators, and sizes; mowing maclr ines, and sizes; hay rakes, and sizes; steam plough hitches with ploughs, and sizes; steam plough hitches, without ploughs; steam threshing engines, and horse-power; steam ploughing engines, and horse-power; gasoline ploughing engines, and horse-power; grain threshing separators, and sizes?
2.	By whom were they manufactured?
3.	At what valuation were they admitted?
4.	How was the valuation arrived at?
5.	How much duty was collected on each implement?


Mr. PATERSON:: The information desired in this case, covers much detail and is in part confidential, and even when not confidential, the question cannot be fully answered without a lengthy investigation, inspection and compilation of documents.



INLAND REVENUE INSPECTORS.

Mr. WILCOX:: 1.	Has J. H. Canning, Inspector of Inlan.1 Revenue, retired? If so, when, and has a successor been apointed?
2.	How many inspectors of inland revenue without departmental qualifications have been appointed since the present government came into power, and what are their names and locations ?
3.	How many inspectors of inland revenue without necessary departmental qualifications have been appointed since the present government came into power, and what are their names and locations?
4.	How many deputy collectors, ranking next to the collector of the inland service have been appointed since this government came into power, and what are their names and locations ?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	Yes. On May 1, 1910. No.
2.	Two. J. P. Beauchamp (now deceased), Montreal, Que.; C. I. Rinfret, Quebec, Que.	_	,

3.	Question is identical with No. 2.
4.	Appointed-24 ; promoted or transferred-9.
Appointments: J. G. Harris (now dead), St. Catharines, Ont.; W. W. Watson (now dead), Winnipeg, Man.; Cornelius Neville (now dead), Ottawa, Ont.; H. R. Frank-land, Toronto, Ont.; Terrence McGuire, Ottawa; T. H. Noonan, Perth, Ont.; Wm. Rudkins, Peterborough, Ont.; Wm. Sloan, Brantford, Ont.; L. V. Benoit, St. Hyacin-the, Que.; Thus. Rork, Peterborough, Ont.; J. P. Morin, St. Hyacinthe, Que.; Jas. O'Brien, Hamilton, Ont.; Jas. H. McKenzie, Toronto, Ont.; J. H. Batry, Quebec, Que.; H. R. Marion, Windsor, Ont.; W. A. Thrasher, London, Ont.; G. Daignault (now dead), St. Hyacinthe, Que.; T. R. Melville, Prescott, Ont.; T. S. Tobin, Stratford, Ont.; R. W. Fletcher, Calgary, Alta.; F. Langelier, St. Hyacinthe, Que.; H. J. Johnston, St. Catharines, Ont.; J. M. Gamache, Joliette, Que.; J. B. White, Prescott, Ont.
Promoted or transferred: E. B. Parkinson, Vancouver, B.C.; B. Iler, Toronto, Ont.; W. Caven, Montreal, Que.; W. M. Chisholm, Owen Sound, Ont.; A. Code, Winnipeg, Man.; M. E. L. Hudon, Montreal, Que.; J. F. Power, Vancouver, B.C.; W. J. Cook, Belleville, Ont.; J. A. Bernier, Montreal, Que.



PRINTING BUREAU INQUIRY.

Morley Currie: Before the orders of the day are called, I should like to draw attention to the fact that some weeks ago the report was presented of the auditors who examined the Printing Bureau. It was sent to the Bureau to be printed and distributed among members, but apparently it has disappeared. Why has it not been printed and distributed? That would be only a matter of one day's work of a very small section of men. Besides I understand that it was set up before a copy was sent to the House. As it is necessary we should spend a few hours looking through that report, we ought to have it before we start on our Christmas holidays. I regret that the Secretary of State is not here and should like to have some answer from the government.


Wilfrid Laurier: He will be here shortly.



COMMANDER ROPER.

Mr. HUGHES.: I desire to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to an answer he gave to a question asked by me the other day; and in this connection I might draw his attention to the fact that the officers in his department show very little care in preparing these answers. The question I put was:-


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: Is the government aware that the latest and best English dictionaries define the word ' faction ' as always used in an opprobrious sense ?
The hon. minister replied that Commander Roper had used the word, not in the way in which we poor Canadian habitants use it, but as it is used in England.: It was on this account that I put the question I have just read, and I got this reply :-
The minister has asked Commander Roper to define the sense in which the word ' faction ' was used by him in the speech referred to by the hon. member. He is informed by Commander Roper that he used the word 'faction' meaning a large number of persons, and did not in any way attach any opprobrious sense to the word.
Neither the hon. minister nor anybody else will find any such definition in any English dictionary in England or elsewhere. I also put the further question:-
Was it intimated to Commander Roper by the deputy Minister of Marine that he should deliver himself of the ' faction ' address during the past autumn on the occasion referred to in the debate from which the foregoing extract is taken.
The minister's answer was entirely wide of the mark. He said that:-
Commander Roper delivered an address last fall at the Central Canada exhibition at the invitation of the directors of that exhibition.
But what I wanted to know was who inspired the directors to ask this officer to deliver that address. In other words, was it arranged by the minister or his deputy that the address should be given in order that this ' faction ' speech might be delivered to the country. The answer given was therefore not an answer to my ques-. tion at all. Then I asked:-
W as the address or were the notes of the same talked over by the deputy minister and Commander Roper before said delivery.
In reply the minister admitted that they were, but he made the admission very awkwardly. What he said was:-
The deputy minister knew that Commander Roper was to deliver an address at the Central Canada exhibition, explaining the organization of the Canadian navy from the point of view of the technical officer. The deputy minister and Commander Roper talked over some of the points of the address.
The hon. gentleman might just as well have told us that the whole thing was prepared by his deputy and Commander Roper; and he might have let us further know that the whole matter was submitted to him and he gave his approval.


Mr. BRODEUR.: I must say that the question which was put was quite a surprise to me, especially the way in which

it was drafted, and I was inclined to think that it was rather out of order. I do not think it is proper to ask the government what is the definition given in a dictionary. We are not here to discuss academic questions. But my hon. friend went further. He said that Commander Roper had delivered himself of a ' faction ' address. I do not think that he had any right to put a question implying anything of the kind.


Samuel Hughes: I quoted Commander Roper's own words and put the inside quotation marks.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: When my hon. friend called it a ' faction ' address I could have taken exception, but I did nothing of the kind. I did give him an answer and gave it to the best of my knowledge and on the information supplied to me. The hon. gentleman asked whether these things were known to me, and I said no. To-day the hon. gentleman asks me whether it was arranged by myself with the exhibition committee that Commander Roper should be invited, and I tell him again, no; I never had anything to do with it,' and knew of this address delivered at the Canada Central exhibition only after it had been delivered.


Samuel Hughes: But the hon. gentleman, in answering a question of mine the other day, when asked if he knew of the speech, said: ' Certainly,' he knew the speech was going to be delivered.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, I never said that. I do not think the hon. gentleman can refer to any such statement of mine. If I am so reported, it is a mistake; I never said it. I did not know anything about the speech until after it was delivered.


Samuel Hughes: At page 960 of ' Hansard ' appears the following:


Samuel Hughes: Was Commander Roper authorized by the minister to make the statements he did?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly; I had nothing to do with the publication of the statement, of course.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. member is mistaken. I noticed that this was in the unrevised report, and I corrected it. I did not know about Commander Roper's speech until after it was made. I think my hon. friend should have read the rest of what I said, as follows:


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly; I had nothing to do with the publication of the statement of course.


Samuel Hughes: I read that.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MOLLOY.

Mr. J. P. MOLLOY (Provencher).: In the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' of December 12,
appears the following, which I read because of its bearing on myself:
G.	H. Bradbury, member for Selkirk, continues to make things unpleasant for the Minister of Interior. Mr. Bradbury has asked a number of very pointed questions concerning the deal by which the St. Peter's Indians were tricked out of their land holdings in the reserve. The answers submitted by Mr. Oliver explain so little that Mr. Bradbury promptly put another rod in pickle. The matter will be found difficult of suppression, and it is understood that the Interior Department is preparing to meet Bradbury's charges as best it can. Mr. Bradbury, by the way, is one of the hardest workers in the House. I have not failed to see him in his seat at every session of the House. In this respect, Mr. Bradbury and the other Conservative members from Manitoba contrast to advantage with the two Liberal members from that province. Every time I have been in the press gallery, Mr. Sifton's seat has been either vacant or occupied by another member, and I haven't seen Dr. Molloy since I began my service in Ottawa.
Now, what are the facts in connection with this matter? The first man to whom I spoke on this subject was my good friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin). a Conservative, and a manly fellow-I have always found him so. I showed him the article, and he said that every member of the House knew that it was an untruth, and that he would help me to right the wrong that had been done me. He went with me to the office of the Auditor General. We first went to the accountant, and were advised by him to go to Mr. Gross. We saw Mr. Gross, who had my attendance and the cheque I had cashed for my attendance on the first session of this parliament, which, by the way, was cashed on May 27. I am under a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for South Cape Breton. I am under a debt of gratitude also to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe), who said: ' The statement is not true; your attendance has been as good as that of any man in the House.' And I am under a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) who said that it was not true and that it was unfair politics. And these gentlemen will make the same statement in the House that they made to me.
This parliament opened in January, 1909, and my record for attendance during that session is as follows:	In January I did
not miss one day. In February I missed one day: in March no days; in April no days. In May I drew my sessional indemnity on May 15, intending to go home then, but changed my plans and remained until the House closed on May .18. Having drawn my sessional indemnity on the 15th of May, the Auditor General's Department charged me with the loss of four days in May, 1909, but as a matter of fact

I stayed until the House prorogued. Last session the House opened in November, and I left for home five days before the Christmas holiday, and returned one day after the opening. This caused me to miss six days, and these were the only days missed by me during the whole session, and they were spent in my constituency. It will be seen that in the last two sessions of parliament I onlv missed seven days from actual attendance. This session, I have never missed a sitting, afternoon or evening.
I make that statement on my honour as a member of this House. If that statement is not true, I will leave this House and remain out of it. The statement in this newspaper, so far as it refers to me, is false. I cannot help but believe that it was not done unwittingly but was done designedly to injure me in my constituency. I remember a statement by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) during the first session of my membership in this House. That statement was : 'Play the game, but play it fair.' That is all I ask from the press of this country, whether Liberal or Tory, that is all I ask from hon. members on either side of this House; and I believe it is the duty of the man who wrote that article, to atone, at least in part, for the rank injustice he has tried to do me.



PRIVILEGE-ME. BEST.

Mr. JOHN A. BEST (Dufferin).: I find a statement made in the St. John ' Daily Telegraph ' of Saturday, December 10, to the effect that I said there were thirty members of this House who had not paid for the printing of their speeches. I did not say that. In my remarks on December 9, I said that the Auditor General's Report showed that the Senate had paid several of their employees more than the statute allowed. And I say that now. And I say it is not right that money should be paid in that way. If a boy goes out and steals a loaf of bread, he is arrested and put in jail. Merely because men happen to have the position of law-makers, that does not give them the right to pay out the people's money in defiance of the law. I stated also that the Auditor General's Report showed that some of the members of this House had not paid for the printing of their speeches. And I make that statement to-day. It does not matter to me whether the members thus referred to are on this side or on the other side; if they have not paid for their speeches they ought to be required to pay for them. We are sent here to protect the public treasury. I asked if refunds had been made, and that question has not been answered yet. I merely wish to say that if the item in this newspaper went from any authority within the precincts of this House, I can only say that it is not correct, and that I did not make the statement attributed to me.


John Patrick Molloy: 



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. CYRIAS ROY (Montmagny).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, before the orders ol the day are called, I deem it my duty to raise a question of privilege. Not only do I claim it as a right, but I deem it in my interest, before being put under the ban of public opinion in my constituency, to give some explanations, and to ask for certain corrections.
I would like to know the reason why I am reported in the unrevised edition of ' Hansard ', pages 1196-1197, of the 12th December, as having said that the electors of the county of Montmagny are less intelligent than the electors of other constituencies. I wish to state here that I stated just the reverse of what I am reported to have said. I may add that it would not be the part of an intelligent man to come down and state before this House that the electors who sent him here are not intelligent.
I wish to make these remarks because I have already received a letter from one of my constituents calling my attention to the above report. That is the reason why I should like ' Hansard ' to be corrected as follows: by replacing in the third line of the second paragraph of my remarks, the word, ' as ' by the word ' more ' Further, certain members of sentences have been cut off, the absence of which renders my remarks unintelligible. Therefore, I want those parts of sentences thus cut off to be added to the text. In the fifteenth line of the fourth paragraph, I should like the word ' serve ' to be substituted to ' would serve '.
Again, in the last line of the twelfth paragraph, I should like the words ' but not branch lines ' which cannot be understood by themselves, to be cut off, and replaced by the following, which I did really pronounce: ' But who have not yet been consulted on the question of branch lines to be built '.
Finally, in a last request I have to formulate is that, in order to make intelligible the last sentence of my speech, the following words be added: ' Should there be a deficit in the administration of that branch line '.
My object is not to throw blame on anybody, but to clearly define the position I have taken before the House.
It remains only for me, Sir, to beg the House's pardon for having spoken at such length, but I only wished to have the mistakes corrected which had crept into my speech.



ILLEGAL USE OF MAILS.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I wish to call the attention of the House to a matter of sufficient public importance to demand a re-

ference to it. I placed on the Order Paper for December 5, the following question :-
1.	Wliat action, if any, has the government taken with a view to putting a stop to the use of His Majesty's mails for the * furtherance of get rich quick ' schemes, such as the one conducted by Mr. Sheldon in Montreal, and the numerous wild cat ventures that have been foisted on our people during the past few years?
2.	Has the government made any effort to prosecute the guilty parties?
The answer to that question was given by the right hon. the First Minister, and is" one to which I wish to take objection. He said:-
In the case of illegal lotteries, or schemes devised and intended to deceive the public for the purpose of obtaining money under false pretenses, the power of the department is limited to declaring correspondence relating to such schemes not to be mailable matter, and to refusing to deliver it.
Well, Sir, if the post office authorities have control only over the mailing matter that is delivered in this way, it is time that we appoint a public prosecutor, whereby such men as Mr. Sheldon may be prosecuted, and that others who are carrying on such work may be brought to justice. The answer further says:-
This power the department exercises in every case where it is proven to the satisfaction of the department that such a scheme is in * operation. The department has no power to institute a prosecution in such cases, but in all cases notifies the provincial authorities in whom are vested full powers of crininal prosecution.
I would like to ask the First Minister if any other department, such as the Department of Public Works, would be unable to bring action against any officer of that department who had made a misstatement in reference to the purchase of public domain, whether they would not be able to prosecute those parties? Is it not possible for any individual to demand that this matter should be investigated, and at the same time to take the present case into consideration?


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman confines himself to the question which he has put to the government. I cannot allow a debate; there is nothing before the Chair.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am merely trying to elucidate the matter as I understand it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: This is not the time. The hon. gentleman may put a question to the government, that is allowed by custom; hut he is not allowed to debate a question at this stage.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: With due deference to your ruling, I wish to say that this is a
matter of sufficient public importance, in my opinion, to demand the attention of the House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Rule 39 provides for those cases.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then Tule 39 gives me the privilege of asking for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing this question. I believe it is of sufficient public importance to justify me in asking for the adjournment of the House, in order to enable me to discuss it, and to give it publicity. I move the adjournment of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman cannot do that now, because there are certain formalities to be observed. To-morrow, perhaps, the House will be moved into Committee of Supply, and he can then bring the matter up.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I spoke previously to the Speaker interrupting me, and said that if it was necessary, I would ask for the adjournment of the House. I have asked for the adjournment, believing that the importance of the question justifies me.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Under rule 39, a motion for adjournment may be made by unanimous consent of the House. Otherwise, at least 20 members must support the bon. gentleman's request, and his motion must be made in writing.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I believe (this question is of sufficient public importance to demand immediate attention, because, if we postpone the matter until after the holidays, we may depend upon it, that no action will be taken.


Wilfrid Laurier: Give notice for to-morrow. I have no objection at all to discuss the matter. My hon. friend can do so to-morrow, by giving notice to the Speaker.


Mr. BORDEN. (Halifax).: If the hon. gentleman desires to move the adjournment of the House, he will have to hand in a written notice to the Speaker.



DUTIES ON AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.

Mr. STAPLES.: Before you leave the Chair, I wish to call attention to an answer to a question which I asked1 on December 14. The answer was handed across the floor of the House, I presume by the minister in charge of the department. The answer is one that will not satisfy my constituents, nor do I think it will satisfy the manufacturing industries of this country nor any other section of the people of this country. The question I put on the Order Papar reads as follows:-[DOT]


William Paterson: The question the hon. gentleman has asked may be found on page 10 of the Orders of December 14. We have every desire in the department to give all information that it is proper and possible for us to give under the law, but every member who reads that question will see that we have intimated that if the hon gentleman moves for an order of the House it can be answered. It cannot be answered immediately, because it will take weeks, if not months,_ to get the answer to this question, involving a great deal of compilation and all that, but if he will move for an order he can get it. But, with reference to I the valuation, that is information which


William D. Staples: we would not be at liberty, under the law, to give. All we can give him under the law we will give him.


Robert Laird Borden: What is it that cannot be given?


Morley Currie: Does not the order of this House call for it? Is this House supreme over the law?


William Paterson: That is a very difficult question, and it is one that puts us in a very difficult position.


Morley Currie: Hear, hear.


William Paterson: I do not think that is very kind. I said to the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Barnard) the other day, when he asked for particulars of entries made by certain parties in the custom house and as to1 whether they had passed any goods free through the custom house, that I was afraid that he was asking for something that I was not able to give him. I did not make the law; the department did not make the law; parliament made the law by which it expressly declared that you must not reveal the contents of any invoice that passes through the customs only to the person who has made the entry, which information, if he demands it, he can have for fifty cents, but in no other case can he have it except upon an order of the court. Is the department to be blamed because it carries out the law that parliament enacted? I have no desire to withhold anything; we could give everything in the department that you want, but we must conform to the law. When the hon. gentleman was asking, the other day, for particular entries made by a certain gentleman I said that it was an unusual tiling to do, but this is a case which you are making inquiries about transactions between certain individuals and the departments of this government, and, that being the case, I thought I was warranted in giving the information. Parliament, I suppose, can do it, but where would you be if any man was at liberty to go and demand to see the invoices of another man? vVhat would be the result to trade if that could be done? I do not know what view my hon. friend would take of himself, but surely there is no business man in this House who would try to force the department to give the particulars of an individual's transaction that might be used against him. That is all I have to say. The answer was intended to be courteous, and I am sorry if the hon. gentleman thinks that it is not courteous. In the first place, I intimated to him that we could not give the information that he asks for short of weeks and weeks necessary to hunt it up, but we will do the very best we can. Some of the information that he asks for is confidential with reference to invoices and entries. Parliament has made

a law which says that we shall not reveal it, but if the House will assume the responsibility of saying to me that I shall reveal it, then I have no objection in the slightest.


Robert Laird Borden: What particular part of these invoices are confidential information?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Paterson: The third question :
At what valuation were they admitted?


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister mean that parliament is not entitled to know something of the valuation at which agricultural implements are imported into this country, all governed by statute and regulation, as I understand it? I would think that it would be a very proper piece of information to give to the House and the country.


Mr. FOSTER.: What impropriety would there be in that?


William Paterson: It reveals the private transactions of individuals.


George Eulas Foster: It reveals the basis upon which the hon. gentleman exacts his duty, and any hon. member of the House has a right to know on what basis the hon. gentleman exacts his duty. When he is given the power and option to fix the valuation, by what right can he refuse the House the valuation which he has fixed?


Robert Laird Borden: That valuation ought not to be a confidential matter. It is a matter in respect to which the public have a right to the inlormation.


Mr. ROCHE.: I wish to remind the minister that he gave that very information to this House several years ago.


William Paterson: I am quite aware that a year or two ago, when I was away, one or two returns were brought down to the IJouse, tout my own judgment is against it. I think we made a mistake. But, if the House wants this information and says so I shall see that they get it. If you want to know the valuation at which an article is admitted and how we arrive at that valuation, I would say that we arrive at it by the invoice of the parties who export the goods into this country ; and, of course, we would have to reveal in that case the invoice from the man who has sent the goods in, which the law says we shall not do.


William D. Staples: Has the minister made any refund in duties that have been collected on certain invoices to certain people?


William Paterson: Yes, we do so very often. We have to make amendments and
corrections to entries. If we have ascertained that goods have been entered at an incorrect valuation under the law we have to call upon the parties for an amended entry. If, on the other hand, we find that the parties have substantiated their claim that they have paid on the higher value than they ought to then a refund is handed to them. That is going on continually. It is not only in agricultural implements. There is nothing done by us with regard to agricultural implements that is not done with anything else. The invoice comes in from the exporter, it comes to the custom house, and it shows the figure at which the article is priced. In accordance with the custom law, appearing on that invoice is the price at which the article is disposed of under similar conditions in the United States. There is a certificate of the exporter himself attached to the invoice and we accept the invoice as being correct unless we have reason to think it is not correct. That is what is done and that is what has always been done.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Does he swear to the invoice?


William Paterson: He certifies to the invoice.


Mr. BRODER.: That is not always the practice with regard to commercial invoices. Do you not sometimes put a valuation on an article higher than the commercial invoice? For instance, you do not accept the valuation on sewing machines, or you will not accept the price at which they sell them as toeing the valuation?


William Paterson: No.


Andrew Broder: You put on a higher valuation?	.


William Paterson: Yes.


Andrew Broder: Do you not do that sometimes with agricultural implements?


William Paterson: Yes.


Andrew Broder: That is the point.


Morley Currie: The Minister of Customs knows very well that, with regard to any staple article imported into this country, the Board of Dominion Appraisers hold a meeting and set the minimum valuation upon that article. All the hon. gentleman is asking for is what was the minimum valuation placed upon these implements, not the invoices at all, not the transaction of one individual with another, no names. The appraisers can meet every week if they want to and they can charge this minimum valuation.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am afraid this debate is going too far.


Morley Currie: Well that is all right ; the minister has fiddled all around

this question but he has not explained it to the House.


William Paterson: I have been told, although I have not seen it myself, that there was an article published with great headlines stating that there was something wrong in the Customs Department. I do not suppose the hon. gentleman wishes to insult the officers of the department or myself iby intimating that we would violate our oath or that we would do anything such as that which was suggested. We have nothing whatever to hide. If the House assumes the responsibility of saying that we shall reveal these invoices then the responsibility will be with the House. The law is against it. I can do it. The hon. member for Macdonald mentions that this was done last year. That is true. We may have been careless in having done this once before, because incidentally you do reveal what by the law should not be revealed. If you want the valuations placed for duty that is all right. The exporters of agricultural implements to Canada certify the prices they are sold for in the United States, and, in the case of agricultural implements and musical instruments and sewing machines which are sold under unusual conditions the price has to be arrived at after studying the question thoroughly. The men who are sending these machines into the country and are paying the duty are finding no fault with the valuation made. There was one case lately of complaint from one of these firms who thought we were charging the dumping duty, but for years and years so far as I know the manufacturers have been satisfied with the valuation we put on.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Huron).: How would the Minister of Customs betray any confidence when he is not asked to give the name of the manufacturer and exporter, but only the amounts?


William Paterson: There would be no objection to that. What we have to guard against is giving an isolated case which in the return would indicate at once all the information concerning it. There can be no objection to giving the information in the aggregate, but how could you get the description of a two gang plough or a three gang plough and all tile other things the hon. gentleman mentions, which have entered at all the ports of this Dominion.


William D. Staples: Does the hon. gentleman ask me how I could do it?


William Paterson: Yes.


William D. Staples: If the department kept these things in tabulated form, as they should, they could put their fingers on this information in a moment.


Morley Currie: 


William Paterson: Well that is under the hon. gentleman's own eye in the Trade and Navigation returns.


William D. Staples: That may be, but I have no doubt that questions are answered in this House giving information which are contained in the official documents.


William Paterson: I can send the hon. gentleman a copy of the Trade and Navigation returns. The hon. gentleman wants an answer and will not be satisfied with a copy of the Blue-book.


George Eulas Foster: Under what section is the minister precluded from answering question number 3 which is:	At what values are
they admitted? No man's name is mentioned; no special firm is alluded to; there i3 simply asked the valuation on seeders and two furrow ploughs, and so on. There is nothing in the law which prevents the minister from giving that information. Wll that is asked for is the general valuation of the articles mentioned and we have a right to that information.



PRINTING BUREAU INQUIRY.

Morley Currie: I understand that the report presented by the' auditors to examine the Printing Bureau has gone down to be printed without an opportunity to members of the House or to the press to examine it. I ask the Secretary of State if that report will be printed and distributed before the House adjourns ror the Christmas holidays as we want some light reading during the recess?


Hon. CHAS. MURPHY.: The report referred to by the hon. member embodies between 425 and 475 pages, and although I have no personal control over it-it is printed by order of the House-I have asked that the printing of it be expedited as much as possible so that it may be available for members. I will make further inquiry and see if it cannot be ready by to-morrow.



ILLEGAL USE OF MAILS-CASE OF C.

[Stage Direction]
D.	SHELDON.
James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Under rule 39 the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) asks for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the illegal use of His Majety's mails. Under subsection 4 he has handed me this statement. Shall the hon. gentleman have leave to make the motion?
The House granted leave.
Mr. ARMSTRONG moved that the House do now adjourn. He said: I appreciate the privilege accorded me by the House and I believe the matter with which I shall deal is of sufficient importance to warrant a definite statement being made in regard to

it by the government. The First Minister in reply to a question which I placed on the Order Paper recently made the following statement:
' The department has no power to institute prosecution in such cases, but in all cases notifies the provincial authorities in whom are vested full powers of criminal prosecution.'
Now, applying this to the case of C. D. Sheldon we can see how justice may miscarry. This man Sheldon came to Canada two years ago from Boston where he had been a school teacher, and he settled in the city of Montreal, where he engaged in what is called blind-pool selling. The post office authorities, must have been aware, or they should have been aware, shortly after his arrival in Montreal, that he was carrying on a business which could not possibly be conducted in a legitimate way. To the Toronto ' Saturday Night' and the Montreal ' Star ' are due a great deal of credit for exposing Sheldon and his methods.


Mr. BUREAU.: What about the Montreal ' Herald '?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the Solicitor General will take the trouble to read the files of the Montreal ' Herald ' he will find that there was sufficient in the articles published by that paper to encourage men to invest in this rascally work that was carried on by Sheldon. I cannot give to the Montreal ' Herald ' the credit which the hon. gentleman would like me to give. Not only newspapers, but a number of prominent men throughout the country have been instrumental in ferreting out these frauds. I can only mention Mr. Youel, of Aylmer, Ontario, who devoted months of his time previous to Sheldon's disappearance to exposing this man and his methods. I have here numbers of letters, some of them in the handwriting of Sheldon himself, making propositions that were so unreasonable and so unbusinesslike that any man could know that there was no other possible outcome than failure, and that the poor people of Canada would be fleeced as they have been fleeced. There is no doubt that Sheldon, who acted the part of a trepanner in this transaction, and his agents, his decoy men throughout the country, have been conducting a transaction which there is no language strong enough to condemn I have letters from the agents of Mr. Sheldon which have been sent to different persons in different parts of the country, some from his agents in the city of St. Thomas, where he is supposed to have taken over $200,000 of the people's money, and conducted his business, to some extent at least, by money which he received from that source. Any reasonable-minded man reading the letters from Sheldon's agents,
would know that the transactions he was carrying on in Montreal were of the most rascally character, and yet in the face of that you find the post office authorities of Canada, who I most emphatically state have the power to investigate this matter and bring the offenders to justice, failing to take any action. What have the post office authorities of the United States accomplished in the last few months in bringing to justice man after man in that country and not only exposing their methods but making them disgorge millions into the treasury of that country? Only last summer a man who was followed up by the postal authorities of the United States, greatly aided by the investigation of the editor of the Philadelphia ' North American,' was located in western Canada, brought back to the United States and forced to disgorge. Under the present government we have such loose management of the department as to allow this man, under the very eyes of the department, month after month, in spite of the articles that were appearing in the public press, to continue these illegal transactions all over this fair land of ours. Some of our papers have had the manliness and backbone to expose these different transactions, but I wish to say most emphatically that the time has come when the Dominion of Canada should appoint a public prosecutor, whose duty it will be to look into these transactions and who will have the power not only to investigate such transactions as those of Sheldon and the different loan' companies that have been exposed, but to examine, if necessary, the banks of this country in that respect.
Why did not the Solicitor General take up this matter? He knew full well that Sheldon was carrying on a most unfair and unbusinesslike proposition in the city of Montreal, and he is also open to censure. I am confining my remarks especially to the Post Office Department because that department, in answer to a question I placed on the Order Paper, simply said that all the responsibility they had or possibly could assume in regard to this matter was that they would notify the authorities of the province in which this man lived. It is well known that this man was conducting his business in Montreal, in the province of Quebec, but that he was also carrying it on in different provinces throughout Canada and especially in the province of Ontario. What power would the authorities in Ontario have to go to work and expose this man in the manner in which he should be exposed? The post office authorities say: Well, we did look into this matter two days before the man left-and they must have known months before that this man

had been carrying on his illegal transactions. Let me just call your attention to this fact that the department has no power, as they say, to institute prosecutions in such cases. This is not a sufficient reply where there is an implied charge of delinquencies. The question and answer have reference to a breach of section 209 of the Criminal Code:-[DOT]
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liaable to two years' imprisonment who posts for transmission or delivery by or through the post,-
(c} Any letter or circular concerning schemes devised or intended to deceive and defraud the public, or for the purpose of obtaining money under false pretenses.


Mr. DEVLIN.: That is when he is found out.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that this is merely to be used when the guilty party is found out.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is there anything under the Post Office Act which would authorize the Post Office Department to go into a broker's office to inquire into his transactions there?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is a question from a lawyer which has nothing to do with the case. As far as I can see, it simply amounts to this that if the post office authorities knew for months, and I have no doubt that in their department they have had letters calling their attention to the transactions conducted by this man, and knew he was abusing the rights and privileges granted to him by this country under the Post Office Act, they are beyond any question very lax in the discharge of their duty towards the people of Canada. Referring to the British North America Act of 1867, I find that section 91 provides as follows:-
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the class of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding anything in this Act, the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated.
Let me call attention, to subsection 27:-
The criminal law, except the constitution of the courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That would all happen to Sheldon if he were brought before a jury.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why is he not brought before a jury ? Is it not possible for the Minister of Justice to take action.? Is it not possible for the post office authorities to follow up men such as Sheldon, who have wrongfully taken money out of the mails ? Who is going to prosecute this man ?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If the hon. gentleman will bring Sheldon back, no doubt the government will take action.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: But why should the onus be put on me of bringing him back ? Why should the Minister of Justice shift his duty on to my shoulders ? Surely it cannot be pretended that it is not the duty of this government to set to work and have this man brought back to this country just as the United States government had men, under similar charges, brought back to their country. If it be said that the government have not the power to do this, it is time that they should take it. You cannot do any greater service to the people than expose just such transactions _ as Sheldon has been carrying on, and bring such men to punishment. Not only this man Sheldon, but his agents and satellites, his decoy men, who went around among the people, gathering in the dollars-these also, should be brought to justice. People were induced to part with their money on the representation that Sheldon would invest it for them, and return it to them with handsome profits. But what have we seen ? The auditor's report shows that Sheldon, instead of making by speculating, lost money, and what he did not lose in speculation, he took away with him. Thousands of people were thus defrauded out of their hard earned savings. The hon. gentleman knows full well that Sheldon sent off some $50,000 to Mexico, just a few days before leaving the country. Our ministers have in this, matter, become the laughing stock of the authorities of New York. Why ? Because they made the statement time and again, that if they had known about these things a few days after Sheldon left Canada, they could easily have arrested him. Every one apparently knew about him, except the government, and when the government did know, there was no one in it to take action. My hon. friend says:	Go on and take action yourself; go
on yourself, and hunt up this man. What an admission he there makes of _ the incompetency of this administration ! I submit that it is the duty of the government to take steps to put a stop to all these swindling and wild cat schemes. I hardly need tell you, Sir, that it is only a few years ago, since these Cobalt transactions were exposed, by which the people of Canada were robbed right and left, through reckless manipulation by men who had bogus companies to palm off upon the peo-

pie. Any number of these bogus mining propositions have been .shown up during the past few years. And no doubt, in the Porcupine district, you will find in the near future a number of similar companies foisted on our people. Since the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau), has referred to the Montreal Herald ' let me read him an advertisement which appeared in the Toronto ' Globe.' In that newspaper on October 8, the following appeared under a large display heading, and I want the Solicitor General to bear in mind this fact, that it was on the 11th of October Sheldon skipped .the country. Here is what appeared in the Toronto Globe on October 8:-[DOT]
C. D. Sheldon-Investor.
His plan of investment-Profits that have been made-Opportunity for investment.
Without sensational advertising, and without any unusual or extraordinary method, C. D. Sheldon, of Montreal, has created ? business involving an investment of over one million dollars a month for over 3,000 clients.
Mr. Sheldon s method's and successes have created such great interest throughout Canada that they have invited criticism, and natur-Mly excite both interest and curiosity.
The whole facts of Mr. Sheldon^s business are embodied in the following interview with the writer of this article:-
And I think it important this should be placed on record to show the position that even the newspapers have taken with re-ga.id to his trails action. In my opinion, the day is coming when newspapers will be made responsible for the advertisements they publish. I continue to quote from the advertisement. The ' Globe ' says to Mr. Sheldon:-*
Mr. Sheldon, you have made phenomenal profats for your clients during the past two years; can you give me an idea what these have amounted to?'
' The lowest profit made in any one month was 20 per cent, but the average has been between 30 per cent and 50 per cent. I made individual investments, but the increasing volume of business with the infinite detail made it necessary to change the system, so that the money now forms a common fund, and all investors receive the same percentage of profits.
Just imagine a prominent newspaper, which pretends to instruct the public, putting in an advertisement of this kind-a swindle on its face-offering to pay depositors profits of from 20 to 50 per cent per month and an average of 30 per cent per month. The interview continues as follows :-
' When you declare 20, 30 or 40 per cent a month if the profits are not taken out, do they become part of the principal, and begin earning with the original capital? '
' All profits not taken out are added to capital and immediately become active.'
' Mr. Sheldon, you are aware that you are accused of making extravagant promises. What promises do you make? What do you authorize your agents to make? '
' I make no promises, and the only authorization my agents have is to state facts as they are-to outline my plan of operation, and to say that I shall do all I can to produce results in the future as satisfactory as they have been in the past. I do not guarantee any fixed percentage of profit.'
' It has been suggested .that the only way in which such large profits can be paid is by applying later deposits to pay dividends on previous investments. What answer do you give this ' robbing Peter to pay Paul ' theory?'
' As I have during the past two years paid out in cash as profits over three times as much as I have received from my clients, this theory at once falls to the ground.'
' Do you guarantee against loss- '
'I do to the fullest possible extent. I protect all my investments, and never ask my clients to put up for margin, nor are my clients' investments ' wiped out ' by an unexpected decline in stocks.'
' What provision do you make for the inevitable but unexpected shrinkage? In declaring your monthly profits, do you create a reserve fund or are the total earnings allotted as profits- '
* Profits with safety ' is the central idea of my operations, so that I make ample provision to avoid being caught napping.'
That is only a portion of the advertisement. It merely goes to show that it is high time we had some public prosecutor who would prevent the publishing of such advertisements. It is not the man who is a plunger, and who is willing to throw from $200 to $500 on the chance of gaining, and not caring much if he loses. It does not matter to that man. But I have under my hand some of the most pitiful letters showing that these swindlers have gone to work, and, through their decoys, have made their alluring promises to poor widows and others in the towns and cities of Ontario in particular, and from these poor people have gathered up tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to be squandered by these rascals, or taken to a foreign land. Language fails me to condemn a government that would allow such transactions to be carried on. If it be that this government has not power to follow this man, then a special duty rests upon this parliament to extend the government's power. This man ought to be followed even to-day. And that is why I ask the privilege of coming before the House at this time, for I believe that no time should be lost, but that this government should get to work, locate this man, bring him to justice and expose his methods as a warning to the people of Canada, so that, as far as possible, a recurrence of these swindles may be prevented. We know that, so far as Mr. Sheldon is concerned, he is a free man today, and the government, apparently, are taking no means to locate him.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But they are.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) will tell us what they are doing.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Has not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) cited a section of the criminal law a moment ago under which Mr. Sheldon could be prosecuted? That is a question I ask the hon. gentleman.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) was going to answer a question. But if he is only going to ask questions that is a different matter. He has made a statement that the government, apparently, are taking action.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: With permission, I will answer that directly. The administration of the criminal law, from which the hon. gentleman has quoted, is in the hands of the provincial authorities, and the provincial authorities have taken action in this matter. There are warrants out and Sheldon is being followed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then, it amounts to
this: The hon. gentleman distinctly admits that, so far as the Dominion government is concerned, they have taken no action.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What action could the Dominion government take?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) knows full well that the government of Canada are all-powerful. Why should we be compelled, as it were, to delegate to the provinces a matter of this kind? I have cited authorities to show that the Dominion government have the power to follow this man and bring him back to justice. If they have not that power, we should get to work and amend the British North America Act, so that the Dominion government may have power in such matters as these. Sheldon, as we are aware, operated in all the provinces. The government should investigate this case and give it all the publicity possible. I wish to say further that, not only have the officials of the province of Quebec, as far as I can learn, been negligent in this matter, but the officials of Montreal also are deserving of the severest censure.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What about the Ontario government?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Devlin) himself shows that the provincial authorities of Quebec have been notified in regard to this matter, and that it is within the powrer of the provincial government of Quebec to prosecute this man. But the hon. gentleman knows full well that the Ontario government has no powers over the mails of Canada. He knows, also, that the post office authorities Mr. ARMSTRONG.
have been most lax in this regard. I merely wish to emphasize this again by saying that the Dominion government should appoint a public prosecutor without further delay to investigate, not merely questions such as this coming before the Post Office Department, but similar questions coming before all departments of this government. There are questions in regard to election campaigns -that should be handled by this prosecutor. I cannot condemn too strongly the inaction of the government in this matter.


William Findlay Maclean: The question raised by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) is on a similar footing to questions that I have raised in this House on former occasions. I contend that it is the duty of the federal authority to enforce federal law. And I am the more confirmed in that opinion because I find that, in some cases, we are doing it now. We enforce the Railway Act, we prosecute for infractions of the custom law and for crimes in connection with His Majesty's mails. There is a remarkable difference between the enforcement of federal law in Canada and the enforcement of federal law in the United States. In that country, when a federal law is passed, in order to protect the public, the law itself provides that it shall be the duty of the attorney general of the United States to enforce the law. And not only that, but every such law carries its own appropriation for its enforcement. This is true of the customs laws, the railway laws and the postal laws. The enforcement is not left to the state authorities. We read only last week of a case in which the post office inspectors of the United States raided a Wall street office, took the clerks, the typewriters and everything they could find, closed up the swindling concern and put the chief operators in jail. I contend on general grounds that if this parliament has power to make a law and does make a law, but does not enforce it, it is not doing its full duty, and is, in fact, an emasculated concern. I hope it will become more and more the rule, in accordance with what I have contended for in this House, that a federal law shall have provision for its own enforcement. For instance, we make election laws in this parliament in order to maintain purity of elections. If we do not ourselves enforce these laws we are not doing our duty. I commend to the attention of those concerned in this country the draughtsmanship of the federal laws of the United States, the directness and conciseness of expression. I commend to their attention, also, the wav in which these laws are enforced. The chief duty of the attorney general of the United States is the enforcement of the law. Furthermore, he is authorized to employ all kinds of legal as-

sistance and scientific experts, if necessary, to assist him. I remember being told in a similar case that I should go to the local authorities for enforcement of a law. I think that is altogether wrong, and that Acts made for the protection of the people should be enforced by the federal authorities, and in- cases of this kind by officers of the department. If anything wrong is being done in connection with the post office, the officers of that department should enforce the law, assisted by the attorney general of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the Postmaster General, or has he not, a right to intercept this man's mail, or any other mail sent by individuals in the form of posters, which, on the face of them, must be known to all intelligent people as of a fraudulent nature and likely to mislead the unwary, the result of which would be that they would be swindled out of their money? Has the Postmaster General the right to intercept such mail matter, and if so, were there reasonable grounds in this case for his taking action? Certainly he has the power to do so under the Post Office Act, if he thinks that a fraudulent business is being carried on by a firm or individuals. The hon. member for Lambton read an announcement that appeared in the ' Globe.' The interesting part of that to me is this: Was that put in the paper purposely as an advertisement for this firm? Now, if it appeared in a responsible and presumably respectable paper, without any adverse criticism, either in the editorial columns or otherwise, then I think in all fairness the paper ought to be held responsible for misleading the public, because no intelligent man on that staff, who read it, but must have known that the expectations of the individual set forth there could never be realized in the ordinary course of business, and it was his duty to prevent the public from being misled. If there is no adverse criticism in the paper, then I think the only conclusion that we can reach is that the paper is in league with the individual and helping him to swindle the public. I do not think, of course, that the government have anything to do with that, but I do not think it is very creditable to the newspaper.


Wilfrid Laurier: I followed the remarks of my hon. friend from East Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) as closely as I could, and jf I understand him aright, he took occasion of the Sheldon case to bring again before the House a proposition which I think was brought up on another occasion, namely, that the. federal government should appoint a public prosecutor. This idea has been taken up also by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), who has brought it to the attention of the House
more than once. To-night the hon. gentleman, enlarging upon the idea, stated that in his opinion the federal government should look after infractions of federal law. A good deal might be said in favour of that view, and I am free to say to my hon. friend that had it been my privilege to have anything to do with the framing of the British North America Act, I certainly would have endeavoured to frame it in that direction. That is a provision in the American constitution, but unfortunately our constitution has not been so framed.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Does not the federal government provide a department to lay informations and to prosecute for breaches of the federal laws?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from South York said that the federal government should look after infractions of federal law. I was going to say that in my opinion that would be a -proper policy. But I was also going to remark that in this respect the American constitution differed altogether from the Canadian constitution. The United States constitution has provided for federal courts to apply federal laws, and for state courts to apply state laws. Our constitution has provided only one class of courts, that is to say, provincial courts. All the laws of this country, whether enacted by the federal authority or by the provincial authorities, are administered by provincial courts.


William Findlay Maclean: We have some federal courts.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have no federal courts.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, in regard to navigation.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have a court of admiralty.


William Findlay Maclean: The Supreme Court has special jurisdiction, I think.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Supreme Court has special jurisdiction, it has also jurisdiction over provincial laws as well as federal laws. You can take an appeal from the provincial law in the province of Quebec that is an anomaly, and that anomaly has been enacted in our constitution. I do not think our system is the best one that could be devised, and I would have preferred if the fathers of confederation had followed the American system, and had established federal courts as well as provincial courts. But they have taken a different view, and we have only one system of courts, the provincial courts, which take cognizance of all laws, whether enacted by the federal or the provincial authorities. Therefore the view taken by my hon. friend is not logical. There is a good deal to be

said, however, in favour of having a public prosecutor, as they have in the United States, to look after offences against federal laws. I would be agreeable to that, but that is not in our constitution, and we have to apply the law as we have it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When a man violates the custom law, has not the Department of Customs power to fine him?


Wilfrid Laurier: There is nothing to prevent the federal government from enforcing its laws m the provincial courts, but we have only done so in rare instances. But my hon. friend who brought this matter before the House goes much further and he says it would be our duty to appoint a public prosecutor who should look after the enforcement of the Criminal Code. Now is there any reason for that? The only argument that he made for it was that Sheldon was at large. He argued as if Sheldon had not been prosecuted. But Sheldon has been prosecuted. There has been an information laid against him, a warrant has been issued against him, his case is before the courts of the province of Quebec. He has not yet been apprehended, but I understand that he is being followed, and that at any moment he may be found and extradition proceedings be taken against him. So if, in this instance, there had been a public prosecutor appointed by the federal government, it would not help the matter at all. The law in the province of Quebec has been in motion against Sheldon, a warrant has been issued against him. What more could the hon. gentleman desire? Whether that was done by the federal authority or by the provincial authority does not matter; the thing which the hon. gentleman wanted done has been done. Therefore, the hon. gentleman would be no further ahead than he is now, even if there had been in existence a public prosecutor appointed by the federal government. I think the hon. gentleman has been somewhat reckless in his statements. He has stated that in Cobalt and in the Porcupine district there is a notorious violation of the law.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am sure the right hon. gentleman does not wish to misinterpret my remarks. I would be very foolish to state that matters like this are being carried on in the Cobalt and Porcupine districts at the present time. What I meant was this:	I called attention to the fact
that a few years ago, in the Cobalt district, bogus companies weTe formed, plenty of them. The right hon. gentleman knows full well that in Gowganda there were lots of bogus companies formed and people were asked to subscribe two or three cents a share. The papers were full of all kinds of advertisements in connection with these matters. They were not investigated, these Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
men were not prosecuted and the same thing is true with respect to Porcupine. The Porcupine district is just being opened up and you can expect the same kind of manipulation there.


Wilfrid Laurier: I suppose my hon. friend has brought this statement before the House in order to justify the conclusion that I should be a public prosecutor. That is what he had in view. Is there not a public prosecutor in the province of Ontario to-day? What is he doing? There is a public prosecutor to-day in Ontario. My hon. friend apparently is pot satisfied with the way the law is being administered in Ontario, and he says we should appoint a public prosecutor to do what the public prosecutor in Ontario fails to do?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the public prosecutor have power to take up this Sheldon charge?


Wilfrid Laurier: There is a public prosecutor in Quebec, there is a public prosecutor in Ontario, but my hon. friend brought up this matter, about Gowganda, Porcupine and Cobalt, and he says that there were bogus companies organized, and that people were swindled out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. He brought this up in support of his argument that the time had come when the federal government should appoint a public prosecutor. Is there not a public prosecutor in Ontario? What is he doing? Does he allow people to be swindled out of hundreds of thousands? Does he want us to believe that he has no confidence in the government of Ontario ? I thought that Mr. Foy would have been sufficient for him. He pays us a great compliment-I do not object to it-but unfortunately we have been, up to the present time, depending upon the local government to do these very things. My hon. friend wants us to do that which should be done by the authorities of the province of Ontario. I have simply to tell him not to apply to us, but to go and ask his government, the government in which he has confidence, to do their duty as he thinks it ought to be done. But my hon. friend has also tried to read us a lesson which we do not deserve at all. The argument of my hon. friend has been based upon the charge that the postal authorities have failed to do their duty. If I understood him aright, he stated more; he stated that the postal authorities knew that Sheldon was filling the mails with illegal matter. That is a very strong statement, but my hon. friend has given no evidence to substantiate it. I do not think he can substantiate it, I do not think he can bring a tittle of evidence to show that the postal authorities knew what class of matter coming from the office of Sheldon

was going through the mails. If he has any evidence let him produce it, but I do not think he has any.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I ask the right hon. gentleman if the postal authorities had not received letters calling their attention to this matter, and if their attention was not called to the different papers that were exposing this fraud?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know whether it was or not; I take my information from the hon. gentleman. I am not the Postmaster General, I am acting in hi's absence, but I followed my hon. friend very closely, and if my hon. friend had any evidence that the post office authorities had received any such information I presume he would have brought it before the House. Therefore, I conclude from his silence that he had no such evidence before him, because he would not have been slow to have placed it before the House if he had known of it. The Postmaster General, as far as I know, had no such information. It is true that there were advertisements in the newspapers, posters and things of that kind. My hon. friend spoke of these, but he did not say that any evidence was placed before the post office authorities. But, if such evidence had come before the post office authorities what could they have done? The only thing they could have done was to have acted according to the law. The law does not give the department power to take any action. The only thing it can do, the moment any such information is brought to its attention, is to refuse the privilege of the mails to the parties who are guilty of such an offence. The law does not go any further, the law may be insufficient in that respect, it may be that my hon. friend is of the opinion that it should go further and that we should put in the law a provision which would give more power to the Postmaster General. But, at the present time the moment the Postmaster General has a suspicion-not only information, but a suspicion-or reason to believe that the matter posted is of an illegal character, he can close the mails to the parties so using them. I will quote to my hon. friend upon this point both the law and the regulations. Section 9 of the Post Office Act is as follows:
The Postmaster General may, subject to the provisions of this Act make regulations declaring what shall and what shall not be deemed to be mailable matter for the purposes of this Act, and for restricting within reasonable limits the weight and dimensions of letters and packets and other articles sent by post.
And so on. So, he can make regulations and the regulations are to be found in the book which is in the hands of every hon.
member. I quote from official postal guide, section 196:
If it be established to the satisfaction of the Postmaster General that any person is engaged or represents himself as engaged in the business of publishing any obscene or immoral books, pamphlets, pictures, prints, engravings, lithographs, photographs or other publications-or in the business of an illegal lottery, so called gift concerts, or other similar enterprise offering prizes or concerning schemes devised or intended to deceive or defraud the public for the purpose of obtaining money under false pretenses or in the business of selling or in any wise disposing of counterfeit money, or what is commonly called 'green goods,' or of drugs, medicines,-
And so on.
-and if such person shall in the opinion of the Postmaster General endeavour to use the post office for the promotion of such business, or if it be established to the satisfaction of the Postmaster General that any persons are using, or endeavouring to use the post office for any fraudulent purpose, then, in any such case it is hereby declared that no letter, packet, parcel, newspaper, book or other thing sent or sought to be sent through the post office by or on behalf of or to or on behalf of such person shall be deemed mailable matter.


Mr. HAGGART. (Lanark).: Is there no provision by which a person may be punished for using the mails for any such purpose ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, there is not. The only thing is, that the Postmaster General, if he has reason to believe that an illegal business of this kind is being carried on, generally notifies the Attorney General of the province to take such action as is deemed proper.


John Graham Haggart: Surely under the Code there is authority to take action against a party under these circumstances ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly, under the Code, but the Code is not within the power of the Postmaster General. The Code is to be applied by the provincial authorities. I would like to say to my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) that the career, of Sheldon in this country, has been rather short and spectacular. He came in and carried on for some time, a very doubtful business. There were people who believed what he said, and they were made victims, but he was found out, when found out he had to leave the country, and he cannot come back again, because he would render himself liable to prosecution. I do not think that the post office authorities are in any way to blame in regard to the question which the hon. gentleman has brought before the House.


William Findlay Maclean: I say it is possible, under the British North America



Act, to arrange for the enforcement of the Federal Law. If it is impossible, it is^ the duty of this parliament to have the British North America Act amended in that direction, but I can quite see the way out of it. Under the Postal Act, it shall be the duty of the Post Office Inspector to lay the information before the county crown attorney in any province, against all parties who do anything illegal in connection with the mail.


Wilfrid Laurier: It does not require a new provision of the law for that.


Mr. HAGGART. (Winnipeg).: If the facts which have been disclosed by the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), had been given in the answer which was given to the question placed upon the Order Paper by my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), this matter would not have been before the House perhaps in its present shape. You heard the question asked, and here is a part of the answer to which I refer:-
The department has no power to institute prosecutions in such cases, but. in all cases notifies the provincial authorities.
The statement that the department has no power to institute proceedings, is a stupid statement; it is not true, either in fact or in law. The department, or the officials of the department have ithe same power to institute proceedings as any other individual. The institution of criminal proceedings is the laying of an information, and this has been shown to be an indictable offence, under section '209 subsection (c) of the Criminal Code:-
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who posts for transmission or delivery by or through the post,

(c) any letter or circular concerning schemes devised or intended to deceive and defraud the public, or for the purpose of obtaining money under false pretenses.
Then following this up a little further, section 654 of the Criminal Code directs us as to the institution of criminal proceedings :-
Any one who, upon reasonable or probable grounds, believes that any person has committed an indictable offence under this Act may make a complaint or lay an information in writing and under oath before any magistrate or justice having jurisdiction to issue a warrant or summons against such accused person in respect of such offence.
The following sections go on to state that after inquiry the magistrate or justice shall issue his summons or warrant. Therefore, there was nothing to prevent the officials of the post office taking proceedings, and it was their duty when they became aware of Mr. MACLEAN (York.)
this to at once take proceedings, and not try to get out from under as they do in the answer given to this question. Just look at the position the poor Secretary of State would be in when trying to punish the guilty officials in his department if the government interpreted the law for him as they did in this case, and if they compelled him td refer these transactions in the Printing, Bureau to the inefficient government of Ontario for investigation. The government had full power, through their officials" to take proceedings in this matter, and, they ought to have taken them.


Mr. C. J. DOHERTY (St. Anne).: The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) has made it quite clear that it was in the power of this government to use the system of administration of justice provided by the provincial courts to prosecute for the infringement of Dominion legislation. There is another matter with regard to which I would like to say one word. I have followed very carefully the reading, by the Prime Minister, of the provision of the law which enables the Postmaster General to make regulations, and likewise the regulations which the Postmaster General made, and if I grasp it correctly, it is there specially provided that if the Postmaster General has reason to believe that any one is using the mails for swindling purposes, the Postmaster General may close; the mails to letters going to that swindler as well as to letters coming from him.. Are we to understand that the conferring of that power upon the Postmaster General imposes no duty on him? When it is a matter of public notoriety that a particular individual is spreading broadcast over this country through the mails, that he is prepared to receive people's money and earn for them as much as 50 per cent per month, are we to assume that the' Postmaster General is the only man in the country who has not the knowledge of these swindling operations. Sheldon was at particular pains to make known to everybody his pretensions, and' if not the Postmaster General personally certainly his representatives in the city of Montreal must have had knowledge of the transactions which Sheldon himself was at no pains to hide. Is the Postmaster General and is the government doing its duty now when they sit back and say: Oh. Sheldon has got away with the hundreds of thousands of dollars which he accumulated by means of letters circulated broadcast through the mails of Canada, we had no reason to suspect that he was carrying on his swindling operations through the mails and we have no responsibility in the matter. I believe that every man of fair common sense realized, when he saw these announcements of Sheldon, that there

must be a swindle at the bottom of it, and yet, this government, or the Postmaster General, who alone had power to protech the people, allowed his operations to be carried on, and now claim that it is for the provincial officers to look after Sheldon. I think the people will hold that the department of the Postmaster General is censurable for allowing Sheldon to continue his operations uninterruptedly for such a length of time.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the Prime Minister pardon me if I read to him section 101 of the British North America Act?
The parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, from time to time, provide for the constitution, maintenance, and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada, and for the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada.
Mr; EDWARDS. Inasmuch as this man Sheldon was operating in Montreal we may fairly assume that not only the Postmaster General was aware of his operations but that the members of parliament representing that part of the country were also aware. I would assume from what has been said by the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) that if no other person drew the attention of the Postmaster General to the matter, the hon. gentleman himself did, and, I would like to ask the Prinrn Minister if it is not a fact that the attention of the Postmaster General was drawn to the character of Sheldon's operations by the hon. member (Mr. Doherty) or by some of the other members of that city.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) can answer for himself, but I am not aware that the Postmaster General had received any information upon that subject. He may have, but I am not aware of it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member for St. Anne has not the slightest desire or ambition to usurp any of the functions that belong to those who are charged with the administration of the government of this Country. Further, the hon. member for St. Anne had every reason to assume, and did assume, that the Postmaster General and the post office authorities, and the government of this country, had just as full opportunity of knowing of this matter of public notoriety as had the member for St. Anne. Furthermore, I say that during the period of time during which the operations of this man Sheldon became most glaringly notorious, in fact I might safely say during the time at which the hon. member might have thought I would know something of the matter, I happened to be absent from the Dominion of Canada. I 44*
am not saying that by way of excuse ; I recognize no responsibility in my very humble capacity to take on myself to supervise the administration of criminal justice or to act as an informer for the convenience and information of any department of this government. When they choose to shut their eyes to matters of public notoriety and when they choose, having in their hands the power of prevention-and prevention in a matter of this kind is of vastly greater importance than prosecutions afterwards-to sit back and let things go on under their eyes, I respectfully submit that it is no exaggeration to say that they have a very large share in the responsibility for the wrong that was perpetrated by that man.


Jacques Bureau: If I understand rightly, the case is very simple. The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) states and I think it is true, that one Sheldon came to Montreal and swindled the people and that this man had decoys, as the hon. member calls them, in London, Hamilton and other places in Ontario.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: All over the Dominion.


Jacques Bureau: There Is no doubt that we are all in sympathy with the poor victims who have been swindled by this man Sheldon. There is no doubt also, as has been stated here by the member for St. Anne, (Mr. Doherty) and my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), that these very clever, far-seeing men who could read in the advertisements of Sheldon their criminal intent were not caught, but I must say, without any disparagement to any one, that certain very clever men and women have been caught, people who are far-seeing, who are accustomed to handling funds, and are used to financial matters. But the thing is done, the only remedy now, as suggested by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), is to punish the criminal. The one great jurisdictional pre-requisite before we can punish him is to get him-and we have not got him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why did you not go after him?


Jacques Bureau: We went after him, but we could not find him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You did not go after him.


Jacques Bureau: We went after him; I am surprised at my hon. friend speaking in that way. Hon. members have cited clause 209 of the Criminal Code under which a man is indictable for a criminal offence when he uses the mail for a certain purpose. It has not been shown that Sheldon has used the mails for that purpose. Nothing has been before this House to show

that Sheldon has ever sent an advertisement or a notice or a circular through the mails. You cannot get at the men who sent money to Sheldon in response to his advertisements. To charge the Post Office Department with being negligent in their duty, you must show that Sheldon has used the mails to defraud the people by sending through the mails some articles that come under the Criminal Code. I am satisfied that if I were to spend thousands and thousands of dollars in advertisements, as was done by Sheldon, I would not take the trouble to print a little circular that would be seen by no one and would probably be put in the waste basket, ana send it through the mail. The Prime Minister has said that he thought the member for East Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) has brought the question up for the purpose of raising again the question of appointing a public prosecutor. I am sorry-it very seldom happens-but I do not share the views of the Prime Minister. I think my hon. friend has brought up this question more for the purpose of getting a crack at the Post Office Department and at the deputy Solicitor General, as he calls him, whose duty he thought it was to enforce these laws. To show the animus, I may say that tne first campaign in Montreal against Sheldon was opened by the Montreal ' Herald,' and the first challenge to Sheldon to show up his books, and the first challenge accepted by any paper to put up $500 or $1,000 was by the Montreal ' Herald.' But the hon. member says that that paper published such articles as, if read by the people, would invite them to invest their money with Sheldon. Needless to say every one has discovered before this that the ' Herald ' is a Grit paper. On the other hand the Montreal ' Star,' is a Conservative paper, is there to protect the people and the Toronto ' Telegram,' which is not of the same faith as the Montreal ' Herald ' politically. The Post Office Department is guilty, according to these hon. gentlemen. I am surprised to hear the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) make the statement he does, saying that that department must have known what was glaringly apparent to every one and that he was not to play the part of public informer in this country. I repeat there were men and women of more than ordinary intelligence who were caught by Sheldon. There were people who hoped that this man might have some unknown way, some magic way, of coining money whereby they would get big and quick returns.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They must have been of extraordinary intelligence.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend might be surprised. People who might compare favourably with any member in this House were caught, and there were people from Mr. BUREAU.
St. Anne, I may say. My hon. friend from East Lambton brought this question up more with a political view than anything else. Why do I say so ? The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), knows very well that the criminal laws of this country, although enacted by this parliament, are enforced by the various provinces. He says:	Why did not the
province of Quebec take action ? The authorities of that province took action; the moment it was found out that Sheldon was defrauding the people, the warrant was issued and policemen and detectives were put on his tracks. He says that blame should be attached to the city of Montreal. I return the compliment. The hon. gentleman stated that these decoys of Sheldon ought to be arrested. What about the Ontario government getting after the decoys in London ? We in Quebec, have no jurisdiction over London. What about the Ontario government getting after the decoys in Hamilton ? If it was glaring and it was known to the public that men were being defrauded by agents of Mr. Sheldon, both in London and in Hamilton, I should judge it would be the duty of every man, especially of my hon. friend from East Lambton, if he knew the thing at the time, and he has so much at heart the protection of the people from these fakirs and men who are promoting wild cat schemes, to take the people's money, to take, some action. Why did he not inform the Attorney General of Ontario that there were men in Hamilton and in London, who were agents of Sheldon, and were advertising schemes whereby the people would be defrauded. I say there is no more blame to be thrown on the city of Montreal and on the people of Quebec, because Sheldon resided in Montreal, than is to be thrown bn those men, those far-seeing men, for not taking some action the first time they read the ' Globe,' which they would lead us to suppose, was the only paper that had an interview with Sheldon, about his modus operandi in making 30 per cent or 40 per cent or 50 per cent, and returning the money every two months. Why did they not go to the Attorney General and say that agents of this man were at work in their province ? I find it Tather queer, and I point this out, in order to substantiate my statement, that I think there is but little philanthropy in this motion on the part of my hon. friend, that the ' Globe ' is the only paper quoted, as having published Sheldon's advertisements. Why -is it that the ' Globe ' is the onlv paper which the hon. gentleman quoted ? Evidently, he did not give the quotation for the purpose of giving that newspaper a certificate of virtue. Evidently what the hon. gentleman is seeking, is not the public good, but some petty party advantage. If this matter had been brought up by my hon.

friend for the purpose of showing the necessity of our having a public prosecutor or remedying some deficiency in the administration of justice and protecting the people against wild cat speculation, one could give him credit for public spirit, but that evidently was not the motive which actuated him. Before throwing the blame on the post office department, he should show that the mails were actually used by Sheldon. You cannot prosecute the man who receives a letter from the post office.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Could not the Postmaster General, under the regulations, have intercepted, not only letters from Sheldon, but letters addressed to him?


Jacques Bureau: No man can intercept my correspondence unless he has good reasons for supposing that I am carrying on an illicit correspondence.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: Were not the advertisements good reasons?


Jacques Bureau: The advertisements did not go through the mail.
the authorities of their nefarious character. It is these gentlemen who are the accessories and not the Post Office Department. If you want to remedy an evil, you must bring it to the notice of the authorities. If my hon. friend claims that this was per se an advertisement to defraud, he was derelict in his duty when he did not denounce it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Did the hon. gentleman see the advertisement?


Jacques Bureau: I read it when the Herald ' correspondence was published, but I was not so keen as to detect fraud at first sight, and I waited for an investigation. My hon. friend will admit that if he himself saw fraud in it, he should have laid a complaint. I was not at all sure that there was fraud. It is my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) and my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) who are to blame, and not the Post Office Department. If the Post Office Department found that Sheldon had beeln using the mails for fraudulent purposes
n-r-wl Vi orJ oalrorl mo in SPP t.VlH.t. t.TlP fi.t.tiOTTlGV


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The replies were sent to Sheldon in answer to his advertisements.


Jacques Bureau: We could not tell whether they were or not.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: You could examine the letters.


Jacques Bureau: If the hon. member for North Ontario is going to lay down the principle that when a man publishes an advertisement-


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: A fraudulent advertisement.


Jacques Bureau: You are going on the theory that the advertisement is in itself an evidence of fraud. But if these advertisements were evidently fraudulent, how_ easily people were caught by them, and it was for these gentlemen, who saw these advertisements, to go to the attorney general of Ontario and call on him to take action.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: We were waiting for the Solicitor General to do something.


Jacques Bureau: The Solicitor General has absolutely no more to do with the administration of the criminal justice in this province than has my hon. friend from North Ontario. I was, perhaps, not in as good a position to judge as my hon. friend, because I was kept here in Ottawa attending to my duties.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, oh.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman may sneer, but the onus is on those who read these advertisements and did not inform
genera] of the province of Quebec laid information and had a warrant issued, I would have done so, but it is not the Solicitor General's duty to read advertisements in the newspapers or instruct the post office authorities whether or not the mails contain illegal or fraudulent matter. I have no more responsibility, as far as the execution of the criminal law is concerned, than the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr.* Armstrong).


John Graham Haggart: Having been at one time Postmaster General, I thought that I had some knowledge of the rules and regulations governing that important department. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau) avoids the question altogether. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has tried to explain it. The charge made by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) is that a series of frauds were being perpetrated through the mails with the knowledge of the whole community, and neither the Solicitor General nor the Post Office Department took any cognizance of them. The right hon. the Prime Minister says we have no jurisdiction, that our constitutional authority differs from that of the United States, and that, under the federal system in the United States, there is an attorney general and a fund for such prosecutions, which we have not. Well, we know that the United States government are very careful to prevent the use of the mails for improper purposes and to punish those who so use them. Here, it is argued, that the enforcement of the law is in the hands of our provincial authorities, and this government has no jurisdiction. Sir, the enforcement of the law and

the initiation of proceedings lie with this government. Where the mails are being used for fraudulent purposes the Post Office Department should institute proceedings. That department should lay the information. Has it done anything in this matter? It was to the knowledge of every man in the community at large that our people were being swindled and that our mails were being used to promote this swindling, and nothing whatever was done. The onus of taking proceedings was left to private individuals or the provincial [DOT]authorities. That is simply a farce. When our postal system is being used in any way for the purposes of crime it is for our Post Office Department itself to institute proceedings. Information, if necessary, is obtained, and the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice, or the Postmaster General takes proceedings. The provincial authorities mav be used for the purpose of carrying out the law, but that is only a form of proceeding, the initiative rests with this government. I at first thought that the Solicitor General was giving the House to understand that he had done something, but when I listened carefully to him I found that the only thing done was the issue of a warrant at the instance of the attorney general of the province of Quebec -and a warrant, not for any crime committed against the Code, not for anything against the regulations of the Post Office Department at all. No, but for a crime against citizens of the province of Quebec -either theft or something else analogous, for swindling, but for the crime of utilizing His Majesty's mails, no action was taken. Whoever is at the head of the Post Office Department is responsible to see that nothing goes through the mails for the purpose of swindling. When any of these wrongs is committed it is the duty of the Post Office Department to initiate proceedings and bring the parties to punishment. And the responsibility of taking action rests upon the department; there is no reason to throw upon private parties the duty of calling the attention of these officers to these notorious crimes. Every one in the community knew that a crime was being perpetrated, and it was the duty of the government to prevent it.


Jacques Bureau: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) will allow me a question. He goes on the assumption that the mails were being used by Sheldon for this purpose. Is there any evidence of that before the House other than that produced by the hon. member for East Lambton?


John Graham Haggart: It was notorious that the mails were being thus used. I drew my information from what I saw in the newspapers, and from the statement of mv hon. friend from East Mr. HAGGART (Lanark.)
Lambton and others that circulars were issued to all parts of the country with statements that could not be other than fraudulent. And as a result of these circulars and of letters sent through the mails, people are induced to make investments of this kind.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This case as it was presented to the House by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) is certainly a serious one, but I am bound to say that its seriousness, from the public standpoint, is greatly added to by the extraordinary position, as it appears to me, taken by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the still more extraordinary position taken by the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau). It is quite manifest that the mails of this country were used contrary to a section of the Criminal Code which I need not read to the House again. That section clearly made a crime of that which was done. The position of the Prime Minister, apparently-and I hops if I am wrong he will correct me, for the public should not be left in doubt on this understanding on this question-is that, in case of crimes against the post office, the railways and canals, the marine and fisheries, the interior or any other public service of this country, no prosecution is to be made unless some ordinary individual will apply to the provincial authorities. And when he applies, what is he to say? Why, that crimes are being committed against the property of the Dominion of Canada, against the administration of affairs.


Jacques Bureau: Nobody ever said that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) can speak if he wishes to. I am stating what seems to me the necessary inference from what was stated by the Prime Minister and by himself.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, no.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Oh, yes. The Prime Minister asked why my hon. friend from East Lambton did not go to the Attorney General of the .province of Ontario and complain. Complain about what? About the use of the mails contrary to the regulations of the department and the Criminal Code. And yet both the mails and the Criminal law are matters under Dominion jurisdiction. If a registered letter is stolen in the city of St. Catharines, for instance, who prosecutes the thief? Does somebody who happens to hear of it prosecute the man? Does the man who sent the letter prosecute? No ; the post office inspector comes and lays the information. When a portion of the Welland canal was blown up with dynamite a few years ago, who prosecuted the criminals? Did this government leave it to the Attorney Gen-

eral of Ontario-the office then being occupied by a political friend of their own? Who prosecuted these men and had them sent to penitentiary for life for this heinous offence against the property of the King represented by the Dominion government? If on the Intercolonial a train were wrecked by gross criminal action, would this government have us understand that the Attorney 'General of the province in which the wreck took place would be left to prosecute the criminal? Yet, that would be the logical result of what the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General say. A crime is committed, but these gentlemen say they do not know that they can prove it. How are they to begin to prove it until they arrest the man? The Prime Minister and the Solicitor General say, in effect, that they can do nothing until the man is arrested. But how is the man to be arrested? Would these hon. gentlemen wait until the man comes in at their door and says : ' I have committed an offence against this country and I have come here to make sure that you shall not be embarrassed in prosecuting me? ' When a crime has been committed, somebody lays an information. And who ought to lay it if not the officer whose business it is to prevent infraction of the law? Why, the answer of the government in this case is no answer at all, because they are saying they cannot do in this case what it is quite common for them to do in many similar cases. Talk about subterfuges ; talk about special reasons for bringing matters before this House-if the Solicitor General wishes to talk in that way, I think he should talk into the looking-glass. If the Solicitor General has any duties-and you would think from the way he talks here that he had not, for he said it was not his duty to do this and not his duty to do that-it would seem that his principal duty is to find fault with those who wish to have this government do its duty in the enforcing of the law. Is swindling to be carried on through the mails controlled by the Dominion government because the provincial government, which has nothing to do with the mails, does not prevent it? If a citizen went to Mr. Foy, the Attorney General of Ontario, and asked him to prosecute this man, Mr. Foy would tell him that some one must lay an information. And who is to lay that information? If the officers of the Post Office Department do not lay that information, would not that fact make the man who laid it more or less liable to action for malicious prosecuton, he having acted when he was not called upon by any official duty?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Would the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) please repeat that?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My hon. friend (Mr. Devlin) may or may not know, but, if
not, I may as well tell him once for all, that in the case of a suit for malicious prosecution, a difference is made between the man who is a trustee or who has a duty to perform in prosecuting and a butter-in who lays an information which he is not bound to lay. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is a lawyer or _ not, but I do not mind giving him that information ; and I hope he will not ask me silly questions any more. If the Solicitor General will consider the matter and try to find some duty to perform, he will see that the officers of this government ought to act in these matters, and not leave it to an informer who has no trust for the people to discharge.


Jacques Bureau: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, half a dozen.


Jacques Bureau: He assumes that the mails are being used for illegal purposes. Is there any evidence of that other than that which was adduced by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong)?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Suppose the hon.
member for East Lambton had made the statement that there were fifty or sixty members present in this House now. The Solicitor General might say that there was no evidence of this except the statement of the hon. member. The fact is manifest. And so, in this other case, it is open, notorious, admitted by everybody, who has spoken on this subject, and by the very advertisement the hon. gentleman produced. How did they go? By flying machine? Did they go by telephone? Did they go by telegraph? How did these newspapers and these swindling circulars go from one place to another? Was it by a flying machine? was it by telegraph? was it by telephone? was it by a windmill? by a sailing boat? what was it that carried, them except His Majesty's mail?


Mr. NESBITT.: How does the hon. gen. tleman know that these advertisements were a fraud? He cannot know, for the man ran away. Did he know at the time they were a fraud?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My hon. friend will take note that the language of the advertisements is untrue. The Solicitor General says that they deceived intelligent people. If' they deceived only half-witted people they would not be half so fraudulent as they were in deceiving intelligent people like the hon. gentleman who has just asked me the question, and like the Solicitor General. But they were so fraudulent, so absolutely condemnable, so tricky and well conceived in their iniquity that they deceived all the generous minded, liberal minded and intelligent members of the Do-

minion cabinet, including the Solicitor General, and they caused a lot of people to be swindled. I do not speculate myself I have no money to do it with; and besides I think it is stupid; I do not know if any one in this House did in this case. But it is notorious, and was notorious at the time, that the Solicitor General got his political friends in the province of Quebec to do something. I am saying that when it is a federal matter the Solicitor General ought to have attended to it himself; and he had no right to ask the provincial authorities of Quebec, who might or might not be looking at it in the same way as he did, to prosecute in a federal matter, and- to get out of all responsibility in the House here by saying that he did something, and I suppose he meant the Dominion government, or the department. But it turned out -afterwards that the Dominion government did nothing, but that their political friends in Quebec did do something. That is to say, after the horse had been stolen, they went and locked the door so that the horse could not come back and get in again; that is all. But these mails were being used, they were being used improperly, it turns out that they had been used improperly for a long time, and there came a time when my hon. friend's own political friends in the province of Quebec, according to his own statement, saw that they were being used improperly, and they attempted to arrest the man after he had left the country.
But I am pointing out here that this is not the defence the Prime Minister put up in answer to the hon. member for East Lambton. The Prime Minister endeavoured to lay down the principle that in any case it was the duty of the provincial authorities to prosecute. He gave us to understand that, unfortunately, our system was not as good a system as they have to the south of us, he thinks that, unfortunately, we are trammelled, we are more or less tied up and shackled by the want of a new constitution, in order, forsooth, that a Postmaster General may arrest somebody who interferes with the mails. Now, what is meant by prosecuting a man? It is not done by the authority in the province of Quebec which appoints a crown attorney or crown counsel, who acts under a jury system. The gist of a prosecution is that some one shall lay an information and cause the man to be arrested and put upon his trial, who shall take the responsibility of seeing that that man is thoroughly tried, and if found guilty is punished, and who shall also become responsible for all the expenses connected with the prosecution? Was that done in this case? Not one iota of an attempt was made by any department of the Dominion government to do anything of the kind, and no apology is offered by the Prime Minister, who says Mr. LANCASTER.	j
practically to the people of this country: That is all you can expect from us, as long as we hold the reins of power, in regard to frauds and crimes against Dominion laws. Now, my hon. friend the Solicitor General made one or two references in which I do not think the Canadian people will agree with him. They had no power, he said, except to refuse the mails; the Prime Minister said so too. They make regulations, but they have no power except to refuse the mails to these people. Now. they have the power to investigate to see whether a crime has been committed.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What crime ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The crime -that this man committed, a great many crimes that he committed. Does my hon. friend want me to read him a lecture on the Criminal Code ? I am satisfied that I could put my finger upon fifteen or twenty crimes laid down in the Criminal Code that this man had committed, and a good many of them especially against the Dominion laws. In a criminal case, it is not the individual wronged, who has the right to prosecute. The crime is committed against the whole nation. If my hon. friend is wronged, if he is cheated, if his money has been stolen from him, the crime under British law, is not against him alone, it is against the whole nation, it is against the government who are the trustees of the people, and who are supposed to protect -the public at large against such crimes. Now the Solicitor General said he had a good deal of sympathy for these poor victims, they were* intelligent people, but that the thing was done, and -he had to get his man first. He had a good deal of sympathy for these poor victims, Mr. Speaker, sympathy from -a Solicitor General is not what the people are expecting, it is not what he is supposed to give. He -is expected to apply the law, pursuant to his title as Solicitor General. We can all have sympathy, without being Solicitors General or prosecuting attorneys. What is expected from the Solicitor General is not sympathy, but it is some action against the criminal.


Jacques Bureau: There was no wrong manifest upon which he could be punished.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the Solicitor General mean to say there was no wrong?


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman makes the whole argument on the assumption that there has been a crime against the Act, which provides that the mails shall not be used for any other than a legal purpose. There is absolutely no evidence of such a crime.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The inference is irresistible.


Jacques Bureau: Inference.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Let me put this to the Solicitor General, if he does not know how the inference is irresistible. If somebody pointed a pistol at his head, ten feet away from him, and shot him, no one would see the bullet hit him. But because the man drew the trigger, and because the bullet was found in the hon. gentleman's head, the inference is, that he was shot by the man who pulled that trigger. So the inference is just as plain here, that the mails were used for that improper purpose. If the Solicitor General will read the elements of criminal law, he will find out what an irresistible inference is. When somebody is hit by somebody else and dies as a result, a jury will easily recognize the criminal. But in this case, the Solicitor General says there is no evidence. Did he have an investigation to see whether any crime was committed? Did he do anything to see whether there was a law to be enforced? He says: Why did we not inform the attorneys general of the different provinces and let them take action? Why did not the Solicitor General himself inform the Attorneys General of the different provinces and see that they took action?
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was endeavouring, subject to various interruptions about which I am not complaining at all for they all tend to let tne facts be more clearly elucidated, to point out what struck me as being the duty of the government in all such matters as these. As I was pointing out it is probably too late to do anything in this particular case. But, we ought to learn by experience, and if the government had, either through the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General, given us to understand-as I have found the government to do on more than one occasion during the last ten years in which my constituents have honoured me with a seat in this House-that they were sorry that this had happened and that they would take care that it does not happen again, we would have been inclined to say: Very well, mistakes will happen, even in the best regulated families, accidents will occur and misdeeds will take place. But, we had the Prime Minister, before six o'clock getting up and explaining that there was no reason why any complaint should be taken in this matter and practically saying that my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) who, in my humble opinion, has acted in the best interests of the people of this Dominion, was wasting the time of the
House in bringing this matter up. I know of no more important question than that of the general application of the doctrine which I was endeavouring to elucidate before six o'clock, if you can call it a doctrine or principle, or whatever the word may be which I, for want of sufficient ability, am not able to correctly express, or to find in the dictionary at this moment, to properly signify than that it is the duty of the government to prosecute people who make an improper use of the chances that may occur to them with regard to the various departments of the government. There can be no doubt but that an improper use was made of His Majesty's mails with regard to the wrong, the criminal action of this man Sheldon.
The Solicitor General does not know that there was any evidence upon which the man could be convicted. The Solicitor General did not try to find out whether there was any. I apprehend that with his ability, with his well known ingenuity, his great acumen in all these matters, without which I do not doubt for a minute that the Prime Minister would not honour him with the position which he holds as Solicitor General of this great country, the Solicitor General put forward the best defenee he could oh behalf of the government. It is notable, it is deplorable that in the whole defence which he put forward he did not pretend to say that he had made any investigation, that he had made any inquiry to ascertain whether there was any ground upon which to substantiate a case. But he _ apparently thinks that he was doing his " whole duty when he gave the country to understand that in so far as he knew, without any investigation having been made, without any proof having been presented to him, there was no reason for putting any one upon his trial. The hon. gentleman lives not far from the city of Montreal, he is able to understand and speak eloquently in both languages, he is able to understand the newspapers printed in both languages, and I have no doubt he reads the Montreal ' Daily Star.' Let me point out a date here which is significant. On the 11th October, and not until the 11th October, did this man Sheldon leave Montreal. Upon Monday the third day of October, eight days before he went away, within a distance of three hours travel by railway from this city, where the departments carry on their business, where the Solicitor General has his residence, where his office is, where the Postmaster General lives, and where the Post Office Department is administered, in the city of Montreal, this paper is published daily. On Monday the third of October it had this in large type so that it would attract attention, so that any body who could read at all could see it no matter if he were half blind:

Sheldon can make a wad of 512 millions.
If he takes $1,000,000 and makes 30 per cent a month for two years.
Flurry on Saturday owing to a rumour that proves to be correct.
A rumour which spread around the city on Saturday and caused quite a flurry among C. D. Sheldon's clients, was to the effect that Mr. Sheldon had been ' stung' as a result of the raid upon the Schaftels bucket shop in New York.' .
I might remark in passing that that was a bucket shop that was raided by the authorities in New York because of a bad, wicked, felonious and criminal use that they were making of their position in order to defraud the citizens of the neighbouring republic. I proceed to read:
One man at least, withdrew his account from the Sheldon office on the strength of it, but the ' Star ' learned to-day from a man who does business with Mr. Sheldon, that ho had no connection whatever with the Schaftels crowd. In fact, he stated that no broker in Montreal did business with Schaftels as the house had been in bad odour for some time, and a raid or collapse such as took place has been more or less anticipated.
Lots doing.
The end of the month is always a busy time around the Sheldon offices over the City and District Savings Bank, and there was plenty doing there Saturday.
One of Sheldon's clients who came out grasping a cheque for his profits stated that 25 per cent was the amount paid in September.
Judging from the tales Sheldon's agents, friends and boomers were telling about his scoop in power stock everybody was expecting a record month, but evidently the scooping power, like the circus, was not up to the advertisement.
Mr. Sheldon evidently does not do business with a bank as his cheques are drawrn on a St. James St. money exchange.
Millions to Burn.
Mr. Sheldon's agents claim he does $1,000,000 worth of business a month and pays an average of about 30 per cent a month.
Suppose he has $1,000,000, keeps it and adds SO per cent each month to the wad for two years.
The amount compounded reaches the pleasing total of $542,800,605.
Think of it; 542 millions.
It makes John D. Rockefeller look like a cripple in a poor house.
Next day Mr. Sheldon may light his furnace with million dollar cheques.
Did the Solicitor General ever read that? It is on the first page of the MontreaJ ' Daily Star ' of Monday October 3. Let me tell the Solicitor General that every day from this time until the 11th October, was before the horse ran away. This was before the unfortunate locking of the stable Mr. LANCASTER.
door took place. Did my hon. friend read that? If he did not he ought to have read it.
Think of it, 542 millions.
It makes John D. Rockefeller look like a cripple in a poor house.
Next year Mr. Sheldon may light his furnace with million dollar cheques.
Did the Solicitor General not suppose that some of the poor people of Canada were being swindled; did he suppose that money could be honestly made in that way? Had he investigated he would have obtained such letters as I have in my hand signed by this man Sheldon in Montreal and addressed to a man in Aylmer, Ontario. Part of the offence took place in Quebec and part in Ontario, and both provinces are under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General, in criminal matters, but the attorney general of Ontario has no jurisdiction to prosecute in Quebec and the attorney general of Quebec has no jurisdiction in Ontario. We on this side of the House are not solicitors general but we recognize we have a duty to perform to the public, even though we have only the ordinary indemnity of members of parliament and not the special stipend that the Solicitor General gets as watch-dog of the people's rights. The Solicitor General is a sort of member of the cabinet; he might perhaps be more correctly described as a tyler at the door of the cabinet, partly in and partly out, but still getting $5,000 a year specially. If this debate accomplished nothing else it may draw from the government some declaration of the duties of the Solicitor General, and he himself having told us to-day that this was not his duty and that was not his duty and the other thing wras not his duty, if you take nothing from nothing you will still have nothing left for the Solicitor General to do. The members on this side of the House are not upon the government benches and they cannot censure post office officials who have neglected their duties, and they have not a force at their disposal to find out if the law has been infringed, but yet in this case they got plenty of evidence to stop this fraud in time if they had that power. I have here a letter written by Sheldon in Montreal to a man in Aylmer, Ontario.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: And which went through the mails.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes. It is dated July 16, 1910, and one paragraph of it* says:-
That party invested $600 in January, 1909. From that he has drawn more than $6,000 since and he still has several times his original investment.

Why, even an ordinary school boy, without being a solicitor general at all and/ without having the more than ordinary ability which is supposed to grace the holder of that office; why, even a school boy would _say on the basis of that statement, that Sheldon was a liar, that he was obtaining money under false pretenses for which he was liable to go to jail for fourteen years. If the Solicitor General put Sheldon on trial before a jury would he have any doubt that he would obtain a conviction? He may say that he did not know of that letter, but on October 3 the ' Star ' newspaper told him that this thing was going on, and from October 3 until Sheldon departed the ' Star ' newspaper kept at it and the Solicitor General could easily have proven that this man was committing fraud. Seriously, is not the Solicitor General ashamed of having said that only the attorney general of the province could deal with this matter? Sections 404 and 405 of the Criminal Code tell -what fraudulent purposes are, and section 209, subsection (e) says that what Sheldon did was a fraudulent purpose, and the Solicitor General knows full well that under these sections of the Code he would have an unanswerable case against Sheldon. If I were counsel for that man I could do nothing else but advise him to plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the court; oh, no, I would throw him on the mercy of the Solicitor General or the Prime Minister, because the court would say that the prisoner should not be allowed to escape punishment and the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister have allowed him to escape. The frauds. The frauds perpetrated by Sheldon were a direct infraction of the law with regard to the mails of this country, which are controlled by the Dominion authorities and with which the provincial authorities have nothing to do.
The Solicitor General asks how I know Sheldon used the mails for that purpose. Letters are not sent by airship or by telephone or by telegraph or by subterranean cable, they are sent through the mail-and if this is not a fraudulent use of the mail, I would like to know what the Solicitor General would consider a fraudulent use Had this been acted on this man would have been put upon his trial and would have been prosecuted by the Dominion government with all its resources, with its Dominion police and its force of detectives. If $25 was stolen from our office and I did not prosecute the thief, I would be quickly told I was derelict in my duty in not instituting proceedings and seeing that the offence was proved and the guilty person punished. If I failed to do so, I would not be setting a proper example to my family and to those employed in my office. But here the Solicitor General, who ought to
know these things are going on against the Post Office Department, says, not that he looked into it, and found that he could not succeed in the prosecution, but that the government of Ontario or Quebec should enter upon the prosecution. In this case, a man in Montreal, by using the mails, induced a man in Aylmer to send money to him by fraudulent representations contained in that letter. Part of the offence was committed in Montreal and part in Aylmer, in two different provinces. Who will say that this is a sufficient excuse for the government not prosecuting for the fraudulent use of the mails ? It has been said in the press that by his operations, Sheldon could have made Rockefeller look like a cripple in a poor house. The prosecution of such a man should be undertaken, not by an individual, but by some authority with great wealth and power, like the Dominion government. If some poor fellow committed a breach of the fishery law, or interfered with the Indians up north, he would De prosecuted by the Dominion government, and landed in prison. If he could prove that he would vote for the Laurier government, I do not, of course, know what would happen. I am not pretending to draw the inference that Sheldon is a Grit, but I would repeat the remark of a counsel in Hamilton, that he would not say that every Grit was one of this kind, but he never saw one of this kind who did not vote for the Grit party. It makes one think the Laurier government does not care much, and will not act in these cases, unless somebody, who is not concerned as much as they are, will come and lay the information and undertake the burden of prosecuting. I do not know what would happen after the man was prosecuted and convicted. I am reminded that Bill Miner escaped, nobody knows how, nobody tried very hard to find out. He got out, and the Dominion government does not hesitate to pass estimates to leave some poor fellow in jail in Kingston, who, under stress of excitement, might strike another, and be sentenced for two or three years, because he was not Sheldon and could not make Rockefeller look like a cripple in a poor house and he stays there. I have an instance in my own district. A young man of 18, went out for a holiday near Dunnville, he hired a horse, he spent his pocket money and was afraid to return the horse, because he had not enough to pay its hire for more than the one day. He kept it for three days, went around among some of his school fellows and foolishly took it home with him. He was sent down for two years. I wanted to get him home for Christmas, but I have not been able to do so. Of course, I am not finding fault with the judge who sent him to prison for horse-stealing, but I would like to know what you have to do to get the ear of the

Solicitor General or his deafness. There was a very significant deafness in the case of the Montreal ' Star.' That paper was not using a megaphone, but it was printing in large type what Sheldon was doing and had been publishing it for eight days before Sheldon went away, and if the Solicitor General had inquired at all, he would have found that Sheldon's course was the most fraudulent use of His Majesty's mails. The Postmaster General, I am told, was not in the country, but the Deputy Minister was, and there are many post office inspectors. If some young fellow purloins a registered letter or even an unregistered letter, who lays the information? Not the Hon. J. J. Foy, not the Whitney government, or any of their officials, or the officials of any province, but the Dominion post office inspector, who insists on the boy being punished. It must be clearly understood for all time, that although the provincial authorities control the courts in summoning juries, appointing sheriffs, selecting Crown counsel, &c., the Dominion government always, where it sees fit to do so, prosecutes and lays information in regard to crimes against the Dominion government, or against the machinery of any department operated by the Dominion government.
Why should not this man have been apprehended by the Dominion authorities? Who would find fault with them if they had apprehended him? Who would feel insulted or snubbed or hurt in his feelings because he was not allowed the esteemed privilege of prosecuting this man Sheldon who would make, as the Montreal ' Star ' said, John D. Rockefeller look like a cripple in a poor house? I never heard of any body who would find fault with the Dominion government for laying that information, or object one minute to their prosecuting this man. What will the good people of this Dominion think of our Prime Minister who tells us, as the right lion, gentleman did this afternoon, that this Dominion government has nothing whatever to do with prosecuting people and enforcing the law, but has only to do with the making of laws. Rob the post office and customs houses, blow up the Welland canal, blow up the Georgian Bay canal if it ever be built, put into the Newmarket canal, if you can find sufficient water to cover them, all the ballot boxes containing Conservative ballots-do anything you like, the Dominion government will not prosecute. If you are to be prosecuted, that must be done by the provincial attorney general. That is the slogan, I suppose, for the next elections. Deal in every malicious, criminal, improper practice you can think of, you need have no fear of the Dominion government. Only stand in with the attorney general of the Dominion, and you will never be prosecuted. If I have Mr. LANCASTER.
drawn a wrong inference-and I know the Solicitor General does not like inferences, because he told us so this afternoon-I am very sorry, but human nature is such that I am bound to use what little common sense I am blessed with and my limited intelligence


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Those who are laughing, laugh because they have not sufficient intelligence to do anything else. There is a certain animal that can laugh and do nothing else; there is a certain other animal that can bray and do nothing else; and judging from the arguments we had from them this afternoon, there is a menagerie on that side of the House. Before proceeding further, I should like to emphasize again the point I am endeavouring to make. The affairs of the country require to be carried on with something else than laughs and brays. When we have to listen to the arguments that the Dominion government is powerless to enforce its own laws, but has to leave their enforcement to the discretion of the attorneys general of the provinces, or to private individuals, then we can only conclude that every member of parliamenttaking the argument of the Solicitor General-will have to take up that hon. gentleman's duties and do for this overworked and highly paid attache of the cabinet, what he is helpless to do himself.


Mr. BOYCE.: As I listened to the reply made by the hon. the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau) to the very serious charges brought against his administration, my thoughts were carried back to the days when I listened to comic opera, and when one particular ditty impressed itself very cogently upon my youthful imagination and musical propensities.
When constabulary duty's to be done,
A policeman's lot is not a happy one.
Those lines very happily hit off the condition of the Solicitor General. When there is question of policing the rights and wrongs of the people of Canada, his lot, and that of his government, is anything but a happy one. When the people of Canada are outraged, when their money is stolen by devices so barefaced that only the helpless could be taken in by them, we have our Solicitor General, speaking for the Department of Justice, declaring that in order to get redress we must go to the attorney general of Ontario, and not to this government. Although our laws prohibit the use of the mails by any one for improper purposes, yet our Solicitor General tells us that this government is absolutely helpless to enforce that law, that its hand is paralysed, and that, no matter 1 what may be the infractions of that law.

our Justice Department can do nothing and we must seek a remedy at the hands of the provincial government. The hon. the Solicitor General tried to fasten all the responsibility upon the attorney general of the province of Ontario. How great is that responsibility, especially when that attorney general happens to be a Conservative. Were he a Liberal, his responsibilities would not be nearly so great. But such was not always the case. There is a reverse side. As the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) said: You ask them to sing ' Rule Britannia and they sing ' Kathleen Mavourneen ' because it creates more ' divarsion '. Let me remind the right hon. the Prime Minister and I shall not go back 20 years or 10 years or even one year.
I "will go back only six months. I want to talk to that right hon. gentleman face to face about the facts that have been brought out in this House and that are on our records. What happened with regard to the prosecution of Messrs. King and Skill in Toronto for the use of the mails for obscene and filthy literature? Was the advice of the Solicitor General taken there? Yes, taken to the full. The government went to the attorney general of Ontario. The Post Office Department complained, the Gustoms Department complained, that Messrs. King and Skill were using His Majesty's mails for the purpose of conveying obscene and filthy literature contrary to the Criminal Code and to the postal and customs laws. The attorney general of Ontario promptly prosecuted, Messrs. King and Skill, after several adjournments, pleaded guilty. Then the matter came before the Justice Department represented by the Solicitor General. And, notwithstanding that the Post Office Department had prosecuted, notwithstanding that the Customs Department had complained, notwithstanding that independent investigation had shown that the literature complained of was filthy and obscene, notwithstanding that the men had pleaded guilty, my hon. friends' (Mr. Bureau's) department pardoned these men and freed them from custody. Mr. Speaker, that is what we get for taking the dictum of the Solicitor General and going to the attorney general of Ontario, so long as the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister have their hands on the controlling lever, the pardoning power. Yet the Solicitor General comes here to-day and tells us to repeat this. Do the same thing with Sheldon, he says, and we will repeat the trick. These men were Liberals, and they were got out by the recommendation of Liberal politicians, men holding Liberal positions in Liberal organizations. And the literature was put right under the nose of the Prime Minister by a deputation of clergymen, and I defy the right hon. gentleman
to say that that literature was not filthy and obscene. This sort of thing has been going on from time to time. And I say that great credit is due to the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), who has brought this to the attention of the government and to the hon. gentlemen who have supported him. This is not a case that is to be laughed out of court. But I say with all due respect to the office of the Solicitor General that, in my opinion, that hon. gentleman did not treat this matter with the gravity it deserved. I do not think he treated the legal aspect of it with the depth and wisdom that one would expect from a gentleman occupying his position. On the contrary, he was rather facetious on the whole subject, and seemed inclined to resort to the very questionable method of laughing it out of court. It is a very pitiful exhibition of weakness if this government, from the Prime Minister down, is to take the position that there is a law on the statute-book of Canada which this government is incapable of enforcing as against offenders. Under the rule laid down, I can rob the mails, I can make use of the mails to disseminate filthy and obscene literature, such as has been put under the nose of the Prime Minister himself, I can import that literature through the mails, in defiance of the customs law and the postal law, with absolutely no result, because the Justice Department of this government will pardon the offender if he be of the right political stripe. That sort of thing cannot continue; the people of Canada will not tolerate it. The people of Canada expect the government to be in a position to enforce its laws and that it shall have the vigilance and the moral force, when it sees an infraction of the law, to bring the criminals to justice.
We hear a great deal about locking the stable door after the horse has been stolen, as exemplified year after year bv the actions of this government. Three or four sessions ago we had a very clear instance of it in the Department of the Interior. A great deal of timber had been disposed of by the Department of the Interior in a very questionable way. But after that a drastic policy was laid down by the department- locking the stable door of our timber lands after the horse was gone. Another instance -do we remember it, or-or have we short memories? Do we remember how the Prime Minister stated from his place in this House that the Marine and Fisheries Department had run riot-that it was so extravagant that it had 'run riot '? Do we remember what the investigation into that department disclosed? Do we remember how the middleman flourished? Do we remember how Merwin flourished? And how hundreds of thousands of dollars were stolen from that department by middlemen?

But there came a day when it was found that the horse was gone. The people of Canada had found it out, and they would stand that kind of thing no longer. Then, with righteous indignation that such a thing could happen, this government locked the stable doors of the Marine Department. And it was stated-with a very merry wink behind the hand-that the middleman was known no more, that the patronage list had been abolished, that, forever and a day the stable door of the Marine Department was locked fast. Recently we had another very cogent instance. And I am sorry that the Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) is not in his place. This side of the House has called attention, session after session, to irregularities in the Printing Department. There was an investigation during recess, and a wonderful demonstration of the power of our Secretary of State-and the stable door of the Printing Department has apparently been closed. And so with other departments in which investigations have been made and in which demonstrations of weakness and dishonesty have been made. I say this is a case of no small importance to the people of Canada. If the people of Canada are liable to be preyed upon by such men as Sheldon, if His Majesty's mails are to continue to be used for the purpose of disseminating literature Containing representations intended to induce people to invest their hard-earned savings in fraudulent schemes we have the most striking evidence of the weakness, the absolute incapacity of the government when it says that it can take no steps by which an offender of this kind can be deprived of the use of the mails and that clear evidence of the barefaced manner in which the thing is carried on is no evidence that can be taken by the Solicitor General. Sir, I think this is a matter that deserves more attention than has been given to it either by the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General, and the countrv owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. gentleman who has brought it to the attention of the House in so forcible a manner.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I should not rise to prolong the debate were it not for the misapprehension that exists in the House as to the reasons which deterred the Solicitor General from taking steps in this matter. In looking over the Auditor General's Report I have found the reason. As we know the facts, this man Sheldon had been using the Royal mails of Canada to send out absolutely false representations to the public, and to abstract dishonestly from the people their hard earned money. It was a notorious get-rich-quick scheme, and was successful to an extent which we all deplore. There was no contention by the Solicitor General that this scheme of Sheldon was anything else than an absolute fraud, a Mr. BOYCE.
gross steal. We have had from hon. gentlemen on this side of the House various suggestions as to why the government, who were elected to protect the people from frauds of this kind, did not do their duty. I have found out the reason, and I am going to give it to you, Mr. Speaker. On page 90-V of the Auditor General's Report of this year, on the fifth line, we read: * Solicitor's General's Office,' $41.40. Small payments and desk, $32.40 ; 2 clocks, repair, $5.' I gather from the care which the Solicitor General has shown for the people of Canada that he found it necessary to have two alarm clocks to keep him awake to the situation. In that case, I fancy, if the alarm clocks were working as they should have worked he might have been awake. But the next item shows that they were not working properly, for we find an item of $5 charged to the people of Canada for repairing these clocks. In addition to that, the hon. gentleman had to buy a pillow, at $4. Now when you see such an account as that for a pillow on which the hon. gentleman could sleep in working hours, there is no longer any reason why any hon. member on this side should find fault with him for neglecting his duties. I think, Mr. Speaker, by the way you are nodding, that you agree with me.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am surprised that the government have not taken more interest in this question than they appear to have done. The Prime Minister has placed all the responsibility on the provincial governments, and the Solicitor General takes the position that they have no responsibility at all, that this government is in no way responsible for the rascally work that has been carried on in this country for the last two years. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot find language strong enough in which to condemn the government for their inactivity in regard to this whole transaction, when you find this man Sheldon had been carrying on his nefarious work month after month, without any hindrance. The Solicitor General talks about the Montreal 'Herald,' and says: Why don't you give the Montreal 'Herald' credit for its splendid work in exposing this man's fraud? Well, Sir, if the Solicitor General read the Montreal 'Herald,' why did he not take some action in the matter? If he believed the words of the Montreal 'Herald,' his own organ, why didn't he go to work and investigate these transactions and prosecute this man? Why did not the Postmaster General and some of his officers go to work and investigate this transaction? You will find in the pages of the 'Herald,' for some time previously, the strongest kind of condemnation. The Solicitor General asks why we do not quote from tne Montreal 'Herald!?' Well, I will quote from the Montreal 'Herald.' As I told the Solicitor General this afternoon, the Mon-

treal 'Herald,' while it pretended to expose the transaction, in the same breath was covering it up to a certain extent, and giving it free advertising. Let me call attention to what the 'Herald' said on October 4, in large headlines:-
Sheldon tired of making fortunes with others' money. . . . C. D. Sheldon, the investment broker who has startled the town, received a caller this morning in the person of a ' Herald ' representative and promised to answer many knotty points in his business methods in a letter to the ' Herald' in the next day or two.
Now, in the letter printed in this very paper what do we find? This letter says to the 'Herald' people:-
Mr. Sheldon is doing either a legitimate or an illegitimate business. If the latter, the ' Herald ' could very easily find out and with very little ado put him out of business; but if Sheldon is doing a perfectly legitimate business-which should be put a stop to-the man who takes you out of the lamb class or the one through whom you usually get counted in with it.
The Solicitor General knows that the 'Herald' could go to work and put a stop to the business, and so could the Solicitor General. I have just been handed the Toronto 'Globe' of this day, in which I find the following:-


David W.: Spencer, of 65 Sullivan street, 35 years old, had a scheme to make other people rich. The postal authorities, however, objected to the philanthrophy and Detective McKinney arrested the philanthropist on charge of using the mails for fraudulent purposes.
I would like to ask the Solicitor General how it is, if the postal authorities had power m this case to prosecute a man who had been defrauding the mails, they had not power to prosecute Sheldon, who had been defrauding the mails to an even greater extent. Why did not the postal authorities prosecute these men? Is it because there are prominent men among them who have influence with men on that side of the House to put a stop to these prosecutions being carried on? Let me call attention to this letter in the Montreal 'Herald' of October 4.
Yesterday Mr. Sheldon sent the following letter to the representative of the Crown prosecutor for the district of Montreal.
To the representatives of the Crown prosecutor for the district of Montreal:
Gentlemen,-In view of the recent attacks directed against my operations and more especially those which have appeared in certain local journals, and before the suggestion which has been made respecting an examination by the Crown prosecutor, I invite you cordially by this present, as representatives of the Crown prosecutor, to visit my offices at 180 St. James St., to examine all my hooks and accounts.	[DOT]
Doing this you will judge whether my business is legitimate, if the profits I have paid and am paying have been up to the present realized, and if my operations are conducted according to strictly honest business rules.
Yours very respectfully,
(Sgd.) C. D. Sheldon.
Why did not the district prosecutor of Montreal investigate these accounts? Was it not his duty to do so in face of the fact that day after day, paper after paper issued in Montreal was calling his attention to the circumstances? I would like to ask the Solicitor General if it is not a fact that the warrant was not issued for Sheldon's arrest until two days after he had left the country? Will the Solicitor General be good enough to answer that question?


Jacques Bureau: I may tell my hon. friend that I do not know the date of the issue of the warrant.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The Solicitor General is not very anxious, to know about these dates, but I understand it is a positive fact that the warrant was not issued until a few days after he left the country. Who was the warrant sworn out by? By one of Sheldon's own employees, and the authorities did not make a move for more tnan a week after that warrant was sworn out. He even allowed Mrs. Sheldon to leave Montreal and join Sheldon without being watched. After he left thousands of dollars came through the mails for him. I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House. I think it has been shown clearly and conclusively that the postal authorities are deserving of the severest kind of censure and that in addition the Solicitor General and the government as a whole are deserving of the strongest condemnation for allowing this man, this rascal, who was only teaching school in Boston two years ago, and who came over here with hardly a dollar in his pocket and started into this nefarious business, to escape. They have not even begun to prosecute his agents, the decoy men, the middle men. They have become so accustomed to dealing with middlemen that they apparently cannot prosecute one of them. These middlemen and agents helped Sheldon in his nefarious work, and I think the country will condemn the government and the Solicitor General for their lack of attention to this matter.
Motion (Mr. Armstrong) to adjourn the House, negatived.



INTEREST ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the House again to go into committee on Bill (No. 6) to amend the Interest Act.
Mr. MILLER.: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I may say that this Bill was allowed to stand over at the re-

quest of the hon. the leader of the opposition. If he is not ready to have the Bill proceeded with I have no objection to have it stand.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be much obliged if the hon. gentleman would allow it to stand over until after the holidays.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Lancaster for the second reading of Bill (No. 2), to amend the Railway Act.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to go on with the Bill unless the government has some proposition to make about it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have sent for my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) and expect him in a moment.



HOURS OF LABOUR ON PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr.   A.@: VERVILLE (Maisonneuve) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 3) respecting the hours of labour on public works. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to go over the grounds that we traversed last year in connection with this Bill. It is pretty well known to members of this House what we did last year with regard to this proposition. A special committee was named last year which made an investigation, the report of which has been on the desk of every member here for a number of days, and in all probability the members have had an opportunity of reading the evidence which was given before that special committee. A great many people for and against this measure had an opportunity of presenting their views to the committee. The Bill which I have presented this year is very much the same as that which was before the House last year, but with some modification. In order to meet the views of a great many persons interested in this measure, I may say that I am willing to go a little further with respect to this Bill than I did last year. I want to introduce in this country, as they have in other parts of the world, a measure providing that the eight-hour principle shall be applied to a certain class of works. I am not so particular about the amount of work that it is applied to, provided we have on the statute-book, as they have in other countries, a measure of this kind. Having adopted the principle of this Act it may be that in a few years we will be in a position to extend it to other industries. I am willing this evening if we go into committee to present some amendments. I know that some Mr. MILLER,
hon. members are of opinion that the Bill is rather radical in some respects, and in so far as it respects individual concerns I would be willing to go even beyond the Bill that I have before the House at the present time. But of course I also consider the application of that measure, and consequently I am anxious that it should pass not only this House but the Senate and become the law of the land. When the Bill is in committee I shall present some amendments which I am sure will meet with the good will of members on both sides.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
Mr. VERVILLE.: I move that the words ' in the open market ' be stricken from the clause.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is it the intention of the government to put this Bill through and to accept it as a government measure?'


Mr. KING.: The mover of the Bill has stated that he will propose certain amendments in the committee and the action of the government will be determined by the nature of the amendments. If the amendments are satisfactory to the government the Bill will be carried through ; if not the government will not lend its support.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The principle of this Bill is that eight hours shall constitute a day's work on public works in this country, and, representing an agricultural constituency, in Ontario, I desire to say that my constituents are diametrically opposed to that principle. A commission was issued by the government and much evidence was accumulated in respect to this Bill, and the sentiment of agriculturists throughout the country was strongly opposed to the principle contained in it. So far as I am personally concerned I wish to go on record as not only being against the individual sections of the Bill but against the whole principle of the Bill.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Last session when this matter came before the House, as representing an agricultural constituency I felt it my duty to enter my protest against the principle of an eight-hour day on government works. I repeat my objection now and I shall briefly give my reasons. One of the great problems confronting the agriculturists of the older provinces is the impossibility of getting adequate help on their farms, and from one end of Ontario to the other there are complaints along this line. It seems to me that no argument is necessary to prove that if you

make an eight-hour day on government works you are entering the thin end of the wedge, and that the eight-hour day principle will be followed with respect to all kinds of works. If men work for only eight hours a day on government works they certainly will not work for a greater number of hours on the farm. However, desirable it may be to shorten the hours of labour on the farm, every one who has been brought up among farmers knows well that an eight-hour day on the farm is entirely out of the question. This clause of the Bill sets out that it shall not apply to different kinds of work and there is a provision away down at the tail end of the section-and the agriculturists of Canada have always been at the tail end in the minds of this government whenever there is any legislation proposed [DOT] to improve the conditions of the people-at the tail end of the section there is a provision that it shall not apply to agricultural work, presumably because it is recognized that an eight-hour day is impossible on the farm. But, that does not relieve the situation, because if the day is eight hours on government work other industries will have to introduce the eight-hour system, and men will not work on the farm for 12 or 14 hours a day if they can make a living at other occupations by working eight hours. That is a question which should receive very careful consideration. There are I know many employments where an eight-hour day would be desirable ; for instance the case of miners working underground, but I protest against the principle in this Bill because it will undoubtedly work against the interests of the agricultural community. Besides that, I do not believe, judging of what I have seen of men working on government works, that they are overburdened with labour. Men on the farm who put in eight or ten hours at work, I venture to say do more real hard labour than men on government works would do in twice that time. I repeat that this is a matter that should receive very careful consideration because I believe it is a matter that is very strongly against the interests of the agricultural class.


Mr. DONNELLY.: Although this Bill has been before the House for some time, the promoter has told us that it is not the Bill in its present shape which he wishes us to consider, that it is his intention to propose several amendments; and the Minister of Labour has also told us that it is the Bill as the promoter wishes to amend it that will be considered. I think it only proper that we should have the Bill with his amendments before us before taking the matter up. I therefore beg to move that the committee rise.


Mr. BLAIN.: I think the answer given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) to 45
the member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) is altogether unsatisfactory to this committee. My hon. friend has a department especially charged with the labour organizations and the labour questions of this country. My hon. friend has made that his life's work and his life's study; because of that he was taken into this government and he has had the question of whether or not it is right to adopt the principle of eight hours a day before him for many years. This question has been thrown this way and that way for many' years between the labour organizations of this country and the agricultural men until it is absolutely unsatisfactory to the people of Canada, and when we have an hon. gentleman occupying a position such as the Minister of Labour occupies it is only fair and just to this committee, when a Bill of this kind comes up for consideration, that my hon. friend should state frankly .and fairly whether he himself and the government that he supports are in favour of eight hours or not. I for one say that my hon. friend's answer was altogether too evasive at this stage of the discussion of this important question. There is not much distinction between my hon. friend and the gentleman behind him who is introducing the Bill (Mr. Verville). Every one knows that the Minister of Labour has consulted and discussed these proposed amendments. There has always been an understanding between these two gentlemen in the House and out of the House and this sparring between my hon. friends will not be accepted by this committee or by the people of Canada anyt longer. We have a right to expect, indeed I think I have a right to ask the right hon. gentleman to see to it, that this matter is not thrown from one side of the House to the other any longer. Either the government and the Minister of Labour are in favour of the principles of this Bill or they are opposed to it, and in fairness to the House and to this country, and particularly in fairness to the -hon. gentleman's friends, he has a right, I think, to state to this House frankly and fairly whether he is in favour of this Bill or opposed to it, so that we will not be having Bills of this kind introduced and withdrawn and referred to special committees from year to year and gentlemen running in constituencies upon this principle and that sort of thing any longer.
If my hon. friend has any work in his department at all, it seems to me that he could reach a conclusion in his own mind whether he is in favour of the 'principle of eight hours or not and if he has reached it he should state it frankly to this committee.


George Gerald King: Two different questions! have been put to me. The question I was



asked a moment ago was whether I was in favour of this Bill as it stood, and whether the government was in favour of this Bill as it stood. I replied that I understood from the mover that certain amendments were to be proposed in the committee and when they were proposed I would be prepared to state whether they were acceptable or not.


Richard Blain: Has not my hon. friend seen these amendments before now?


George Gerald King: I cannot say until the amendments are moved whether I have seen them or not.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Gerald King: How can I possibly state that I have?


Robert Laird Borden: We might put it another way. Has the hon. member submitted to the Minister of Labour the amendments which he says he intends to move, or any amendments?


George Gerald King: To that question I would reply yes, but as-


Samuel Hughes: Has the Minister of Labour suggested any amendments to the member to move?


George Gerald King: If hon. members opposite will allow me to answer one question at a time, I will endeavour to do it. I have been asked first as to the Bill and then as to the principle of the Bill. I think the question as to whether or not I was infavour of the principle of an eight-hour-day was put in the first instance by the hon. member for Peel (Mr.- Blain). I do not wish to shirk an answer to that question at all. I would say frankly and freely that I am strongly in favour of the principle of an eight-hour-day, and the reason I am in favour of that principle is be-j cause of the belief which I have in the object of the existence of men on this earth. I think men are put here for some pui*pose other than that of simply spending their lives in toil, that every man should have an opportunity to work but that he should also have opportunity for a little leisure as well, that he should have an opportunity to spend part of his time with his wife and children whether he be a working man in a shop or a farmer, or an employee on a farm, or whoever he may be, that every man should have an opportunity of developing all the capacities with which he by nature may he endowed.


Richard Blain: May I be permitted to ask a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Gerald King: 


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman can only interfere with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor.*


Richard Blain: I am only asking if I may be allowed a question.


George Gerald King: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to answer one question


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think thei hon. minister has declined to allow the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) to intervene.


Richard Blain: Then I understand my hon. friend refuses to answer a question?


George Gerald King: I shall answer any question the hon. member puts to me if he will allow me to finish what I am saying in answer to a question which he has already put to me. I was about to say, when I was interrupted, that if we stop to consider what the life of the average workingman is we will see how all-important it is that every one who has at heart the welfare of humanity should use what little influence he may have, whether in connection with the government or out of it* to help bring about a condition of affairs which in the course of time will secure to every man, whether working on a farm or in a workshop, a condition that will permit him to do eight hours' work and have part of the balance of the day for enjoyment and for the necessary development' of his faculties, one way or another.
Take the case of a workingman working 8 or 10 hours a day. Supposing he starts work at 7 o'clock in the morning, he must rise at 5, for workingmen have to start their own fires to assist their wives to prepare their breakfasts; five o'clock is as late as any man who is going to work at seven can afford to rise. He leaves his home before seven o'clock, having seen nothing of his children. He works from seven until 12, which is five hours. He goes back to his home, he has one hour in the middle of the day, part of which is lost going to and from his work. Sometimes he does not even get that. Sometimes he is obliged to take his dinner can and eat his cold meal at the workshop, and can see nothing of his home during that hour. Then he is obliged to work again from one to six o'clock; and if he is to have eight hours' sleep, which is the least he requires after a hard day's labour, that leaves him only from six to nine to enjoy the comforts of his home. It was never intended by the Creator that the great mass of men should live in that way. It was intended that every man should do his share of work and have opportunity to partake of legitimate enjoyment and develop the latent powers and talents with which he is endowed by nature. The working classes have as much

love for their families, as great regard for domestic happiness as the rich. They also require a little enjoyment now and then. The man on the farm wants the opportunity to go into the city occasionally, the labouring man wants his evenings the same as other people, and no one should be obliged to stay so long at work that he can have but three hours in the evening to appreciate his home and develop his aspirations towards a fuller life. Any other condition of society is not one which is fitting the prosperity we desire to see our country enjoy.
1 am strongly in favour of any movement which will help to bring about an eight-hour day, I recognize that such a day cannot be immediately of universal application. I recognize that in any one country you cannot bring that about without having regard to the conditions in other countries. This is an age of competition, not merely between industry and industry, locality and locality, but between country and country; and a country which enacts laws of a higher standard than another may find that in virtue of those very laws it may lose a whole industry simply because an adjoining country has not come up to that high standard. The men who have taken the keenest interest in this question realize that if the labour movement is to make headway, it can only do so by all countries uniting and agreeing to a similar standard. This year I had occasion to attend a meeting of the International Association for Labour Legislation at Lugano, Switzerland. That association was started in Berne in 1900 by men who recognized that if it were to be made possible to lessen the hours of working people, in particular to restrict the labour of women and children in any equitable manner that would have to be by agreement between such countries as France, Germany and England. All these countries should combine and mutually consent to maintain similar conditions. That association has done great work throughout Europe and the United States, and I hope that Canada will contribute its share to that work and help to bring about that uniformity of con ditions in different industries which will enable an employer, who would liae to reduce the hours of labour, to do so without running the risk of being undersold by less considerate rivals.
That brings me to another consideration, namely, the great difference in industries. In some the work is long and exacting, the toil exhausting, and there is a great nerve as well as physical strain which must be taken into account. In some cases, an eight-hour day would be altogether too long. I remember a few years ago investigating in Toronto conditions under which young women were operating the telephone 45i
exchanges. From testimony given by leading physicians, it was perfectly evident that no woman could continue in that kind of work and maintain her physical strength if she worked for a longer space of time at a spell than one hour and a half. She then reouired an intermission of rest before working another hour and a half, and a five-hour day was in her case sufficiently severe. While I am in favour of aiming at a given point, it may be that, in many occupations, an eight-hour day would be to long, and there may be others in which it would be too short. In many occupations seasonal conditions must be taken into account. In summer it may be' desirable to work longer than in winter. In some occupations the eight-hour day might to use an apparent contradiction-be a little longer or a little shorter than in others. But the great point to keep in mind is this, that unless some principle be laid down, we are not likely to arrive anywhere.
The question now suggests itself as to why the government should take an interest in this matter. Well, the supreme object of government should be to develop a happy and contented nation, and the only way to get a happy and a contented nation is to have the homes contented and happy. It is to the degree to which the artisan, the farmer, the great labouring classes are happy and prosperous that the nation is prosperous and contented. That condition you cannot have if our labouring men, working too long hours, are exhausted by toil and denied the opportunity of developing those qualities which make up a robust manhood. I have asked why the government should take an interest in this matter. There are many reasons. First of all, as I have said, it is the duty of the government to foster citizenship above everything .else, and you cannot have true citizenship unless you have men who are something more than mere machines, unless you have intelligent beings who know what is going on and have the capacity to take their share in the many sidedness of life. The government, recognizing that position, has to consider whether it has an opportunity to further this end. It so happens that the government is sometimes in the position of an ordinary employer cf labour. When it is, it should be a model employer; it should do what many an employer, if he were free to manage his own business as he would like, would seek to do. There is another consideration also which a government must keep in mind. A government is a trustee. It holds the funds of the people; and in dealing with industrial problems it has to take account of that fact as well. So that in this question of the eight-hour day, the government has to consider two things.

First of all, it should seek to be a model employer; and secondly it should bear in mind that it is a trustee holding the funds of the people; and, if I may add yet a third, it must have regard to industry in general, and seek, in its actions, to go just so far as it would be justified in going without undue interference with the ordinary course of business. To unduly interfere would be to retard the movement we are seeking to advance. There is a further point which should be kept in mind, particularly by the working people.
In this country, the power to legislate on labour matters is divided. There is the jurisdiction of the provinces and there is the jurisdiction of federal government. I have heard some members on the other side of this House say-they said it last session-that if the hon. member had introduced a Bill which would give an eight-hour day to everybody, they would support it. I do not wish to use the language I feel tempted to use in describing the attitude of one who would speak in that way. Every hon. member of this House knows that no Bill can be passed by the parliament of Canada which will give to the working classes generally an eight-hour day. They know that that is the business of the provinces primarily, _ that it is the duty of the provincial legislatures to fix the hours of labour governing any particular industries. One of the greatest services ever rendered to the people of this country was rendered by the hon. member who introduced this Bill when he succeeded in getting the Bill referred to a special committee and brought before that * committee the mass of evidence contained in the committee's report. Hon. members who have read that report will see that from the testimony given by different classes, there is the strongest reason why this government should set an example, and why the provincial governments should seek to do more than they have been doing in the way of studying the condition of men, and more particularly of women and children, employed in industries. This volume of evidence is one of the best contributions ever made to the question of the eight-hour day. That committee held, altogether, I think, nineteen meetings. It obtained representations from the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, from the Canadian Manufacturers Association, from the Shipping Federation, from large numbers of employers, from the factory inspectors, from officers ot the provincial government, from large delegations of different classes of the community including the Dominion grange, the farmers' institutes, the breeders' associations, the marine interests, the trades and labour unions, the transportation companies and others who felt that the measure introduced might Mr. KING.
affect their interests. What was the result of that evidence? It is to be found in part in the Bill which the hon. member (Mr. Verville) has brought down. And, if he has left agriculture out of that Bill, it is because the evidence given before that committee last year was that a law fixing an eight-hour day would not, as respects agriculture, be favoured by agriculturists and would not be in their interest. The hon. gentleman has considered the testimony given by all classes and he has endeavoured to bring down a Bill which is along lines that take into account the representations made by the farmers and those on their behalf, by the manufacturers and those on their behalf, as well as the interests which were represented by the labour councils. So, I think this House can afford to consider carefully the measure which the hon. member for Maisonneuve has introduced. And it will only be doing what the people of this country expect it to do if it makes a beginning by asserting the principle that the government of the country should be a model employer of labour. The one consideration that has to be kept in mind is this-that you can begin a reform in two ways. You can start with the broad end of the wedge, or you can start with the thin end. You can hold out for too much and achieve nothing, or you can assert a principle and give it force and power even though you limit its application at first. That is what _ the hon. member has in mind, I take it, in the suggested amendments of which he has spoken to the House. He is prepared to [DOT] limit his Bill so that it will be along the line that should appeal to all interests. And, the hon. member, having made that endeavour, I think it is the duty of all interests in the House to accord him support and give his measure a place on the statute-book.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask, having regard to the importance which the hon. minister attaches-and very justly- to this measure, why it is that the government does not introduce this Bill itself?


George Gerald King: During the last five years the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) has, each year, introduced a Bill on this subject. I had in mind introducing a Bill, or, rather, asking my colleagues to approve of my introducing a Bill dealing with the matter. On second thought I felt this would not be playing fair with the hon. member for Maisonneuve. That hon. gentleman had stood up in this House single-handed, and asked this House to adopt a principle which he believed in. And, as he had stood up in that fashion, I felt it was rather my duty to back him up rather than to try to take the credit for such a measure to myself.


Robert Laird Borden: Are we to understand that the Bill, with the proposed amendment, has the support of the government, and is to be put through practically as a government measure?


George Gerald King: If the hon. member (Mr. Vprville) makes the amendments which he has indicated to me it is his intention to make, I am quite sure he will have the backing of the government in these amendments.


Robert Laird Borden: Might it not be well, before we proceed further with the discussion, to have a statement as to just what these amendments are? The rest of us are not in the happy position of the Minister of Labour in knowing in advance the nature of these amendments.


Wilfrid Laurier: Dispose of this amendment first.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, let us know what the amendments are.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is a motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Let that be disposed of first.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend (Mr. King) has forgotten my question. I hesitate a little about asking it now. He entertained us for the most part of one hour without being interrogated, and I cannot help wondering how long it would take the hon. minister if I venture to ask a question. With all respect to my hon. friend, I may say that I have had the advantage of reading his lecture before, and of hearing it in this House once or twice. Therefore, I am sure, he will not think I am slighting him if I make no reference to his speech, as it was dealt with long ago. My question was with regard to section 2 which sets forth a great many things to which this Act shall not apply, the last being ' all agricultural work.' The Minister of Labour has had the advantage, which I have not had, of going over the evidence to which he has referred. The question I wish to put is: Would the hon. minister explain why he is in favour of a man who works on a custom house building working only eight hours a day while a man who works on a farm, at probably less than half the wages is to be allowed to work very long hours?


George Gerald King: I mentioned that agriculture had been eliminated from the Bill because of the evidence before the committee, and the hon. member who introduced the Bill had regard, in framing the measure, to the evidence given before the committee.


Richard Blain: That is not my question. I put the question to the hon. minister (Mr. King), as he is the Minister of Labour. The government of which he is a member has
arrived at the conclusion that workmen working on a custom house, a government work, shall work eight hours a day. Why do they not apply that to farm labour?


George Gerald King: Every trade is governed more or less by conditions that are peculiar to itself. It happens that in the building trades generally there is a practice governing the hours of labour, it has become a recognized thing that in the skilled trades there shall be a limited number of hours per_ day and that payment shall be on the basis of so much an hour. Of course, in the matter of fixing hours generally, this parliament has no jurisdiction, it has no jurisdiction in the matter of fixing hours of labour, either in industries or on the farm. What this Bill relates to is hours of labour on public works, that is the name of the Bill. That being so, the measure is naturally restricted to public works. As originally draft: ed, it was much wider than its title. That was pointed out to my hon. friend last year, he was shown that he had not only dealt with public works and with a variety of other things. Now he proposes to restrict his measure to public works.


Mr. BURRELL.: I would point out that the House is in rather a peculiar position. There has not been any definite announcement by the Minister of Labour as to whether this is a government measure or not. That point ought to be made clear. It is all very well for the Minister of Labour to say that the hon. member for Mai-sonneuve should not be robbed of the honour of bringing in this Bill. But hon. members on both sides of this House know that this Bill has been brought in year after year, and practically the House has been fooled in regard to it. Now there was an admission made last year by the Minister of Labour that this was practically a government Bill. I find this in the ' Hansard ', on page 2908, in response to a question by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath), who said:
I want to know if we are to have the Bill before the House this session, as I want to vote for it.


George Gerald King: The intention is to get the Bill before the House as quickly as possible. Whether the government will be able to carry out that intention depends on the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Now, there is an implied admission that it is a government Bill, and I think that point ought to be clearly understood. We had the spectacle last year of a Bill that many of us considered ought to have been a government Bill, an amendment to the Criminal Code, brought in by my hon. friend from South Grey, and we had the government refusing to accept the responsibility of having the Bill defeated by its

Minister of Justice; they wished to escape the odium of having the thing lost. The Minister of Labour, to ruy mind, has practically conceded that this is a government measure. In reply to the remarks of the leader of the opposition, he has specifically stated that he has seen the amendments. Now the main principle of this Bill is that there should be an eight hour day on all government work. In the Bill as it was brought down last year the third section says:
This Act shall apply to work undertaken by the government of Canada by day labour.
That was what was meant last year. Reduced to its last analysis, that is the principle of the Bill now, and the Minister of Labour knows that is the principle. I think before this thing goes any further we ought to have it clearly understood whether the government is, or is not, at the back of this Bill.


Alphonse Verville: I do not know why I have not as much right to bring in a Bill of this kind as any other hon. gentleman of this House. I am asking support from both sides of the House. I wish to say further that I do not think it is fair and just to those I represent for an hon. gentleman to make a motion at this time that the commute rise, merely to block the progress of the Bill.


William Cameron Edwards: Do you think it is fair to keep the amendments up your sleeve? Why don't you bring down your amendments?


Alphonse Verville: I was just about producing the amendments when the motion was made. I am willing to bring down all the amendments at the proper time, and I am sure both sides of the House will be satisfied. Objection is also taken because the present Bill does not apply to farm work. Now, I have great respect for the farmers of this country, but they are not more deserving than the men who are asking for this Bill, and I want that to be well understood. The farmers have to depend upon the consumers of the city for a market for their produce. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am willing to go ahead with this measure, with the assistance of both sides of the House; but I hope, I say for God's sake, don't make this a political affair.	i	i


Mr. HENDERSON.: I do not rise to discuss just now the merits of the Bill. As I understand it, a short time ago a motion was made that the committee rise, and before the motion is put, I desire to say a few words with regard to the time chosen for proceeding with this Bill. The Minister of Labour has shown us a volume of evidence, somewhere about two inches Mr. BURRELL.
thick, which he said was laid on every members' table only a short time ago. I confess there was one laid on my desk, but I have not had the opportunity of reading it, amongst the large number of other reports we are called upon to examine. But I do say, that since the Minister of Labour has gone to the expense of printing an enormous quantity of this report, an opportunity should be given to every member of the House, and to almost every man in the country, to read that report, before we proceed with this Bill. Go upstairs to one of the upper corridors, and what do you find? A pile of these reports containing at least four cords of printed matter. I do not know how many more are to come up from the Bureau-four cords of these reports piled there, not distributed, no man allowed to look at them, because they are, I presume, the property of the member for Maisonneuve, or the Minister of Labour. Nobody has had an opportunity of reading them, and we propose, in face of that, without the information furnished by this report, to push this Bill through. I say it is not an opportune time. I would say: Let the Bill stand until, at any rate, these reports can be distributed, until the country can get the benefit of the information that was collected last year. There is valuable information in this report, I have no doubt, information that ought to be read, valuable to a great many men, manufacturers and others, who would be deeply interested if they should all have an opportunity of reading this report, and then expressing an opinion upon it. Consequently, if there is a motion made that the committee rise, I would deem it my duty to vote for that motion, because I consider that the House is being taken at an unfair advantage by pressing this Bill through, when the members of the House, or the people of the country, have had no opportunity of reading the volumes -of evidence. There are at least, four cords of it, and perhaps more. A few moments ago I went up to measure the pile, I found there were nearly four cords perhaps five cords. And I notice from day to day as I pass by that pile, in going up to my room, that it is gradually increasing. Every day there are additions to it. In a week or two, I would not be surprised if there were five, or ten colds. I do not know what quantity the minister or the member for Maisonneuve have yet to pile up there. But this ought to be in the hands of the people, it ought to be sent out, people ought to have an opportunity of digesting that evidence; then they would be able to express an opinion on the question. I confess I am at a loss. I did, two years ago, when a Bill of a similar nature was up, express my opinion freely, in very short language. I said then, I could not see the propriety of a man on one side of

Metcalfe street, in the city of Ottawa, working on a government contract, being dismissed at 4 o'clock, and another man on the opposite side of the street working on a private building till 6 o'clock, both practically doing the same kind of work and receiving the same wages. I thought there was something unfair about it. I am not satisfied of the propriety of that sort of thing yet; but perhaps if I had an opportunity of reading this volume through-it would take me more than a day, it would take me two or three days-I may be able to come to a different conclusion. But at any rate, when the government of this country has gone to the expense of printing three, or four, or five, or perhaps ten cords of these volumes, they ought to he made use of, they should be put in the hands of the people to examine the evidence and judge as to the propriety of this measure I therefore feel, if it comes to a division on this question, that it will be my duty, in order to procure delay until the report can be digested, to vote that the committee rise.


Mr MACDONELL.: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee that dealt with this matter, I would like to say a word or two before the motion is put. In the first place, the committee sat long and performed very laborious work in collecting this evidence, which has been referred to. The evidence then collected was upon a Bill quite different in terms from the present Bill now before the House. The Bill now before the House, as proposed to be amended, from the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Verville), who introduced it, is narrower than that which was referred to the committee last session. The committee had not finished their labours before the House adjourned, but although they had made no report, they had taken and heard a very large amount of evidence. I quite agree with the opinion of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) that this Bill ought to be a government measure. It should long ago have been taken in hand by the government. It never should have been permitted to be made the political football that it has been made during the last five or six years. I also concur with the opinion expressed on this side of the House that the amendments which axe to be put in this Bill should be in the hands of the members. There should be some idea of what the amendments are to be. because the Bill is a very important one.
The evidence submitted to the committee last session fully confirmed my then opinion that an eight hour Bill is a proper and humane law to pass in this parliament in so far as it relates to the public works of the government. I am to-day of that opinion. The evidence all pointed to that conclusion, at least in my opinion, and a proper Bill framed along fair and equitable lines with that object in view will always have my support in this House. The proposal is not so drastic as some hon. members think. Some hon. members have taken objection to it on the score of it applying to agriculture. It has no application directly or indirectly to anything in connection with agriculture.


William Findlay Maclean: What about the government farm?


Mr. MACDONELL.: Experimental farms are exempted under the word ' agriculture.' They appertain to agriculture. Let me point out that this Bill, as it is likely to pass this House, if I may be permitted a prediction as to what it will be when it does pass, will be a Bill applicable only to the erection by the government of public buildings throughout the country. These public buildings are erected in centres where to-day there is an almost uniform eight hour day applying to the various building trades. If you erect a public building in Toronto, or any place in Ontario, or in Winnipeg, or in any other city in the Dominion, you will find that in all these centres the eight hour day applies to the building trades, and there will be no change whatever in the hours of work on account of the passage of a law applicable to government work in these cities. When this Bill came before the House last session, from what was said in the short debate which preceded the reference of the Bill to the Select Committee, I formed the opinion that the Bill would have passed had a vote been taken then. The Bill is in a greatly modified form as it is to-day before the House, and if the House thinks it is not prepared to deal with it to-day, perhaps it is better, in the interest of all, that it should receive more consideration when the amendments, which the hon. member who introduces the Bill has indicated he intends to move, come before the committee, and altogether it seems the wiser course to leave it over for consideration. I quite agree not with all of what my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) said, but with that portion of his remarks in which he said that this evidence should be examined by the members of the House at least, and that such of the public as are interested in the matter should have an opportunity of perusing this testimony and of expressing any opinions pro and con that they may desire to express to this House. Personally, I am entirely in accord with the principle of the eight hour day as applied to labour of this class. I do not propose to go into the academic reasons for that opinion. But that is the opinion that I hold, and I will apply it to this legislation when the proper opportunity comes

for me to express an opinion before this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr' Speaker, I have not been in the House and I have not heard what has been said on this Bill, but I have my own views with regard to Bills of this kind. I think they are radically wrong. If you put any restriction upon a man's right to work for any length of time he desires I think it is wrong. Some men physically and intellectually are capable of working ten hours a day with no more injury than a man suffers who only works eight hours. If bv nature he is furnished with all the requisites to do that and he is willing to do it, whv should you restrict his rights? In mv judgment it is wrong.
But, there is another feature of such bills that we must not overlook. Go to the city of Toronto and take these public works; an armoury is being built costing $100,000 or $200,000. We always have these buildings going on and a bill like this applies to government works. They are within reasonable distance of, say, the Massey-Har-ris works where they are carrying on the business of manufacturing implements. One class of men are working eight hours a day and they are not satisfied unless they are getting the same amount of wages daily as the skilled mechanics who are working ten hours a day. The result is that you cannot get the one class of men to work ten hours while the others are only working eight houjs. Then the working hours must be made shorter to the men who are working in that line. What is the result? You say this Bill is all right because it does not apply to agriculture, but it applies to agriculture in this way that if you extend it from line to line-and this is what it aims at, because if the principle is recognized it will be changed and extended from year to year-in a short time the men in these factories that are turning out agricultural implements will be working eight hours a day. They must get the same wages for working eight hours a day that they got for working ten hours, the product of their labour is being sold to the farmer and the farmer cannot successfully carry on his work in any part of Canada by working eight hours a day. In the busy season, seeding and harvesting time, he has to work ten, twelve and very often fourteen hours a day and his family has to do the same. The farmer to-day has to pay for the product of labour that is only working eight hours a day, and which is receiving larger wages than the farm labourer is for working fourteen hours. This is a great injustice to the agricultural interests of the country. There are public w'orks scattered all over the Dominion, and when the men on the farms see the labourers on these works occupied for only eight hours a day, demoralization will follow, Mr. MACDONELL.
in the labour world and if a storm threatens and your grain and your hay are ;n danger the farmers themselves will have to work perhaps the whole night or half the night to save the crop while his hired help refuses to work because it is the hour at which other labourers stop for the day. I have frequently done that myself when a small boy on the farm, because we could not get the crop saved otherwise. This principle of an eight-hour day will soon extend from government works to other industries and although the men working in factories are driven every moment of the day under the eye of a superintendent, and although the men working on the farm have not steady labour during the day and are practically their own masters half the time, yet, when they see the employees in other industries working for only the shorter hours, the temptation will be for them to dress up at six o'clock and go into the towns and villages. Under the principle of this Bill you are compelling the farmers of Canada to work longer and longer hours to pay for the labour of men who are working shorter and shorter hours. If the men in the Massey-Harris factory are working eight hours a day where formerly they worked ten hours and continue to get the same wage for the shorter hours, it is evident that the farmer will have to pay an enhanced price for that machinery and will have to work longer hours to enable him to pay it. It is the farmers of this country who will have to stand the brunt of all this. We hear a good deal said in this House in favour of the labouring classes and we are told sometimes that we are not to speak our views, but I would be sorry to be a public man, if, when I thought a thing was wrong, I could not stand up in parliament and say so.


Robert Laird Borden: It is very important that we should know exactly what the Bill is that the committee is asked to pass. The Prime Minister has said that the amendments cannot be made known to the committee while a motion that the committee rise is before the Chair. May I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Donnelly) to withdraw his motion so that w'e may learn what these amendments are?


James J. Donnelly: I feel that the consideration of this Bill should not be proceeded with until we have had a reasonable time to consider what the measure is that is to be submitted to us. I will withdraw my motion that the committee rise, but I think the promoter of the Bill should be willing to postpone its consideration until the members of the committee have had a reasonable time to consider the amendments.
Motion, that the committee rise, withdrawn.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the Minister of Labour or the hon. member for Maisonneuve, whichever one of them is really in charge of the Bill, now state what these amendments are so that we may get an idea of the real scope of the measure.


Mr. GRAHAM.: In fairness to the hon. member for Maisonneuve it may be said that he was proceeding to explain all the amendments when the chairman asked that they be submitted one at a time.


William Findlay Maclean: I must take exception to the amendments made by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) who tells us it is not necessary to regulate the hours of labour. The experience of all civilized countries is that the improved condition of the labouring man has been brought about by legislation, and especially by regulation of the hours of labour. In the case of the railroads for example, it is absolutely essential that legislation should limit the hours of labour *because if the railway emnloyees are overworked the service is not efficient and there is not proper protection for life and property. Time and again it has been shown that where switchmen and telegraphers and others have had to work for unlimited hours accidents have happened and a poor service given. Again, in the interests of women and children who work in factories it has been found necessary to regulate the hours of labour. I cannot agree with the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) that this should be allowed to regulate itself. I have yet heard no good reason why the farm labourer should not be treated in this respect in the same way as other labourers in this country. Of course it will make a great difference to the farmers, but perhaps the day is coming when good farming will be done by having two shifts of labour on the one day and especially in the busy season, which I believe is already the practice in the west.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member (Mr. Maclean) is running a large farm himself and let me ask him if he employs his men only eight hours a day?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not, but if it is made the l^w I will live up to it. 1 pay $2,000 a week wages to men who work only seven hours a day and in that seven hours' work I believe they are up to their capacity. The farm labourers in our county go to work at seven and quit at six with an hour for dinner which practically makes 10 hours a day, and my opinion is that it is not quite fair that the law in this respect should discriminate *against the ordinary farm labourer. The onlv excuse for it is that it is the cus'tom in most countries. I might
say also that the improvement of the condition of agricultural labour in all countries of the world has been brought about by legislation. I may point out also that the advance in labour legislation has -been brought aibout by the representatives of labour who happened to get into parliament, and the glory of the British parliament to-day is the large representation of the working classes in it. On the other hand to the discredit of labour in the United States there is hardly a single representative of labour in the American Congress. The progress of labour legislation in England is largely due to the fact that organized labour has sent representatives to the British parliament who have gradually been able to secure legislation improving the condition of the working classes.
So that on the whole I say it is the duty of parliament to take jurisdiction over this matter to improve the conditions and probably the only way it can be done is by stepping it down or up, here and there, applying it first to one line of labour and then to another, applying it to one section of the community and then to another. It cannot be carried out as a straight movement all along the line and as an equal movement, but it can be applied very much in the way in which it is being done now. As a matter of fact, in the city of Toronto, we have largely now the eight-hour day and the general testimony is that no harm has been done to the public, something has been done to improve the condition of those who labour and in every country in which it has been tried where an attempt has been made to reduce the hours of labour, no harm has been done. But before the evil becomes too great in this country I would like to see a thorough regulation of labour, especially in the case of women and children and in the case of men engaged in unhealthy occupations. Where women and children are employed, the workshops should be better, their hours of labour should be reduced and in every way an effort ought to be made to improve the conditions particularly of those who work in what are called sweat shops, where the pay is very poor and where great disorder reigns. The evidence that has been brought out in connection with woman labour in the great city of New York, to which the magazines now are devoting great attention, goes to show the most unhealthy conditions. It is proved beyond all doubt that the treatment of the working girls in the great city of New York, where their wages do not average $4 a week, is something inhuman, that the evil is increasing and ought to be stopped and the same conditions are coming to prevail in the Canadian cities. There would be some hone for improvement in the conditions which surround the labour of women and

children if such an improvement as this could be brought about in regard to men. But I do not wish to see it applied so much to men in the first case as to women and children. There would be a much more pronounced opportunity for the enjoyment of life which the minister pointed out than there is at present so that I am quite prepared to see the eight-hour day inaugurated in this country in this limited way with the hope that it will extend and that its application may come at an early date to women and children who have to work for their living in shops.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has as usual talked on almost every imaginable question under the sun


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.
Mr. HUGHES-and not one of them bearing on the question at issue. All the matters he has been discussing come within provincial jurisdiction and not under the jurisdiction of this parliament. But he did confess one thing that he, a farmer, running a large farm as he does, and having an opportunity to set an example to the people of this country without legislation, has failed to do it, has failed to give the horny handed sons of toil working for him the eight-hour day to which he says they are entitled. That is a very serious example and an indiscretion, not to use a stronger word.
This Bill concerns only government work. Why not enforce the eight-hour day on government work through the contract, as all government work should be by contract, and not burden the statute-book with this sort of thing. A number of amendments are to be proposed to this Bill, in fact I believe there are more amendments than there is Bill. Why not reprint the Bill so that we will have it before us complete? I defy either the Minister of Labour or the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Ver-vi'.le) to stand up and make himself intelligible on these amendments to one-quarter of the members.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Just a word or two in regard to the peculiar manner of the introduction of this Bill. We have been told by the Minister of Labour, representing the government, that the chief reason why this Bill was not brought hn as a government measure was the fact that it had been introduced on several previous occasions by the present introducer. It is true that for a number of sessions of a Bill called the Eight-Hour Bill has been introduced by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Ver-ville) but in every case, at some time during the session, it has disappeared. It has Mr. MACLEAN (York).
been used, as has been said, purely as a political football. This evening we have had in the House the peculiar anomaly of the Minister of Labour getting up in answer to a direct question from this side of the House, whether or not the government was prepared to- stand sponsor for this Bill, or for the principle of an eight-hour day, and making a speech with many flights of imagination, steering at times verv close to thin ice, and yet avoiding every important question asked by members of this House. We have the further peculiar fact that this Bill was introduced by a member of the House, and in introducing the Bill he tells us he is prepared with a series of amendments tcf it that will very much limit the principle asked for in the Bill. As one who is inclined to support, and who has supported the principle of the eight-hour dav, and eight-hour labour, I strongly object to the position taken both by the Minister of Labour and the member introducing the Bill. I think the course being taken is very unfair to every member-of this House. This is a question of such vital importance to all classes in this country as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) ten cords of literature have been printed at the expense of the country, evidence has been taken, collated, printed and piled in the corridors, and then we are told by the introducer that he and the Minister of Labour have talked over and discussed certain amendments on which they have agreed, and which they propose to introduce. Why did not the two>
members come together before introducing the Bill, and when they had decided on something to which the Minister of Labour could agree, and for which he would be prepared to ask his colleagues to stand sponsor, introduce the Bill in that shape, bring it before the House, so that every -member would have an equal and fair chance of seeing exactly the position the government takes and just how far this Bill limited itself in the principle for which the Minister of Labour has told us he is so anxious at this particular time. If he really believes in the principle of the eight-hour day, why should he not bring down a Bill which we would be prepared fairly to act upon, after having studied the principles and conditions that we are asked at this time to give a decision upon? That is my strong objection to the Bill. I shall not at this particular moment go into all the reasons why I believe in the principle itself, and thev are many and very strong. I have given some little attention to the report that has been brought down, and there appear to be many strong arguments why at this particular time the government of _ Canada should take some action in this matter, but I do strongly object to having a subject

of this nature, made, as has been said, a political football, and that one particular member or any member of this House, should bring in a Bill merely with the obiect of endeavouring to lead a certain class of the community to suppose they are espousing a certain principle, and then when we are asked to decide bn the merits of that Bill we are told that there will be a long series of amendments which, as has been said by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton, it will be impossible for us to properly understand. On this ground I think we should have this Bill returned to the hon. gentleman who introduced it in order that we might have those amendments printed and laid before the House and see what are the merits of this measure which those who are supporting it are offering to the people.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: I wish to add my protest to that of the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) against the manner in which this Bill has come belore us. Whilst doing so, I would ask the House to bear with me while I make a few remarks on the character of the Bill in general. I represent, like my hon. friends from East Grey (Dr. Sproule), and Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), an agricultural constituency, but much as I defer to their judgment. I cannot see any reason why I should on that account oppose this legislation if I am convinced that it will work towards bettering the condition of the working man. I do not believe that agriculturists are opposed to legislation which will assist to lift higher in the scale of humanity the labouring population, and all that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Ver-ville) and the twin father of the Bill, the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) have to do to engage my support is to convince me that the Bill will work towards that end and will effect some laudable object in the way of assisting generally our labouring population. I do not believe that there is a class in the community more in sympathy with the working man than those who are the best-greatest of all working men, namely, the farmers. While I would view this Bill with the utmost favour if convinced that it would really advance the interests of the labouring classes, I cannot quite agree with the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) as to the motive of the government in taking up this measure and forcing it through. In the first place, it does seem to me strange that though the amended Bill has a double fatherhood, it should come into the world deformed. If the government is to take the responsibility -as I understand the Minister of Labour to say it is-for the passage of this Bill in an amended form, they should have seen that it came before this House in the form in
which they intended it should pass. It does appear to me that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has misconceived the purpose of the government. He does not see how it can be right for a labouring man working on a government contract to quit his work at four o'clock and have a labouring man across the road working on a private contract quit at six o'clock and both get the same pay. The Minister of Labour delivered to us the speech with which he has favoured the Canadian Club of some of the towns in Ontario, utilizing them for the purpose of lauding the virtues of the government to which he belongs as reflected in the Department of Labour. He points out that the sole object of the government is to improve the conditions of the working man. But what will be the result when a government contractor employs a working man at eight hours a day and pays him the same wages as the man on another contract working 10 hours a day? Should the labouring man in the one case quit work at four o'clock and in the other case quit at six, what would be the consequences? The government, who is the boss of the contractor, has the power to say to every labouring man that if he does not mark the ballot paper as he is told he will be dismissed and will thus be sentenced to work two hours a day longer than he has become accustomed to and will not get any more pay. That will be another means which the government will have in addition of the many they now enjoy of coercing the voter. When another election comes on and the Minister of Public Works and his satellites get busy employing all the men they can scratch together throughout Canada, they will have another weapon with which to coerce their votes, and I venture to suggest that this object was nearer the government's heart and more at the back of this movement than those which were described so movingly by the hon. Minister of Labour.


George Gerald King: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, in asking for this measure, were moved by any such motive 'as he imputes?


Arthur Meighen: I am not referring to the motive of the Trades and Labour Congress, for I would be sorry to identify their motives with those of the government. It appears to me that we should have the amendments proposed put before the House before going further with the Bill, in order that we may be able to see whether or not, as amended, it will work out to the advantage of the labouring man. We cannot to-night, without those amendments, come to any intelligent conclusion. No doubt it has taken the Minister of Labour and the

hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Ver-ville) many weeks to ponder and cogitate over those amendments, and they should not expect us to judge the whole position in a moment. The Bill should be reprinted and then referred again to the committee.


Mr. SMITH (Nanaimo).: All kinds of imputations have been attributed to the government whenever they have brought in any measure, but I never heard before that government coercion was associated with a measure for reducing the hours of the working man. My experience has always been iust the reverse. The last charge one would expect to be brought against any government bringing in a Bill to reduce the hours of labour would be that it did so for the purpose of coercing the labour vote. It is the man who extends the hours of labour who does the coercion. It seems to me that the discussion we are now having is one which should have taken place on the second reading. Both the promoter of the Bill (Mr. MacKenzie King) and the hon. gentleman who introduced it (Mr. Verville) spoke on the subject and this House unanimously accepted the principle by adopting the second reading. By that second reading the House had committed itself to the principle of the measure. It must be remembered that this Bill has been before the House three or four sessions, and that ultimately we decided to refer it to a select committee. That committee sat during some weeks last session and took evidence from all classes, and while I have had no intimation from the Minister of Labour or the hon. gentleman who presented the 'Bill as to what the proposed amendments are to be, I understand that they are based on the evidence received before that select committee and intended to remove the objections there made and meet what appeared to be the view of the majority as shown by the witnesses who came before that committee. If the government is prepared to support a measure introduced by a private member, with the amendments suggested as the result of the deliberations of the select committee, personally I can see no objection to our taking up that-a measure developed as the result of the intelligence of the select committee-measure with its amendments at present. I do not see that it matters whether the Bill is presented by a private member or not. There would be still further ample opportunity to reconsider these amendments before the third^ reading. Let the Bill be considered now in committee, let the amendments proposed be discussed by the committee and inserted in the Bill, and let the Bill, as amended, be reprinted, and, having accepted the principle, we can give the details every consideration they require before the third reading is passed.
Mr. MEKtHEN.
I could take up the time of the House telling how much has been done for the working classes of other countries by legislation of this kind. But I assume that many hon. members know as much about that as I do. In any case, this is not an opportune time for an address of that description. But I would remind the House that the employers of the labour affected by this Bill are in this House. The government are the employers, and other hon. members are representatives, of the public. This Bill has no reference to agricultural labour or to factories; to cover these would be to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the provinces. The Bill simply says that in certain classes of labour-and I understand that it is confined to the construction of public works under the Dominion government-men shall not be called upon to work more* than eight hours a day and that the day labourer employed by the government should be in the same position. I under-i stand these are to be the provisions of the amended Bill. I can say, as a member from British Columbia, that, if this is to be the Bill, then the Bill will not conflict with any public interest in my province. Legisla-j tion already existing in British Columbia^ provides that all the principal trades to be affected by this Bill are confined by legislation and by trades union agreements to the principle of an eight-hour-day. The rule of an eight-hour-day in certain employments is worldwide and has been acknowledged by every civilized country. I am glad to hear it stated in this House; that the government has arrived at the conclusion that the men employed under contract for the government in certain* capacities shall not be expected to work for more than eight hours a day. I think the committee could well proceed with the' Bill, dealing with the amendments as they are presented. Then, after the Bill is reprinted the House will have an opportunity to consider the whole measure. Instead of reflecting upon the Minister of Labour or upon the government for not having taken charge of this measure, I cannot see that it makes any difference except to the member who wants an excuse for not supporting it. I do not see what difference it makes, if the principle of the Bill be sound, whether it is introduced by the government or by the hon. member for Maisonneuve. If the principle of a Bill is correct, for my part, I am prepared to support it whether it is moved by a private member or by the government. If these amendments are inaccord with the evidence given before the committee by witnesses from all over the country, I think the government is reasonable in supporting that legislation. And

I shall be well pleased to contribute my vote in favour of the eight-hour principle which has been acknowledged in England, Germany, Australia and in several of the provinces of this country as a reasonable principle. And I am pleased to know that the government is ready to support* that principle.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: At present the question before the Chair is as to clause 2. So long as the motion to rise was before the committee, the whole ques->
Cion was open, and it appeared to be the strong desire of the committee to discuss the whole subject. I do not wish to stand in the way of that continuing, but I think it my duty to remind the committee that the subject under discussion is section 2.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) said he did not see any difference between having the Bill in charge of a private member or having it in charge of the government. I think it must be plain to every hon. member that there is in this all the difference between the success and the failure of the Bill. I would ask the Minister of Labour whether it is the intention of the government to facilitate the passing of the Bill to its third reading in this House. Because, hon. members know perfectly well that this is the last Thursday to be devoted to private members' work, and very few facilities will be given this Bill to be passed if it remains in the hands of a private member. And I would call attention to the fact also that the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Verville) has had several opportunities to move the second reading and has delayed the measure repeatedly in order that opportunity might be given the Minister of Labour to promulgate his views in sympathy with the Bill without any real intention of passing the measure. I am not opposed to any measure that will alleviate the condition of the labouring classes. But we must remember that the effect of this measure must be to increase enormously the cost of public works. And, as the farming community form one-third of our population, that increased cost will fall mainly in the agricultural classes. Representing, as I do, an agricultural constituency, I am bound to oppose this very much.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The Bill as it appears on the Order Paper is a public Bill, and it seems to me immaterial whether it is presented by a private member or by the government. The Bill will iconsecrate the principle of an eight-hour day for labour, and I think, should have the sympathy of every member of this House who is in favour of the labouring classes. I would point out that this Bill will apply to government works alone. Let me give an instance. In
the city of Hull, immediately across tne river from Ottawa, there are a great number of labourers employed in the departments of this government. These poor labourers have to leave their homes, in many cases, at six o'clock in the morning in order to reach their work at the time appointed by the government for work to begin. If they wished to have breakfast before leaving their homes, they must get up at 5 o'clock, and many of them have to get up at 4 and half past four in the morning. Hon. gentlemen must admit that in the cold winter months it is unreasonable to say that these poor labourers who have to go perhaps three or four miles from their homes in the early hours of the morning, should not be given a fair opportunity to enjoy some of the luxuries which the richer classes enjoy at every hour in the day.


Mr. LALOR.: Do not these same conditions apply to men working for private individuals?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Yes, they certainly do, and I would be glad to see all classes of the labouring population in this country given the same facilities and the same advantages which the hon. member for Maison-neuve proposes that we should give to men labouring on public works. But at the present moment, we cannot legislate for other classes. We can only legislate upon matters affecting the government of this country. Therefore, I heartily approve, as I did last session, of the principle of an eight-hour-day Bill, and I hope it will go through.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman who introduced this Bill, made a speech on the second reading, saying that he was going to introduce some amendments. We supposed those amendments would be put before us, because the Minister of Labour said that on the strength of those amendments, he intended to support the Bill. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) says he knows what those amendments are, and he is prepared to support them. But we on this side of the House, know nothing about them.


Ralph Smith: I never said I had seen those amendments.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then the hon. gentleman has great faith in the member for Maisonneuve, if he is willing to support this Bill before he has seen the amendments, and does not know anything about them, according to his own statement. I am not like my hon. friend. I want to know what I am doing, I want to understand the language of the Bill that I am helping to enact. I did not experience such treatment in regard to a Bill that I introduced. I had a Bill on the Order Paper, and it had to stand, because the Minister of Railways was not in the House,

although the government could not object to it and its merits. The hon. member for Maisonneuve has been introducing legislation of this kind for four or five years past, to my knowledge, but never attempting to get it to a second reading. Now he brings it in at half past nine o'clock on the evening of the last day he can do so, before parliament takes its Christmas recess. We have not had an opportunity of studying the Bill, we have not seen the amendments, and yet the hon. member for Maisonneuve asks us for God's sake not to stop this Bill. When did he think it was necessary to make that prayer to the Almighty for the first time in regard to this legislation?


Alphonse Verville: I asked the House not to make a political affair of it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What has the hon. gentleman been doing himself ? What has he been doing with this Bill for the last five years ? Talk about making a political question of it ! I do not know whether I am in favour of his Bill or not, because I do not know what the Bill is. The hon. member for Nanaimo says that the principle can be well understood before we reach the third reading, and yet he found fault with us for not objecting to the principle of the Bill before the second reading. What chance have the labouring men of this country got with a government that acts on such logic as that ? What I would suggest is that the hon. member for Maisonneuve send through the post office to every member of this House by to-morrow a copy of his amendments, so that we may have a chance to consider them before the Christmas holidays, and that after consulting with our constituents, we may come back here, prepared to give the Bill an intelligent consideration. None of us had any idea that this Bill was coming up tonight. We have had no opportunity of considering the amendments, which it is admitted, are of so much importance that they involve the principle of the Bill. The general principle of the Bill should be known before the Bill leaves the com mittee. The Minister of Labour admitted that his object is to get in the thin end of the wedge, and to cause everybody to go in for an eight hour day; other hon. gentlemen support the Bill, because they think it does nothing of the kind. If the object of the Minister of Labour is to coerce the rest of the people of Canada into adopting an eight-hour day, I am not with him. This is still a free country, and he has no business to try to coerce the provincial legislatures to make laws that they might not be disposed to make. If however, as the hon. member for Nanaimo suggests, the Bill is only to apply to government work, that might be a different thing, and Mr. LANCASTER.
I might support it. But I say that we ought not to pass section 2, until we have these amendments before us. Surely it is not using too strong an expression to say that the opposition in this House, at all events, are being taken by the throat tonight in regard to this legislation.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think I ought to call the attention of the committee to the fact that section 2 is before the committee. If there is a motion to rise and report and ask leave to sit -again, of course, there might be a discussion. But, at present I have to restrict it to section 2.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: With reference to the observation that this Act is not to be applied to the agricultural work I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to section 2 in connection with clause 5. Section 5 says in effect that :
No labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the government shall be permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day.
The Minister of Labour said that the object of this Bill is to set an example in the matter of progressive labour legislation. This clause 5 says in effect that none of the labourers, mechanics or workmen employed on any of the agricultural farms belonging to the Dominion government shall be permitted to work for more than eight hours a day, while the poor agricultural labourer across the line is liable to be bound down from daylight to dark. I want to know if it is the intention of the government to enforce a rule of this kind with respect to men employed on the model agricultural farms while at the same time no provision is made for the poor agricultural labourer across the line.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any objection to stating what the amendments are?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at all. Why should we not have them? In view of the position taken by the Chair, we cannot. according to the strict rules of parliament, allow any general discussion on the subject unless a motion is made that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. That will give an opportunity to my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) to state what the amendments are, and therefore, I beg to move that the committee rise.


Alphonse Verville: I have no objection to stating what the amendments are. I have nothing to hide from this House. I propose to amend section 2, paragraphs (a) and (c), by striking out the words ' in the open market ', and paragraph (b) by adding the words ' or if war is appre-

hended.' Sections 4 and 5, are to be stricken out altogether.


David Henderson: How much will there be left of the Bill?


Alphonse Verville: I will answer my hon. friend when I get through. It is proposed to amend section 6 as follows. After the word ' contract ' in line 19 insert the words ' hereafter made for the erection, remodelling, construction, or repair of any public building.' In line 25, strike out the words ' or permitted.' In line 26, after the words ' more than ' insert the words * forty-eight hours in any one week or where employment is for less time than one week.' In line 27, the following words are to be added to section 6 ' additional hours, if worked, shall be classified as overtime and paid for at the rate of not less than time and a quarter.' I will read the whole clause.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman read the clause as he proposes it?	.


Alphonse Verville: The clause as amended will read:-
Every contract hereafter made for the erection, remodelling, construction or repair of any public building of which the government of Canada is a party, which may involve the employment of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor, sub-contractor or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be required, except in case of extraordinary emergency, to work upon or in connection with the work contracted for, more than forty-eight hours in any one week, or where employment is for a less time than one week, eight hours in any one calendar day; additional hours if worked shall be classified as over-time, and paid for at a rate of not less than time and a quarter.
Then clauses 7 and 8 are to be stricken out.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Alphonse Verville: Hon. members need not be surprised.


An hon. MEMBER.: We are not.


An hon. MEMBER.: Neither is the Minister of Labour.


Alphonse Verville: Do you want to hear any more to-night?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that all the amendments you have to propose?


Alphonse Verville: There is something else. I propose to substitute the following for clause 7.-
7. Any officer or agent of the government of Canada or any contractor or sub-contractor
thereof who violates any of the provisions of this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars and costs or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or to both fine anl imprisonment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will the hon. gentleman add a clause stating who will enforce the law if it is broken?


Alphonse Verville: The law will be enforced.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You were not listening to the discussion this afternoon if you think that.


Alphonse Verville: The working people will see that it is enforced as they have seen that the fair wage clause is enforced. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have given all the details and I don't see why we cannot proceed with the Bill. I have nothing to hide.


Mr. BEATTIE.: I am surprised that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Ver-ville) has introduced to the House such an important Bill in such a manner. The hon. gentleman knows that I am in favour of labour legislation to benefit the workingmen, and that I am especially in favour of an eight-hour day Bill, but the Bill he presents to-night is a thing of such shreds and patches that you cannot make head or tail out of it. Some twelve years ago, long before the hon. gentleman (Mr. Verville) had a seat in this House, I myself proposed an eight-hour day Bill, but 1 found I was a little ahead of the times, and the fact that I introduced such a Bill was one of the main factors which led to the Hon. Charles
H.	Hyman defeating me in 1900. But, since then, people have changed their minds with regard to legislation for the benefit of the working people. It is a rather curious coincidence that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Verville) who introduces this Bill, travelled all the way from Montreal, during one of my elections, and brought with him the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) to endeavour to defeat me, although, as I have said I was one of the first in Canada to propose the eight-hour day legislation.


Alphonse Verville: What kind of a canui-date did you have against you?


Thomas Beattie: A labour candidate.


Alphonse Verville: Exactly.


Thomas Beattie: Well, I was just as much of a labour candidate as he was, and I had worked all my life at least equally as hard and quite as respectably as he did in the interest of the working people, and the people of London I am thankful to say showed their appreciation of that by returning me to this House. When the hon. member for Maisonneuve honoured London with his presence he called a meeting, and

I think he only got 35 people to attend. Then they resorted to securing a brass band and I am told they had about 120 people following it boys and all included. As I have said, Mr. Chairman, things have changed since I had the privilege of introducing an eight-hour Bill in this House. One of the principal manufacturers in London told me a short time ago that he had voluntarily adopted the eight-hour rule in his establishment, with the result that he got better work done than formerly under the longer hours, and so satisfied is he with the system that he would not change it now. 1 refer to Mr. McCormick, who is engaged in the biscuit business.


Mr. GORDON (Nipissing).: Does he make good biscuits?


Thomas Beattie: Yes, he makes the best biscuits in Canada; but of course I must give the Minister of Customs credit for making good biscuits too. Mr. McCormick is perfectly satisfied with the eight-hour a day system and Mr. McCormick is a gentleman who would not make that statement to me unless he believed it were true. Tonight I have heard a good deal said about the agricultural community and about the long hours they have to work. That may be all true during the harvest season, but there is no man working on a farm who works more than ten hours a day and he does not work that long all the year round. During the harvest season they have long hours on the farm, but for the remaining eight months of the year they get up in the morning and feed their cattle and they have nothing to do until feeding time comes again at night. I really believe that the people working on farms do not work more than eight hours a day on an average all the year round. I think the men working on the farms work long enough, but I object to their position being used as an argument why the people working in the different industries throughout the Dominion should be compelled to work long hours.


Mr. CROSBY.: If the suggestion I made last session had been adopted we would not be to-night discussing this Bill as we are doing. One strange thing in connection with this Bill and the oration we had from the Minister of Labour is, that at the outset the Minister of Labour told the leader of the opposition that when he knew what the amendments which the hon. member (Mr. Verville) was going to propose were, he would be able to say whether the government would approve of the Bill, but a moment later he was compelled to admit that he knew all about these amendments in advance, if they had not been framed by him. There has been a good deal of shuffling between the Minister of Labour and the member for Maisonneuve in connection with this Bill. It reminds me of the old time Irish Mr. BEATTIE.
jig. When they got two pretty good dancers and it was hard to tell the difference between the two they selected a jig that the two could not dance together, and so each of them took turn about on the floor just as the Minister of Labour and the member for Maisonneuve are doing to-night, and you have to keep your eyes open to see which one of them is dancing best in order to determine which of them will get the glory. But, the Minister of Labour has been five years working at a measure of this kind and as he has had all the glory during that period he things he can give a little of it to the member for Maisonneuve to-night. The Minister of Labour has for five years been well fed on glory, and by this time, between the Minister of Labour and the member for Maisonneuve, I think the working men of Canada are getting pretty well fed on this Bill. Time will tell whether there is any sincerity in these hon.* gentlemen opposite with regard to this legislation, and when the resolution of my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Maddin) comes before the House we will be able to determine where the sincerity is. While these gentlemen opposite are pressing this Bill through the House of Commons tonight in a hurry, I believe we will find there is a string to'it, and that when it goes to another Chamber the string will be pulled and the Bill slaughtered. I am in favour of this Bill.


An hon. MEMBER.: How do you know what it is?


Adam Brown Crosby: Well, I was in favour of the Bill when it started out, but it has got rather mixed up lately, and it is hard to tell what it means. It reminds me of a great prohibitionist who, on one occasion, attended a banquet, and he was favoured with a drink called a cocktail, and on being asked how he liked it, he said he did not take very much to the cherry, but he liked the spirit in which it was given. I cannot say I think very much of the Bill now, but I like the spirit in which it is given. I do say, that we should have taken this course last year, in place of putting this Bill off and having a committee, piling up cords of this kind of thing, all we required to do, was to take up the Bill and deal with it. We only needed to keep off as many lawyers as possible and the Minister of Labour would have been enabled to produce a good Bill, some of us farmers and working men could have worked out a Bill that every one could understand. Instead of that we said:	We
will waste another vear and get all this matter. If that testimony is any good, we should read it.' I do not require to read it, I made up my mind last year that what we ought to do, and wanted to do, was simply to pass a Bill that would give an eight-hour day on all public works un-

der construction by the government or un der contract by contractors to the government, that is all public works, public buildings, canals, &c., under construction. It seemed to me very easy and very simple, if we meant business, to put such a Bill on the statute-book, as would cover exactly what we desire and what the workingmen of this country desire, it is all very well for men to get up and say we do not want to put a Bill on the statute-book to force men not to work more than eight hours a day; they are asking for it, the workingmen have been asking for this Bill for a long time. The hon member foi London (Mr. Beattie), has said that 12 years ago, he moved such a Bill, and he was the right kind of man to do so, because he meant business when he moved it, and if he had had encouragement, he would have put it through. Lawyers neai me, say it would take them two or three weeks to fully grasp the meaning of this Bill with the proposed amendments. We have already voted for the principle, we adopted the principle of the eight-hour day on public works in this Dominion at the last session, and why should we be bamboozled about this thing now?


Mr. CONMEE.: Then why don't you let it go through?


Adam Brown Crosby: It might go through you.


James Conmee: We would have a hard time to get it through you.


Adam Brown Crosby: It might take longer to go through you than it would to go through me, but it would not take you so long to go through anything else. I am in accord with the principle of the Bill this year as I was last year; my only fear in regard to it, is that I do not believe there is a sincere effort behind it on the part of the Minister of Labour or the government or the member for Maisonneuve, who moved it. However, if, as the session advances the hon. member will prove to me that he means business and will see that the Bill goes through, I will be glad to apologize to him for what I have said, and I shall be glad to see the day when we will have taken this long step in the right direction. I am quite in accord with the references that have been made by the Minister of Labour to the working people, and the care we should give them.


Mr. MADDIN.: When a Bill, somewhat similar to this one, was before the House last session, I expressed myself as in ac cord with the principle of that enactment, and voted against its being referred to a special committee, urging that the matter be taken up in Committee of the Whole at that time, and that such amendments as were necessary, should there be introduced. Had my counsel been followed a Bill substantially the same as this 46
would have been in operation for the last six or seven months. However, the Bill found its way to that committee. For some ten years now, we have had a Department of Labour, which was created at first under the Department of the Postmaster General, and many people in Canada are very anxious to know for just what purpose this department exists, for when the only important piece of labour legislation since 1908, came before this parliament, a Bill respecting the hours of labour on public works, it was referred to a committee. For what purpose? To gather statistics, facts and figures with regard to the hours of employment on public works in other countries and with regard to the hours of labour in different employments in other countries. Eventually, of+er the matter had gone to a committee, after this volume of evidence had been elicited from the Manufacturers' Association, from employers of labour, from labour unions, a commissioner was sent to gather still further information with regard to the matter. I submit that the Department of Labour has failed utterly in the purpose for which it was inaugurated if, .after ten years, with the present Minister of Labour acting as deputy, travelling throughout every civilized country in the world, and studying economic and labour conditions, it becomes necessary in the opinion of the government to submit a trifling little Bill with five sections in it, to a special committee of this House, which was obliged to sit for 19 days and to issue a volume of evidence such as has been submitted.
I would like to feel quite certain that/ the government is sincere in their endea-( vour to pass such legislation. Whether i1) pass in the form of this Bill or whether' the amendments be adopted is neither here nor there, but I would like to feel some assurance that the government are sincere in their effort to make this Act or the substance of it, part of the law of this country. In 1906 there appeared on the Order Paper of this House a Bill entitled: an Act' respecting the hours of labour on public works. Its title appeared on the Order Paper during the sessions of 1907, 1908 and 1909. We have had it again this year, and I would like to point out that during all these years, it has appeared in the name of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville). The hon. gentleman was president of the Trades and Labour Council of Canada and was elected, not as a Liberal or Conservative, but as a representative of labour. During all those years however during which this Bill was before the House, to what extent did he exhibit activity with regard to it. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) to-night, after he had expressed his sym-



pathy with the Bill and endorsed its principle, why he did not adopt it as a government measure? In reply, we were treated to a demonstration of heroics by the Minister of Labour. He became very tender-hearted all at once and fair play and equity fairly beamed from him. He said it would not be fair to the hon. member for Maisonneuve, to whom the labouring classes were under obligations, it would not be playing the game fair, if the government should take the matter out of his hands, but that now the government was prepared to adopt it. Within a few minutes afterwards, when the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) was making his speech before this committee, he raised his hands and said: For God's sake do not drag politics into this discussion. Now I want to deal with that prayer that went up to heaven to-night and test the sincerity of the mover of the Bill. On September 22, 1909, the Trades and Labour Council met in the city of Quebec, and Mr. O'Donohue, parliamentary solicitor of that body, then delivered his preliminary report. From that report I intend to make a few quotations for the benefit of members of this committee and particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville):-
Mr. Verville introduced a Bill to provide for an eight-hour day on government contracts. The Bill stood while I was endeavouring to prevail upon the government to make it a government Bill and thus insure its passage into law.
There was then no pretense on the part of the parliamentary solicitor, who was making his report to the Trades and Labour Council that the government was sympathetic with the hon. member for Maisonneuve and did not want to rob him of any glory. But what further do we find in this report, and mark you, this is a report which was read in the presence of the man who prays to God that politics will not be dragged into the discussion. Mr. O'Donohue further says:-
I further endeavoured to secure enough supporters to at least make certain of a division on a second reading.
Mr. Chairman, I went to the trouble of asking personally sixty-seven members who sit to the left of the Speaker, and I was assured that not one of them was ever approached, either by the solicitor of the Trades and Labour Council or the hon. member for Maisonneuve, and asked to support this Bill. The report goes on to say:-
The absence of the Hon. Mr. King and illness of in the family of the then Minister of Labour, the Hon. Mr. Lemieux, were other causes that contributed to the delay. Finally Mr. MADDIN
when it was determined to push the Bill it had become tied up on the Order Paper, and the only thing that could be done was to have the order discharged so that a discussion could be had on the merits.
So that in spite of the appeal to heaven that politics might not be dragged into the thing, we have the solicitor of the council making this further report.


Alphonse Verville: I am willing to accept my own responsibility, but I am not an officer of that organization, now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were you then?


Alphonse Verville: I was.


James William Maddin: I turn to another page of the report:-
Quebec, September 22, 1909.
Third Day-Morning Session.
President Verville called the convention to order at 9 a.m.


Alphonse Verville: I did not say that I was not a member then. I acknowledged like a man that I was. But I say that now I am not an officer of it any longer.


James William Maddin: I am not surprised that after the members of that council ' discovered what was going on in the House, the hon. gentleman should no longer be an officer of that association. The report goes on to say:-
Mr. Verville presented the resolution in a very forcible and able speech, his efforts being ably seconded by Mr. C. A. Turcotte, Nicolet, Mr. Jos. Girard, Chicoutimi and Saguenay, Mr. J. D. Taylor, New Westminster, and Mr. Crosby, Halifax. Hon. Mr. Lemieux said lie found that there were some very grave difficulties in the way.
I pass over part of the report. I am only reading it in so far as it bears on the prayer that went from the hon. gentleman s lips to-night, but I doubt if the prayer on his lips and the meditations in his heart would harmonize very well:-
The Hon. Mr. Lemieux said he found there were some very grave difficulties in the way. In nearly all states of the American commonwealth there exists, he said, an eight-hour law, but it has been limited to certain industries. As drawn, he would not support the Bill, but he declared that it was legislation worth studying and investigating. An eight-hour law on government contracts, he argued, would be in conflict with provincial legislation as it stands.
Apparently at this council, the parliamentary solicitor was apologizing for the views expressed by the then Minister of Labour (Mr. Lemieux). But the report contains a further apology for the Minister of Labour of that date:-
It is quite apparent that the Hon. Mr. Lemieux was not able to give the subject the study it deserved or he would not have spoken

as lie did. In the first place, the delegates will recall that on several occasions the hon. gentlemen declared himself fully in accord with our demand in this regard and stated that all we had to do was to convert his colleagues. If the hon. gentleman thinks the Bill is class legislation, he cannot fairly he in favour of it, whether in its present form or any other.
Then, in order that this committee may-further appreciate how determined were these gentlemen-the then president of the Trades and Labour Council (Mr. Verville) and its solicitor (Mr. O'Donahue)-for God's sake to keep this thing out of politics. Mr. O'Donahue concludes his report as follows :-
While the opposition jeered at the honesty of purpose of Mr. Verville, it is worthy of note that the Hon. Mr. Borden did not speak in favour of the Bill, nor did others of the opposition except those mentioned above.
Suddenly in the last sentence, the measure becomes a Bill again. First, it was a Bill, then a resolution, and finally a Bill again We have here an instance of a president of the Trades and Labour Council (Mr. Verville) coming into this House as a labour representative and then following the government as servilely as its most abject supporter. We find him placing on the Order Paper year after year a measure which he does not bring before the House, which he does not introduce into it, and then going back with his parliamentary solicitor at his elbow convening delegates from all over Canada, and conveying to them such false and glaring misrepresentations as I have read-misrepresentations bristling with partisanship and politics from beginning to end-and then we have this hon. gentleman raising his hands to heaven and exclaiming for God's sake do not drag politics into this discussion.
When this Bill was before this House last session, or a Bill similar to it, I expressed myself in sympathy with its object. I do not agree that this measure in any way comes into conflict with our farming population. I do not think the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) or the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) need express any undue anxiety as to the toiling masses who till the soil. They seem to think that the working hours of the farmer are much too long. And, as I recall his words, the hon. member for Fron-' tenac said that the farmer does more hard work in a given time than the man of any other class. Perhaps he does. But whether he does or not it is certainly true that he takes longer rests and takes them more frequently than the ordinary labourers in the industrial centres. There is no occasion to be exercised over the farming population. Those of the west, we know, in seed-time and in harvest work very hard.
461	'
But it was stated in the debate on the resolution regarding the chilled meat trade that cattle raising and feeding is dwindling to little or nothing; and we were assured by one hon member that some of the farmers kept only four or five head of cattle. What do they do in winter? Why, they spend their winters in Florida or California. Almost every farmer owns his automobile. And when they have garnered their wheat and taken it to the elevators, they think nothing of coming to Ottawa in car-loads to present their demands. But the men from the industrial centres of Canada would find it difficult, indeed-the men who work ten hours a day in the mines or workshops-to come before this House when even this important legislation is engaging our attention. They would find it difficult to fill even one second-class car from the maritime provinces, for instance. The conditions of the two classes are different. The farmer is his own boss; he is independent. And, when his crops are in, with a box of McDonald's twist and a chest of tea, and a good woodpile outside the door, he can sit at his own fireside and put in a reasonably soft time, as most of them do. I have not that peculiar symnathy with the farming classes that would lead me to oppose this Bill on the ground that it might conflict with the interests of agriculture, and make the people dissatisfied with the farm. There is little possibility of the farmers of the west or of Ontario coming to the coal mines of Nova Scotia because the hours of lab,our there are shorter. They prefer the open air and to be their own masters. There is little likelihood of their going into the workshops of the cities because the hours are shorter. And, as they find in the industrial centres such a ready market for the products of the farm, there must be that bond of sympathy between the producer on the farm, and the consumer in the town that would harmonize interests and cause the farmers to sympathize with a Bill of this kind, especially when it does not interfere with them or their interests.
There is one other reason why, I submit, the government having expressed themselves in sympathy with the spirit of this Act, should assume the responsibility of it. It has been urged, and so hinted in this report of the Trades and Labour Council by their parliamentary solicitor, that the passage of this Bill would be a guarantee to the toiling masses that on government works labour would be reduced to eight hours a day. On the other hand, the government would have to accept the responsibility of legislation of that kind. I have no doubt that a perusal of the evidence-I have not had time to peruse it all-taken on a similar Bill last winter will disclose strong protests from the manufacturers and

the contractors. And I presume that the government, through their Minister of Labour, are pandering to the labour organizations of the Dominion, expressing their sympathy with the Bill, but avoiding the responsibility of promoting the Bill in this House, because this will leave them in a position to sav to the labourers: We have shortened your hours of labour from ten hours to eight hours, and to the manufacturers: It was not a government measure, but was introduced bv the member for Maisonneuve and enough members on either side voted for it to carry it, but we are not responsible for it. In fact, the government is plaving heads I win, tails you lose. They hope to cover themselves with glory if the Bill goes through in its present form and with its present mover, and, on the other hand, they are prepared to repudiate any responsibility for it. This must be quite evident, I think, when they 1 refuse to make this a government measure. There is a further consideration. If the Department of Labour, which was created for the purpose of looking after the labouring and manufacturing interests of Canada, has any sympathy with this Bill and deems it expedient that expression should be given in the form of a statute to the principle involved in the Bill, I submit that it becomes the duty of the government to express that opinion in the form of a Bill and submit it to this House. They should not leave it to the hon. member for Maisonneuve. who is inexperienced-I am sure he will not take any offence at mv saying so- in drafting measures to be submitted to parliament. It is the dutv of the government, if they approve the spirit of the Act, to prepare a Bill expressing their views and submit it to the House, and not have Bill after Bill introduced session after session, no two Bills alike, and now the Bill and its amendments coming in together and all emanating from the mover of the Bill. This is surely very singular and very anomalous. The whole thing could be obviated bv the Minister of Labour assuming the responsibilities of his office and taking hold of this subiect in the proper manner. This is onlv a short and simple Bill, and, surelv, with his ten years' experience throughout the civilized world and his study of economic and labour conditions, the hon. Minister of Labour, in an afternoon, could prepare a Bill covering his views on the subiect of hours of labour on public works.


Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: I think I am within the mark in saying that we have had exhibited here to-night the most extraordinary performance on the part of a minister of the Crown and leader of a great movement that has ever been witnessed within these walls. Before proceeding to refer in detail to the reasons which have led me to that conclusion, I Mr. MADDIN.
would like to recall an incident of last year in connection with a Bill of similar title. That Bill was referred by this House, as some of us thought and said at the time, to a committee in the hope that that committee would strangle it and that nothing more would be heard of it. The committee considered the Bill at very great length. They made a report of several hundred pages entirely favourable, as I gather, to the principle of an eight-hour day in government employment. One would think that the Minister of Labour, having presided as chairman over the deliberations of that committee, and having had as his colleague the hon. member for Maisonneuve who has presented this Bill, if he thinks this Bill is in the interest of labour, would have conferred with the hon. gentleman who presented the Bill, and would at least have given us some idea as to whether he intends to give the Bill the endorsement of the government so as to ensure its passage through this House. Nothing of the kind occurred, however. The member for Maisonneuve has been allowed to go on this year as in the past, without any assistance from the Department of Labour, and when he brings in the Bill, a Bill which I have every reason to believe is the product of the Trades and Labour Congress, or if not, is the result of deliberation on the part of the leaders of labour in this country- when he brings in that Bill in his name, and offers it to this House, the Bill is deliberately strangled by the Minister of Labour, who should have helped him to prepare a reasonable measure. Now. I refer to this as an extraordinary spectacle, and I wish to call attention to the evidence. We have here a Bill submitted as to which we were asked to vote the affirmation of the principle, as we did on the second reading, providing a large measure of restriction in reference to labour on government works. So great was the confidence, apparently, of hon. gentlemen on the government side of the House in the integrity of the Minister of Labour, a confidence voiced by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) who at one time sat in this House as a labour member himself, and who said to us a little while ago : I have an abiding faith in the integrity of the Minister of Labour-


Ralph Smith: No, I was referring to the member for Maisonneuve.


James Davis Taylor: I accept the explanation of the member for Nanaimo, he had not an abiding faith in the integrity of the Minister of Labour.


Ralph Smith: My hon. friend's capacity for misconstruction is being illustrated. It is a very unfair statement for my hon. friend to make. I stated

that I had an abiding faith in the hon. member for Maisonneuve that he was prepared to make reasonable amendments. 1 made no reference whatever to the Minister of Labour.


James Davis Taylor: 1 do not think the hon. member for Nanaimo had any occasion to use words so offensive as those which he has applied to me just now, and I hand them back to the hon. gentleman. I was proceeding to say that so great was the confidence, so sublime was the faith of some of those hon. gentlemen in their leaders, that, without knowing the first syllable of what it was proposed to offer to this House, they had accepted this Bill in toto. They had no reasons to give for their faith, and they are justified in their lack of reasons by what has occurred now, because we find now that what the member for. Nanaimo endorsed in toto a few minutes ago has entirely disappeared. As I understand the amendments stated to us by the member for Maisonneuve, the Bill as it stands now has simply one enacting clause. It states simply that on every contract for any public building to which the government of Canada is a party, not that there shall be only eight hours of work per day, or an eight-hour-day, but that no person employed on such contract shall be required to work more than forty-eight hours in one week; that is, we are asked by the Minister of Labour, and by the member for Maisonneuve, who is the labour representative in this House, and by the member for Nanaimo, the ex-labour representative in this House, to enact a clause which says that any contractor having a government contract can say to every person appealing to him for work: What is your view with respect to the hours of labour? You know parliament has enacted that we shall, not require a man to work more than forty-eight hours in a week Have you any objection to work twelve hours a day for four days, and lay off the other two? Have you any objection voluntarily to work ten hours a day throughout the week? If you have objections of that kind, I am afraid I do not want you, because there are any number, of persons ready voluntarily to work those hours. Now that is what this House is asked to pass to-night, and that I maintain is all that remains of this famous Eight-hour Bill which, for five sessions, has been before the parliament of Canada. Now, having realized that the only enacting section in this Bill is section 6, we turn back to see how the rest of it reads, and we find that it makes absolute nonsense. Section 6 has reference only to public buildings in the construction of which the government of
Canada is a party, but section 2 provides so extraordinary a list of exceptions, read in connection with section 6, that I am amazed that any Minister should offer them seriously to this House. Here are the exceptions :
(a)	to purchases made in the open market by the government of Canada;
(b)	to work upon public, military or naval works or defence in time of war;
(c)	to purchases made in the open market by the contractor, sub-contractor or other persons referred to in section 6 of this Act ;
(d)	to contracts for the transmisison of intelligence;	,	,	,
(e)	to contracts for transportation by land, or water;
(f)	to agricultural work.
Now I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what kind of a labour performance is this? How can it be characterized as other than absolute trifling with this House, as a challenge to the House by the Minister of Labour who seems to have acted so heartless a part in strangling the Bill of which he was supposed to be the father? I say it is trifling with the intelligence of this House, and challenging us to throw out this Bill when it is presented to us in this absurd shape. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin; referred to the proceedings of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada recently, in which contempt was expressed for the proceedings of this parliament because of our performance in connection with this eight-hour day question, and in view of what is now before us, I ask you whether that contempt is not justified, when we are asked in the name of labour to put upon the statute-book of Canada a measure so utterly unintelligible, absurd and nonsensical as that which the Minister of Labour offers to us now. Section 3 remains in the Bill:
This Act shall apply to work undertaken by the government by day labour.
How in the name of common sense can an Act apply to work undertaken by the government by day labour when the enacting section simply refers to contracts made oy the government with contractors? I would submit that to the intellect of the Minister of Labour, who has given many anxious hours, or weeks perhaps, as to how he can blow hot and cold upon the subject of an eight-hour day on government works. I would ask what he means. Does he think this House is so bereft of reason as to suppose that we can seriously accept these two propositions, that section 2 and section 3 as they stand, have any sense at all when taken in conjunction with section 6?


George Gerald King: May I ask what the hon. gentleman's question is?


James Davis Taylor: Yes, if the minister likes to answer my question I

will sit down. I am afraid, however, that the Minister of Labour is a little weary. He arose just now and I would be delighted to sit down and let him answer the question.


George Gerald King: I was asking the hon. gentleman what the question was.


James Davis Taylor: My question is: What is the object or application of section 3 of the Bill as it now stands before us?


George Gerald King: As I understand, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Verville) intends to have the eight-hour day principle apply to day labour performed by the government and also to contracting.


James Davis Taylor: It
seems that I have paid too high a compliment to the intelligence of the Minister of Labour. If the minister had not consented to strike out section 5 then the answer wdiich he has just now made to the committee might be accepted as having a grain of sense in it. But, with the disappearance of section 5 from this Bill any pretense of sense in the contention that by any possibility section 3 as it now stands can have any meaning in this Bill has completely disappeared.


George Gerald King: The hon. member is hardly fair. The Bill has been presented in a certain form. Some amendments have been suggested to it, but it may be that the amendments that have been suggested will necessitate further amendments to carry out the original intention of the promoter of the Bill.


James Davis Taylor: That is one sentence in which 1 do agree with the Minister of Labour-that the amendments which he has permitted his colleague in this work of labour reform to propose to this House do necessitate several other amendments and that to which I call attention is one. I am reminded of the statement by the minister early this evening that he had conferred with the introducer of this Bill in respect to the amendments.
I understood from his statement then that the amendments were his own work.


George Gerald King: I do not know that I gave any reason for that understanding.


James Davis Taylor: I am bound to take the minister's statement that he gave no reason for that understanding. It is true that there was a good deal associated with his explanation of this Bill that I entirely fail to understand. Now, not to delay the committee, I wish to state that I am in favour of the principle of an eight-hour day on government works and not only the principle but the practice. I also agreed with the Minister of Labour when, with characteristic eloquence, he dilated upon the advisability of the gov- >


James Davis Taylor: ernment being a model employer of labour. I agreed with the sentiment he then expressed that the government should be a model employer. It is because I think the government should be a model in this respect that I feel thankful when a Bill of this character does come before the House because I am convinced that the experience of eight hours a day labour on government works will prove so satisfactory as to lead to a general extension of the principle. But while I admired that statement of the minister I was disaonointed that in connection with works directly controlled by the .government he proposed to exempt labourers from the benefits of the operation of this Act. We have a number of experimental farms directly controlled by the government as to which it is quite practicable to enact that as a general rule at least there shall be 8 hours a day labour. Yet we find them expressly exempted. We have a number of penitentiaries directly under the control of the government not competing with any other interests in the country. The hours of labour there are 12, as I understand it. To me it is gross inhumanity that these employees of the government should be called upon to work these hours. I was disappointed that section 5 as it existed in this Bill did not cover that class of labour. I think it should. I would affirm, in conclusion, that I am in favour of the principle and practice of the 8 hour day on government works. I am also in favour of the proposition that this committee shall rise and report progress, because I think it is absolute folly to attempt to go on with the Bill in the shape in which it now stands before us.


Mr BORDEN (Halifax).: Will the Bill be reprinted ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: I understood the Minister of Labour to remark that there would be some further amendments to this Bill other than those proposed by the hon. member for Maisonneuve.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at all; my hon. friend the Minister of Labour says that in this Bill, like all other Bills, one amendment might suggest another.


Robert Laird Borden: May I suggest to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour that the Bill might be reprinted, so that it can be distributed during the holidays and members coming back would know just what is proposed.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.
Progress reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask what business will be taken to-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: I propose that we shall go into supply.


Robert Laird Borden: And take civil government?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 16, 1910.