1910-02-02

HOURS OF LABOUR ON PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MACKENZIE KING moved that the second report of the special committee on hours of labour on public works be concurred in: He said: I might say that in introducing the motion on this subject the other day I may not have explained it to the House as fully as I should have, that this is a report of the committee appointed by the House to inquire into the subject, and that it was as chairman of the committee I presented the report. It was suggested by some members of the House that the appointment of any one to assist the committee was unnecessary, inasmuch as officers of the Department of Labour might be expected to do that work. It is true that we have in the Department of Labour officers who are capable of doing work of the kind; but the work which is required to be done would involve taking these gentlemen off their departmental work to do that which is of the nature of committee work. It was also suggested that this looked like an attempt to get some one a situation. In that connection I have only to say that the motion to retain a specialist for this purpose in the committee was made by an hon. gentleman sitting on the other side of the House, and I am quite sure he had no such idea in his mind when he made the motion. Further, I do not think any member of the committee had in mind anything other than the purpose of securing the best expert advice it was possible to obtain in connection with the furtherance of the work, so that when the report was brought down to the House it would be as complete as possible. Seeing that this is the unanimous report of the committee, I hope the House will concur in it.
Mr. BLAIN.: I have nothing to add to what I said in the House a day or two ago.
I suppose that remark would apply to my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), because he has not added any new reason why the House should adopt this new principle. When the matter was be-Mr. CROCKET.
fore the House a few days ago the Prime Minister suggested that, as tnis was a new departure, time should be given to look into it. I hoped that the Minister of Labour would be able to give us some new reasons why the committee should ask that a specialist be appointed to gather information as to the labour legislation of other countries. My hon. friend's department is costing this country, according to the Auditor General's Report, about $112,000 every year; with a Minister of Labour, a deputy Minister of Labour, and a staff of officers, all new within the last few years; and if my hon. friend, after all these years of effort and expenditure, has not in his department now the legislation that is in force in other countries with which Canada has any relations, then I think the Labour Department is a distinct failure. I am not interested as to whether a gentleman on this side of the House or a gentleman on that side moved the motion in the committee. That is unimportant. What I do say is that whatever information is required by this subcommittee should he found in the Labour Department. If it is not found there, then my hon. friend the minister and his department are not doing what the people of this country expect them to do.


Mr. KING.: In answer to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) I would say that the legislation in question is to be found in the Department of Labour; but that is not what the committee is asking for. Legislation of this character passed by other countries has been the subject of interpretation in the courts, particularly in the United States, and in several states the courts have passed upon the effect of that legislation.


Richard Blain: Could not my hon. friend refer those matters to the Justice Department?


George Gerald King: The decisions of the courts are only one phase of the matter. But referring the matter to the Justice Department would not get over the difficulty of throwing upon a department of the government an amount of extra work which, having regard to the work the department is already doing, it could hardly be expected to undertake. My hon. friend has said that this is a new departure. I think he is mistaken. I am informed that in connection with other committees of the House a like course has been adopted for example in the case of the telephone committee, where the assistance of an expert was obtained. It is simply that the committee may have the benefit of expert knowledge on this very important question. One or two clerks of the department, if given this special work to perform, I have no doubt would discharge it satisfactorily, but to do that would involve their leaving other work

for a considerable time. I take it that this House is anxious, and certainly the country is anxious, that this measure should be furthered as expeditiously as possible, and it is to expedite the consideration of this Bill, and also to enable the House to have the fullest information possible, that the committee has made this recommendation.


Mr. LENNOX.: In referring to the expert employed in the case of the investigation in reference to telegraphs and telephones, my hon. friend is somewhat unfortunate. That was a case in which, it is true, we employed an expert, and a great deal of time of the members of this House was taken up in order to ascertain facts which were supposed to be useful to parliament and to the country. But unfortunately no use was made of that, the government remained absolutely idle for two or three years, and when the matter was brought up and discussed in the House, the government saw fit to put up one or two of their well known defenders to make statements which were not justified by the facts, and which were not justified by subsequent investigation. If the action of my hon. friend is on the same line of obtaining expert assistance, and then not availing himself of it, or rather perverting it to improper purposes, it would be unfortunate. For my part, I am of opinion, and have often expressed myself to that effect in the House, that we are far too prone to employ others to do work that we should do ourselves. That remark applies distinctly to this new department of the government, the Department of Labour. It is realized by members of this House, I think, and by the country generally, that this department, at all events, has not too much work to do. It is well understood in the country, and is emphasized by the press, that the peculiar functions assigned to the Minister of Labour have not been very efficiently discharged, in some respects, by that gentleman, and the prediction of the good results that would follow the constitution of a Department of Labour, have not been verified. I think it would be better for the departments to familiarize themselves with the work they have in hand, and to enable members of this House to familiarize themselves with the conditions of tne country, by appointing special committees to investigate these matters as far as possible at first hand, than to allow this system to creep in of employing experts, royal commissions, and so forth, to do the work which we could well do ourselves. I see the Prime Minister is in his place and an apt illustration of that will come up later on in the case of the appointment of the special Commission for the Conservation of our Natural Eesources. When that proposal was introduced into this House we were told that it would only cost a matter of 92
$20,000 a year or less. I find that the chairman of that commission is about to apply to parliament for a vote of $50,000 for the year's work of the commission. The matter of money is of little account, comparatively speaking, but I called it to the attention of the Prime Minister at the time that we were, by relegating these duties to outsiders, preventing ourselves from obtaining that familiarity with the resources of the country which we require in order to be in a position to prevent these resources from being raided.
I venture to make the statement that much of the information acquired by the commission will be utilized for the purpose of enabling those in close touch with the government to make raids upon the natural resources of this country and to utilize them to their own advantage. At the present moment we have some evidence that information which is being _ obtained by the commission is being exploited by members of this House, and i3 being turned to their own advantage. It will be a surprise to the country, or to me at all events, if it turns out that much of the money we are spending for the purpose of gathering information and collecting it with reference to our natural resources will not really be used for the purpose of enriching and aggrandizing certain persons.	[DOT]


Sir WILFEID LAUEIEE.: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) will regret the language which he has just made use of. First of all, it is out of place altogether upon this motion, and it is out of place because he makes an insinuation. If the hon. gentleman has charges to make, he is at liberty to make them. Otherwise, his words have no weight at all.


Mr. MACDONELL.: As a member of the committee to which this question was referred, I desire to say that we felt that if we were to properly discharge our duties it was necessary to obtain some outside assistance. The committee asked the hon. Minister of Labour to see if his department could furnish the assistance. He said that it could not, and, having regard to the nature of assistance we required, which was of a semi-legal character, it did not seem unreasonable to the committee that some outside assistance should be secured. That assistance was procured in the person of a gentleman who has appeared before the committee at the various sittings and who, in the opinion of the committee, has given entire satisfaction. It was felt by the members of the committee, eleven in number, that they could not devote sufficient of their time and attention to the work to do it complete justice. Most of the gentlemen were sitting on other select committees, all of them on the general committees, and I, as a member of

that committee, felt that I could not give it that personal attention necessary to investigate the various sources of legislation in other countries that, in my opinion, it required, and the other members of the committee felt that they were unable to give proper consideration to the measure. That being the view of the committee, this gentleman's services were, by unanimous consent, procured and he is performing his work. If it is not usual to procure services such as this gentleman is rendering, well and good; that is another matter entirely, but his services were procured because it was felt by the committee that some such assistance was necessary. He is giving the committee the assistance it had been looking for, and which it requires in order to give proper consideration to the matter referred to.


Mr. FOSTER.: I do not think we have heard from the minister in exculpation of his own department or any sufficient reason why there should be this extra employment. The whole matter seems to be that a rather expensive department, with what we supposed to be an up-to-date minister and staff, is not able to collate and bring before the committee the results of the legislation with regard to labour, so that the committee could have the material upon which to carry on its investigations. I think it is time that we should know what the Labour Department is going to do for the amount of money we are paying, which is yearly increasing. It seems to me that it should have intelligence enough to do this little bit of research and collation which is necessary to put certain information before the committee. I am not raising any objection against a small amount of money being expended for the purpose if it were absolutely necessary; what I am pointing out is that the Labour Department ought to be able to give at fairly short notice certain information which ought to be at the hands of that department at any [DOT] hour.


Richard Blain: Again I ask the minister if this official who is referred to in the report has been engaged and is at work now?


George Gerald King: I would say, in answer to the question just asked, that Professor Skelton, whom it is desired to retain in this connection, has already been giving evidence before the committee, has been giving the results of some of his researches into this question, and it is proposed that the committee shall ask him to make a special report.


Richard Blain: He has already been engaged by the committee?


George Gerald King: He has already given some of his evidence before the committee. As Mr. MACDONELL.
chairman of the committee I was informed by the clerk of the House that it was not necessary to ask the concurrence of the House in the action of the committee in obtaining this gentleman's services for this purpose, but it was thought better to do it and for this reason this present concurrence is being asked.


George Eulas Foster: By what authority was a payment of money agreed to without any appropriation or authorization by the House?


George Gerald King: I understand that there is a general appropriation for the purpose of assisting committees in the matter of the evidence which is taken before them, and it was proposed by this committee to deal with this in the same manner as these matters are dealt with by other [DOT] committees.


George Eulas Foster: That does not warrant them in employing special help. That is for the witnesses and the like of that.


George Gerald King: If the House will give me an opportunity I will be very glad to show what the Department of Labour is doing in view of some of the reflections which have been cast upon its work. However, at the moment, I will content myself with drawing attention to the kind of criticism that is made of the department and of the unfair nature of the charges that are sometimes levelled at it. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) has just read to the House from the Auditor General's Report a statement which he says shows the expenditure of the department to be $112,000 a year. I have in my hand a copy of the Auditor General's Report, and I will read from it just to show how that total is made up. I see here Royal Commission re losses of Japanese residents of Vancouver through riots in September, 1907, $623, and Chinese claims re riots in Vancouver, September, 1907, $27,433.41. That was money paid in settlement of the claims of Chinese for losses occasioned in the riots in Vancouver, something with which the Department of Labour as a department has nothing to do. The item is included but it is not a part of the expenditure of the Department of Labour in any sense of the word. Similarly, we have the Royal Commission re oriental labourers, $1,268.23, the Royal Commission re cotton industry in the province of Quebec, $1,404 and the joint International Opium Conference, Shanghai, China, $5,500. These are all items which are not properly chargeable in any sense of the word to the Department of Labour. If they are deducted from the total it will be seen that the cost of the Department is not anything like what the hon. gentleman would lead the country to believe.


Mr. CROSBY.: We started in to discuss the question that is before the House. We have gone into one or two other matters and now we have come to the Chinese question. I think we should confine ourselves to the question before the House.


Mr. HUGHES.: May I ask the minister if the item of $112,000 includes the expenditure of the officers of this government who went specially to bring in these Chinese as workmen in the first place?


Mr. SPEAKER.: The House should confine itself to the question before the Chair.


George Gerald King: Any digression from the original motion lies with the hon. member who introduced it in the first instance.


Richard Blain: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to ask a question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman has already spoken.


Richard Blain: I simply want to ask the Minister of Labour whether or not


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I hear a remark from the hon. member from Halton. It is customary in the House to allow a member of the Crown to give the House information, and to answer questions; when it would not be permitted to a private member.


George Eulas Foster: Give the poor fellow a chance.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If there is any doubt on that point I would like to have it settled.


Samuel Hughes: I would extend the privilege to any person in charge of a Bill.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I have no objection to the Minister of Labour answering questions, but the minister rose time after time when there was no question asked of him, and I was surprised that a minister of the Crown should seek to get privileges in this respect that are not accorded to other members. I was deprived of the opportunity of saying something ou this motion simply because the Minister of Labour rose time after time to address the House. I have no desire to in any way interfere with the minister answering questions. I thought this was the Department of Labour, hut it seems to me that the object of the department is to shirk labour. We have a minister and a deputy minister and a staff of officials, at large cost, and instead of doing the work they should reasonably be expected to do they simply want to throw that work over on somebody else. I do not know what this committee has accomplished, but it seems to me that the Bill which has been referred to them is not very difficult to decide upon. I do not 92J
know what extra knowledge is required to assist the committee. I think this parliament is capable of making precedents foT itself without going to foreign countries. If the object is to find out whether a man working on one side of the street on a government job should work 8 hours, while a man working on the other side on a private job should work 10 hours, then I think that any man of ordinary common sense could settle that question without [DOT]the assistance of even the Minister of Labour. It seems to me that it is quite unnecessary to call in this expert at large expense, to the country, and unless the minister can give more substantial reasons for his proposal the House should not agree to it.


Richard Blain: I ask the Minister of
Labour whether or not this gentleman has been engaged, and if so, at what salary and on whose authority?


George Gerald King: Mr. Skelton has been giving evidence before the committee. He has come to Ottawa at his own expense, and up to the present time the question of his remuneration has been left open. If the House decides not to concur in this report I suppose Professor Skelton will not he paid for his services. If on the other hand, it is felt that the country would not be justified in taking advantage of the professional services of this gentleman without remuneration, then, if this report is concurred in, I presume the committee will have authority to pay him for his services.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: I am astonished that the Minister of Labour should have deferred until this moment the acknowledgment that so far as he is concerned, this professor has been engaged and that his services are to he paid for. I am the more surprised, in view of the fact that a report recommending his engagement has been brought down to this House and has been discussed twice, with a week intervening, before the minister thinks it worth while to inform the House that his ^ department, and therefore the government, is committed to the payment of this university professor. I submit that that is not a proper way to use the House of Commons. I submit further that this committee is not charged with any duty which necessitates the calling in of a university professor to give it advice or to convey to it any information as to the working of the eight-hour law in other countries. I agree with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that this parliament is quite capable of setting its own precedents and making its own laws, and it seems to me that when parliament affirmed the principle of the eight-hour day on government contracts, as it did when it gave this Bill a second reading,.

it does not well become this committee to re-open the whole question, to go beyond its commission, and to call in a professor, not to assist it in the duty with which it is charged, viz., that of perfecting the Bill so that it may be precisely what it is intended to be, but rather to give instances from other countries, with the possible result of discrediting the eight-hour movement. It seems to me that the developments have justified the question I put to the Minister of Labour when it was suggested to refer this Bill to a special committee. I then asked the Minister of Labour whether he would tell the House what might be expected from the committee, because I did think that as the committee was virtually chosen by those supposed to be promoting the Bill they would select a committee likely to be in a position to discharge the duties entrusted to it. It seems to me that this House is now asked to be a party to a hippodrome performance in connection with this special committee, and as a member of this House I object to lending myself to any performance of the kind. To my mind the Department of Labour ought to have ample information to deal with this Bill. It has been three sessions before the House, and last session the then Minister of Labour referred at some length to the legislation in other countries dealing with eight-hour laws, thus proving that the Department of Labour at that time was seized of information respecting the operation of eight-hour laws in other countries. What has become of that information between last session and this? Are the archives of the department so formidable that these facts have been lost and cannot be resurrected to make a report to this committee? It seems to me that the only effect of calling in this university professor to make diligent research and advise the committee will be to put this matter off so that it cannot be dealt with this session. I am confirmed in this belief by a statement just now made by the Minister of Labour that if he undertook to prepare this in his own department, it would take the clerks of that department away from their othec duties for a very prolonged period of time. I submit that this Bill was referred to the special committee with the idea that it should be reported on this session, and that there was no intention on the part of this House that the matter should be put off until next session by the device of appointing a university professor to make lengthened research into the legislation in other countries.


Adam Brown Crosby: It seems to me that this committee was appointed not for the purpose of making researches, but to draft a Bill to replace a Bill which we had before the House and which did not meet with the approval of the House. We referred that Mr, J. D. TAYLOR.
Bill to a committee and some of us were bold enough to ask that there should not be too many lawyers on that committee in order that we might get a perfect Bill. Now, we find the committee, without asking permission of this House, have engaged some body to carry on this work. It is customary for a committee to come back and report progress. This committee were not able to report progress and they would not come back and report no progress, saying they had not ability to carry on the work that was assigned to them and they now say they will employ some one else outside of parliament to do the work entrusted to them. During the short time I have been in the House this Bill has been bandied about from pillar to post. Apparently this House is not prepared to deal with it, and it is thought that the best thing to do is to bandy it about among the professors. I am prepared to say that this is a question purely and simply for this government and this parliament. What does this Bill refer to? A general eight-hour day? No, it simply refers to an eight-hour day on the public works oj this Dominion, the works controlled by this parliament. That is what the Bill is intended for, and therefore I say tnat the information should- be furnished by the Labour Department, created a short time ago. I must aay that we have had more labour troubles since the department was created than ever before. Any one who looks over the Dominion of Canada for the last year will see that we have had a great number of strikes; none of them are finished yet, they are all going on vigorously and the Labour Department was instituted just in time to witness all these strikes.' What have they done to relieve the situation? This Bill was intended for no other purpose than the inaugurating of an eight-hour day on the public works of this Dominion, that is the public works being done by this parliament and under the control of this parliament. Surely we need not go to the United States, Germany or Russia, to find out what this parliament should do with a matter under their control. The Labour Department should have every bit of information possible on this subject. If we were going to deal with this in a general sense I could understand the Labour Department asking time, but I cannot understand them asking us to hand over this matter, which has been entrusted to a committee, to some professor whom they have decided to engage. I should like to know if the hon. member who introduced this resolution (Mr. Verville) is prepared to allow this Bill to be kept back for a year or two years. I think he will agree tnat we are here to try to inaugurate a system that will benefit the workingmen in this country, and in order to do that we want the federal government to undertake a

forward step, to show a good example. 1 do not wish to have our control referred to any provincial legislature or any foreign country. We should deal with these matters ourselves as they come before us. This session and in previous sessions the effort has been made to put this thing over another year or two, I do not know for how long, but that seemed to be the intention in engaging this expert assistant. Surely if we have a Department of Labour we must have some expert assistants in that department, and the only reason I can see for the Minister of Labour being put on the committee was that he would be able to furnish the expert information necessary.
It does not seem to me that a great deal of ability or expert information would be required to frame a simple Bill to be placed on the statute-books of Canada, providing that the public works of Canada should be constructed by men under an eight-hour system. I do not think a great deal of expert evidence is required for that purpose or that a great deal of expert ability is required to draft such a Bill. This House should be prepared, I am prepared, and the House should be, to decide this matter in parliament and not to go outside for any further information.


Mr. VERVILLE.: We are anxious that this Bill should be passed in such form that it will give satisfaction to all the members who expressed themselves during the discussion on the second reading. As there were apparent misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the'Bill, we called in expert advice, and the reason for bringing it before the House during this session is to enable the committee to do the work it has done and to be in a position to make a full and proper report to parliament. This we will be able to do if we are not obstructed on every occasion. This is not a question of whether a man should work so many hours on one side of the street and another man on the opposite side a different number of hours; it is an attempt to enable men to do all the work possible. I have looked into the laws of many countries and I claim that we have to go to Europe, the United States and other civilized countries for information as to suitable legislation on different subjects. I do not see why we should not go to these countries for information in regard to the labour question just as in regard to other things, and so place ourselves in a position to submit a proper report. For that reason, if this report is adopted, we will be in a position to proceed as quickly as possible with our work. Of course I would be anxious that the Bill should come back to us speedily for discussion.


Mr. J. D. REID.: The hon. member (Mr. Verville) states that this specialist should
go to the different countries to get experience or information from them.


Alphonse Verville: I did not say that.


John Dowsley Reid: I should understand from the hon. gentleman that that is what he meant. What surprises me is that from the speech he has made, he practically admits that the Minister of Labour does not know his business. I understood that the Minister of Labour was an expert in so far as the labour question was concerned, that he occupied the position of Deputy Minister for some years, that he went to very many foreign countries, to J apan and China, and that he was in England inquiring into the labour question. I should think that the Minister of Labour would be about the-best expert we could get, after all the experience he has had travelling around these countries. What work has the Minister of Labour to do? I have been trying to bother my brains and find out what he has to do in his department unless it is something of this kind, finding out what has been done in other countries. We are practically told that the Minister of Labour has to get an assistant to tell him what the labour position is in Canada from one end to the other. We have had a great many strikes in Canada, we have them in eastern Canada and in western Canada. We have had a great many strikes, both in eastern and western Canada, and if my memory serves me right, when the Minister of Labour was Deputy Minister he was sent to these different strikes. But to-day we are told, practically, that the Minister of Labour does not know anything about the position of the labour question in Canada, and he has to get a specialist to instruct him. Now, will the Minister of Labour stand up and declare that he does not know his business, that he does not know anything about the labour question in Canada?


George Gerald King: If the House is prepared to accept the statements in regard to the eight-hour question as given by the Minister of Labour, and to accept them beyond question the Minister of Labour will be only too pleased to bring down to the House a report of the whole matter. But it is recognized that of all questions that are likely to become subjects of debate in this House, no one will be fought more keenly than this eight-hour question. In order that all appearance of unfairness might be removed in dealing with this question, it has been thought well to bring in a third party, whose opinion one way or the other could not be questioned, and ask him to interpret the decisions relating to this matter that have been given elsewhere. I would gladly give my views to the House, and am prepared to do so, if the House is prepared to accept them; but seeing this is a party

question, a question on which men hold very different views, it was thought more satisfactory to get the opinion of an expert rather than the opinion of hon. gentlemen who sit in this House.


John Dowsley Reid: I should say 'that the House would be pleased to have the report *of the Minister of Labour, then we could decide whether we would agree to it or not. But the Minister of Labour wants this House, wants every member, to pledge himself that he will agree to this report before he shows us what it is. The minister wants another expert appointed. I understand that he has a deputy minister now, who should be disinterested, he is not supposed to support either one political party or the other. The minister practically tells the House that this is a political question. Well, surely his deputy minister is not a politician, he must be disinterested, and why not let him get us the information? I claim that the present Minister of Labour, after all his experience, must have made some inquiries about this eight-hour question, and surely he could give us that information, and if he has a report, why don't he lay it on the table now? Perhaps, after we see it, we will not require a specialist, the House might concur in the report. I suppose the minister is afraid to let us see the report, and he wants to keep it in the dark until he gets another man to agree with him, a man who will be an appointee of his own, and then he will come in and ask us to agree with the minister. I think the whole thing is a political question, got up by an hon. member who has been moving for this eight-hour day, who had a Bill on the order paper for six or seven years. He would not move it just before the last election, but now he goes ahead in order to make people believe that he is the great defender of the labour men. I believe if the hon. gentleman had brought in that Bill when he first proposed it, instead of allowing himself to be held down by the Prime Minister, we would have had this matter settled long ago. But every one knows that the Prime Minister told the hon. gentleman: Don't bring it on now.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Don't bring it on, keep it back. Of course the hon. member was elected as an independent, and has voted independent ever since he came to this House, and he now wants to pose as the great labour man. Now, every man in this House sees through this whole thing. The Minister of Labour and the hon. member who brought in the Bill have put their heads together, and they are trying to concoct some political scheme by which they can pose as the friends of labour. I think a great reflection has been cast upon the Minister of Labour to-day, when he stands Mr. KING.
up and admits that he does not know anything about the labour question in Canada, or about the eight-hour day question, and he has to get a specialist to come and instruct him, as to what is going on in Canada, Japan, China, India, Africa and all the other places the minister has been to.


Mr. BURRELL.: I understood the minister to say that this was a party question, a singular statement to come from a minister. I would ask him to explain what he means.


George Gerald King: There are two great parties to this controversy,' Capital and Labour. It is perfectly apparent that on this question there is ample room for debate.


Samuel Hughes: As long as the Prime Minister kept the young gentleman who now ornaments the Department of Labour as minister, travelling around the country as deputy, and bringing in glowing reports from India, Timbuctoo, China, Japan and various other places, we didn't pay much attention to it. We thought perhaps some of the information might be useful, and we were willing to submit to paying his travelling expenses. In those days we all regarded him and his assistants as only so many political satellites. I know in our district the gentlemen who are connected with the labour organizations have been neither more nor less than political satellites of the government of the day. But when the Department of Labour was formed, and the Prime Minister appointed him as minister of the Crown, then the people naturally began to wonder what was afoot. Then the explanation was offered that this young gentleman was brought in to fill up a gap. We were told that the Minister of Justice had not panned out as expected, he was a failure; that the Minister of Railways had fallen below anticipations, and that this young gentleman was really a prospective Prime Minister. And so other hon. gentlemen who had occupied high positions in the country with a great deal of ability, were supposed to be eclipsed by this young and brilliant luminary, and a new portfolio was created, and this gentleman was foisted into. it. We said nothing. The people were vvilling to put up with a little ornamentation. But when it comes to adding dollar to dollar in the expenditure of this department, when there has been delay after delay in dealing with all these great questions, then the people naturally commenced to wonder what this was for, and we are up against it now. Some one of the Tight hon. gentleman's friends, I do no know whether it_ is a prospective minister or not, but some friend wants a committee appointed to inquire into a small Bill that should not occupy our attention more than twenty-five mintues to determine. But forthwith a committee, acting under the hypnotic in-

fluence of this brilliant luminary, is appointed.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are some of the hon. member's (Mr. Hughes') friends on that committee.


Samuel Hughes: That makes no difference, where a question of principle is concerned, as the Prime Minister knows, there is a bandage over my eyes. This committee- and I care not how many of my side may be members of it-without the authority of this House and improperly (if the facts stated to us are true) engaged the Services of this young gentleman to do work that any boy could do in a very short time. And if the Minister of Labour has anything like the genius and ability that the first minister has given him credit for in his speeches in this House and throughout the country, he ought to be able to give the House the advice which this young man is to be sent wandering over the country to prepare. I shall oppose the adoption of this report.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: If the motion of the Minister of Labour is made to include instructions to this young man to gather information as to whether the Department of Labour should be abolished,
I will support the motion. But if it is to saddle an expenditure on the treasury, which would be opposed by the agriculturalists of this country and three-fourths of the members of this House are, like myself, representatives of agriculturists-then we ought to vote against spending one farthing in this proposed inquiry into whether eight hours should constitute a day's labour on public works or not. I shall vote against the motion purelv in the interests of my constituents, for they do not want a dollar spent to ascertain whether the monev that they pay to the government should be spent in employing men at eight hours for a day's work when they themselves work for twenty hours a day part of the time. If the government make eight hours a day's work on public works, the farmers will have to adopt the same principle; and I appeal to hon. members representing agricultural constituencies to oppose this expenditure. If the question of abolishing the Department of Labour is to be investigated that will be a different matter, for, as an hon. member said, we have three or four strikes now for one that we had before the department was established. I was interested in one last year, and drew the attention of the Minister of Labour to it. The strike was in a coal mine in Alberta, and the labouring men called upon the minister to repeal his Bill because it was no good and they would pay no attention to it. I put the documents about the matter into the hon. minister's hands. Since the present minister took office, I have recommended the course which ought to be taken in the interest of the labouring man in relation to^ strikes. Have a commission appointed, like the Railway Commission, and then, in case of labour disputes arising, have the representatives of the two sides go before that commission. There should be legislation against strikes, not to take awav from men their right to stop work, but, before they strike, to refer their grievance to the commission, and the commission, after investigating, will settle the matter as railway disputes are settled. The idea of having a minister, a deputy minister and a staff of clerks with a building all to themselves- and (no minister has a more luxurious apartment than that of the Minister of Labour-and yet when a little Bill comes forward we must employ a man who knows something to go about the country, and then come back and tell the minister whether there should or should not be an eight-hour day on public works. Representing an agricultural constituency as I do, I will vote against this expenditure.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: It is a little difficult to understand how the question before the House should be reduced to a criticism of the Labour Department generally and a very severe personal attack by some hon. members opposite upon the minister who is responsible for that department. As I understand it, this professor was brought before this committee to give evidence as a man of large experience and special knowledge on this question before the committee. That committee was composed of members on both sides, the parties being almost equally represented. After he had manifested to the committee that he had expert knowledge upon this Question, it was proposed, not by the Minister of Labour, but by the members of this committee, that it would expedite the business of that committee and make it more possible to get a report before this House this session if the services of this expert were engaged for a short time. The chairman of that committee was instructed unanimously by the committee to ask the House to consent to the engagement of this expert. It is suggested by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) that the employment of this outside man is a method of shelving the question and making it impossible for a report to be had this session. Why, the only good reason that could be given for the employment of this gentleman for this service is that it will expedite the business of the committee by giving us expert evidence so that the report can be presented this session. In the committee there was no difference of opinion on the subject Liberals and Con-

servatives were agreed. And the object is to have expert, concise and scientific evidence brought to bear upon the question in order to expedite the business.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: What evidence is this gentleman expected to produce, what vast knowledge of the subject has he, to justify this resolution?


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: One would naturally suppose, as this subject has been very much to the fore, not only in parliament, but in the press of the country during this past seven or eight years, that the Department of Labour might very well have issued a blue-book on the subject. The Minister of Labour, I understand, thinks that the department is seized of a considerable volume of information on the subject which must be considered by this committee. There is a good deal of force in the criticism made that, if such be the case, the Department of Labour might very well do the work which this gentleman, as I understand it, is to be called upon to do. However, no such information is before the House in the shape of a blue-book or otherwise, and we have the word of the Minister of Labour that it is necessary to employ this gentleman who is supposed to be an expert on this subject, for the purpose of making clear to the committee the working out of similar enactments in other countries. In other words, he is to bring before the committee an analysis of the legislation of this character which has been passed in other countries as well as his estimate of the results of the passing of such legislation. As I have already said it would appear to me that the Department of Labour ought to have its command all information of this kind. But, apparently it has not that information, at least, it has not the information in such a form as can be readily utilized by the committee. Inasmuch as the committee have unanimously recommended that this gentleman be employed for the purpose in_ order to expedite its work, I would think that the recommendation ought to be accepted bv the House, although, as I have said before, there does seem to me to be a great deal of force in the criticism upon the past work of the Department of Labour which has been made by several hon. gentlemen. The subject of the relations between capital and labour is an exceedingly important one in this country, and I am bound to say that the action of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour, representing the government of the day, does not very well correspond with the attitude which the government took and which he, as deputy Minister of Labour, I presume, took three .years ago when I asked that the Conciliation Bill should be submitted to a committee of this


Ralph Smith: House in order that all parties might be heard. One of the answers made to me at that time by the then Minister of Labour was that the Department of Labour had at its command and could afford to this House every possible item of information in regard to the subject. Well, we have a different tale to-day, but I suppose we must accept the minister's statement of the lack of knowledge in his own department, and as the committee unanimously recommends that this expert gentleman should be employed, it would seem to me. following the usual course of procedure in this House, that the unanimous recommendation of the committee ought to be accepted.


Mr. OSLER.: Usually if you want to get an absolutely unreliable opinion, you should go to a young university professor. I do not know this young gentleman, and 1 have no objection to his being employed to gather statistics, but the Minister of Labour has stated that he was to be employed to give an expert opinion. I do not think it is possible, in any question which arises in business or public life, to get a man who is so utterly useless as a young university professor to give an opinion, that is the experience of every man of business. No matter how clever the young man may be, his enthusiasm carries him away, he runs to one side or the other, and he has wild ideas. To go to a young university professor to get an opinion is to go absolutely to the weakest source possible; his opinion would carry no weight with any man of ordinary ability.


Mr. GOODEVE.: The Department of Labour has been a conspicuous feature of the government during the past few years. No question has excited more widespread interest in the country in recent years than the question of the hours of labour. We have had this country flooded from end to end, at a large expense to the Dominion, with literature purporting to deal with questions of labour. The government, through the Department of Labour, have been telling the workmen of this country all that they are doing on their behalf. When this Bill was introduced, passed its second reading and referred to the committee with the unanimous consent of the House, the only objection to it was the fact that it was not properly drawn. It was said that the Bill contained that which was not intended by the hon. member who introduced it. We have in connection with the government not only a Department of Labour, but a Department of Justice, and surely if that is the only objection to the Bill the Department of Labour might have been consulted with the Department of Justice with regard to the proper drafting of the measure. The hon. Minister of

Labour (Mr. King) tells us that he himself is prepared to bring in a Bill at this time, but he thought it was wiser to get expert advice from an outsider. The reason advanced by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) in favour of the recommendation of the committee is that an expert should be employed-and I sympathize with that reason-it is the strongest arrangement that possibly could be made of the Department of Labour. My hon. friend from South Toronto said that when the committee met they found that they were unable to get the necessary expert information and advice with regard to this question. 1 would like to know what the Department of Labour is for. I quite sympathize with my hon. friend from South Toronto and the other members of this committee. They cannot be expected to take the time from their duties as members of this House and otherwise to gather the necessary statistics and information, but what have the Department of Labour been doing all these years in not having these statistics properly tabulated in order that they may be placed at the disposal of this committee? We were told that this Depart ment of Labour was to do so much for this great Dominion, and particularly for the labouring classes that it was necessary to appoint a separate minister and create a separate department. It is only a short time since we formed it into a separate department of the government. The minister now in charge of the department, and who was for a long time the Deputy Minister, has travelled in foreign countries at the expense of the people getting information to be used in the preparation of laws for the Dominion of Canada. I venture to say that such recommendations as he has gathered in his foreign travels have not met with favour, at least, in western Canada, and I am speaking for the people of western Canada at this time. I am very doubtful whether we will get professors in colleges in the east to deal with these questions in a practical way, or to give us information which will be of any advantage to us. It resolves itself down to this simple question whether the Bill as introduced was properly drawn and, if properly drawn, whether the members of this House are prepared, at this particular time, to pass a Bill providing for eight hours of labour on government work. The question is a simple one, and it is a question for each member to decide in his own mind whether it should be adopted by this country. I do not think that this Department of Labour should act as a buffer, and I venture to say that in this and in other instances the government, instead of using this department for the advantage of the people, are simply making a buffer of it to stand between the workingmen and the
government with regard to these difficult questions. I am not prepared to accept the recommendation as brought down by the minister under these conditions, but if we do accept it it will only be because it has been pointed out by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) when a unanimous recommendation of this kind comes in it is usual to accept it. But, I venture to say that we would get very much more information from practical men in dealing with a question of this kind.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I am absolutely opposed to this resolution. I understood the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. King) to say that the committee was unanimous. I understand that the committee was not unanimous. One member of the committee, at least, my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) was opposed to it.


George Gerald King: Will any member of the committee rise in his seat and say that he was not in accord with all the members of the committee on that resolution?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: My hon. friend from Macdonald is not here, but he made that statement to me before he left the House.


George Gerald King: As the hon. member is not here and cannot speak, as chairman of the committee, possibly I might speak for him. I would say to the House that every member of the committee present at the meeting endorsed that resolution. It was on the motion of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) that this recommendation was adopted by the committee. My reason for not opposing the resolution of the hon. member for South Toronto was that I was most anxious that the committee should feel that any suggestion coming from the other side of the House would meet with the hearty accord of this side.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Although I am quite willing to accept the statement of the hon. minister, that does not prevent my saying that I am absolutely opposed to any party ground being taken in connection with this matter. Whether intentionally or not, the Minister of Labour referred to it as a sort of party issue. I presume he is a party man, as I am myself; but when I hear such staunch independents as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Verville) support the measure, .that might be some reason why we should support it. I believe that the Minister of Labour ought to have sufficient intelligence, ability and information to settle this matter without any further expert evidence, and I would like to ask what particular qualification this university professor has which the minister has not. From what I have heard it seems to me that it is not for want of information

that the minister is so anxious to have this motion carried, but in order that he may be relieved from the responsibility of making a statement in this matter, which I believe he should be in a position to make.


John Dowsley Reid: So far as 1 am concerned, I want my vote recorded against it.


John Allister Currie: I wish to put myself on record, as a manufacturer, in favour of the eight hour day. It appears to me that this labour bureau is something of a cyclone cellar where these problems are relegated by the government when they come up, and the chief party to building this cellar and nailing a tin roof on it is the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville). For several sessions a resolution of this kind has been on the order paper, and the hon. gentleman has always failed to have the courage to put it to a vote, and the motion before us is simply another way of side-tracking the question. I do not see what information an expert can give that will be of any value to the House, or which the House has not already. We have had some experience already in connection with experts. The Department of Militia sent an expert to South Africa to write an account of the war, and we have not yet had his report. Another was sent to Japan and China to give us a report of what was taking place in those countries, but we have never had that report yet. If we appoint this gentleman, his report will probably be as little likely to be forthcoming, and we shall have this matter up session after session and the government will continue to side-track it. It would be best for'this House to deal with the matter fairly and squarely and let every member vote according to his conscience and his opinion. As one who has had ex. perience in the matter, I unhesitatingly commend the eight hour day to employers of labour. They will find that their labouring men will do as much work in the eight hours as in the ten. It seems to me that the government should not be behind the great majority of manufacturers who are now coming to realize the advantages of the eight hour day system. I am therefore opposed to any further delay. I do not think the expert we are asked to employ has any practical experience in the matter. In my opinion, the men in this House are sufficiently level headed and well versed in business to deal with the question fairly and honestly.


Mr. EHODES.: In employing this expert, is the object to have him pronohnce on the merits of the eight hour day or solely for the purpose of assisting the committee in drafting a measure tu carry out that system?


George Gerald King: Perhaps I could best reply to the question by quoting the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: 


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What I want is the opinion of the minister himself.


George Gerald King: My opinion coincides with that of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). The other day in speaking on this question, that hon. gentleman said:
The specialist's work comes in after you have a collation of what exists and when you want evidence as to the results of that. Then, a specialist, who has made a study of the question, has travelled and has the experience, would be a very great benefit to the committee. I would not be opposed to having the very best we can get in that respect.
That is the motive which has actuated the committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. minister has not answered the question I put to him. I asked if, in employing an expert, his object was to have an opinion as to the merits of the eight hour day, or whether the committee were simply calling in this expert in order to have his assistance in drafting a measure to carry out that system.


George Gerald King: The committee, in its report, asks that leave be granted to employ the services of a specialist to assist the committee in its researches into legislation respecting the hours of labour. That makes it perfectly clear what the intention of the committee is.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Have those researches to do with the merits of the eight hour day or merely with the drafting of the measure to carry that out?


George Gerald King: With both.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then I understand that this expert is to give an opinion also as to the merits of the eight hour day?


George Gerald King: He will go through the discussions on that subject in other countries and the legislation adopted by these countries.


Mr. MAGEATH.: Is it the intention of the government to have this Bill dealt with this session? I want to see the matter settled. It is not a party question, but the hon. minister is endeavouring to shunt the Conservative party into it by saying that his views coincide with those of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). But I assume that the minister has views of his own, and if so we ought to have them. 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.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: The reply given by the hon. minister to the question of my

hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) puts the whole question on another footing.
1 apprehend that the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) when, as a member of the committee, he acceded to the position taken by that committee, did so on the understanding that whatever expert was employed would be employed to procure details for the purpose of drafting a measure rather than for the purpose of deciding on the principle of the Bill. I have a very distinct recollection of the discussion on the resolution when first introduced and a still more distinct recollection of the position then taken <bv the minister. After one of his supporters had affirmed, in the strongest possible terms, that the minister had acceded to the principle of the Bill, the hon. gentleman took good care not to recede from that position but- gave the impression to the House that he had acceded to it and that all that remained to be settled were questions of detail. I put the question to the hon. minister myself the night of the discussion. I said that he had not acceded to the principle and was contradicted by the minister himself. Well, if he has accepted the principle of an eight hour day, in so far as government work is concerned, why employ an expert now? I took the position that night that the reference of the Bill to a committee was simply a convenient method of shelving it for the rest of the session, and I now find that not content with shelving it to a committee, the chairman of the [DOT]committee asks that it shall be referred to Kingston college. The only purpose the Minister of Labour has in view is to avoid the responsibility of saying now what he was compelled to say then, namely: That he was in favour of the principle of eight hour labour on government works, and so, he wants to shield his responsibility behind the august imprimatur! of a Presbyterian professor. I hold that the government of this country must take their stand now and not later on the question of eight hours labour. I challenge the government to now declare whether they are in favour of the principle of the eight-hour day on government works. If the Minister of Labour thinks he was wrong when he spoke during the first discussion of this Bill let him come forward to-day and say that the policy of the government is wholly different now. Let him take that responsibility himself, and let him not pave the way for going before the electors three years hence and saying that the government took the advice of this university professor and are to be congratulated for doing so. I cannot conceive that the member for South Toronto or the member for Macdonald ever took the position that the object of employing this
scholarship in the matter was to gain information as to the principle of the Bill.
I believe that if they had understood that the Minister of Labour was going to bring the principle of the Bill into question in this House they would not have acceded to that unanimous report. Therefore, this unanimous report of the committee is not entitled to that deference which under ordinary circumstances such a report would be entitled to. I for one will have to cast my vote absolutely against the proposition.


Martin Burrell: It seems to me that the position the House is in now is plain and simple. So far as I remember the former discussion on this Bill the difficulty that presented itself was the bearing it would have on large contracts now pending with the government, and a great many hon. members who felt that was a questionable feature in the Bill would have been gratified if that difficulty were set aside and the principle of the Bill applied to the employment of labour on public buildings. That would have been a fair compromise, and I believe that many of us wanted to see the Bill based on that principle. I must confess that we have had an extraordinary exhibition on the part of the Minister of Labour this afternoon. He did not answer the questions put to him by my hon. friend from Nova Scotia (Mr. Rhodes) and his utterances were particularly cloudy and ambiguous. As to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) surely his, experience must tell him that this proposal of the minister is not calculated to expedite the deliberations of the committee or to expedite embodying the ilrinciples of the Bill in legislation, but rather to retard it. As the ambiguous utterances of the Minister of Labour goes, they remind me of the lines of Hosea Bigelow:
For when you've done all your real meaning
to smother,
The darned tking'U up, and mean something
or nuther.
I thoroughly agree with hon. members who have said that the Department of Labour which has been for years thrashing out this and similar questions, ought to be if it is not, in a position to give the necessary information to the House to enable them to decide on this Bill.


Mr. EDWARDS.: As I opposed the Bill when it was first brought up on the ground that it was contrary to the best interests of the agricultural class I feel that I cannot consistently support the present resolution. I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to put myself on record as being opposed to this Bill as I am opposed to anything which makes in the direction of interfering with the interests of the agricultural classes of our community.


Mr. MADDIN.: For information, I would like to know from the hon. member (Mr. Verville) who introduced the Bill; who drafted the Bill in the form in which it was presented to the House.


Alphonse Verville: I do not know that I have any right to answer that question.


John Dowsley Reid: Was it the Minister, of Labour?


Alphonse Verville: I may state for the information of the hon. gentleman that the Labour Department had nothing whatever to do with it.


James William Maddin: It is quite evident, Mr. Speaker, that the Labour Department intend to have nothing to do with the Bill yet.


Mr. SPROULE.: Many good reasons have been given why the House should not assent to this motion, but there may be other reasons why we should assent to it. The Department of Labour was originally constituted just for the purpose of collating such information as would be useful to parliament in considering a Bill of this kind, and the acknowledgment that the Department of Labour has now to go to the expense of calling in an expert to advise it is an acknowledgment that the Department of Labour is no good. I remember very distinctly the eulogies that were expended upon the Minister of Labour when he first took office. We did not know much about him when he entered the House, but we were told he was an educated man, a man who had shown great ability and industry, a man who had travelled through different countries of the world for the purpose of gaining information of an expert nature on sociological questions, and that he had devoted his life to this work. We were told we could not afford to do without his services, and that for that reason he was brought here and placed at the head of the department. We were told that he had experience as deputy Minister of Labour, that he had published the * Labour Gazette ' for some years, that he had studied these questions in Germany and other parts, of the world, and we gave him a large staff of employees to assist him. Now we are told that he is not able to furnish information with regard to a very simple labour problem. This is an admission that all the eulogies bestowed on him were not deserved. If they were deserved, then there must be a strike on in the Labour Department and they wont do their work. Now, the minister seeks to engage the services of a university professor to assist him in the work which he himself ought to do, and I am quite sure that if this professor were not a native of the country the provisions of the Alien Labour Law would be invoked to shut him out. But as he happens to live Mr. EDWARDS.
in the country he may be used notwithstanding. In view of all these admissions from the Labour Department and from members of the government, that if the department is absolutely unable to cope with this important question and incapable of giving the required information let us pass this motion and incur the expense and get some one who will give us the information that is so much needed.


Mr. M. CLARK (Red Deer).: I am surprised at the large number of speeches that we have heard on the Conservative side of the House against what seems to me to be a very simple and innocent proposition; perhaps I ought rather to say the large number of times we have had practically the same speech delivered. I am surprised in view of the fact that we are asked to endorse a report of a committee which was unanimous and represented both sides of this House. If I rightly gather what fell from the lips of the leader of the opposition, I think he said that to reject such a report is a very unusual course of procedure. I am surprised further because of the extreme gravity of the question we are discussing. For the House of Commons te take the course of driving a hard and fast iron ramrod into the delicate machinery which should regulate the arrangements between employer and employee is a grave course, whatever measures we may take in regard to it, and something of a new departure in this country. The gravity of this course of procedure being admitted, I think we surely should not take such a course without having the fullest possible information. I thoroughly endorse what has been said by the hon. member from Toronto (Mr. Claude Macdonell) that the more information we have on this subject the less likely we are to go astray and the more wisdom we are likely to display in the decision we finally come to.


Mr. STANFIELD.: As a member of the committee, I feel it my duty to say a word in reference to the engagement of Professor Skelton. As the House is well aware, the Bill is very broad, it takes in such a large scope that I, as one of that committee, felt it my duty to see that we should have all the information we could possibly gather on the matter. If this was a plain eight-hour day for public works only, it would not require an expert opinion, because I tbink the majority of the House are in favour of such a measure. But this Bill goes further. It covers sub-contracts and also covers manufacturers, where they come in as sub-contractors. As I said before, this Bill is so broad that in my opinion it is far better to get all the information possible before reporting to the House, and then we will be able to give the House every information it is possible to gather. I shall, therefore, vote in favour of the resolution.


Mr. MARSHALL.: I am also a member of this committee, and I realize it is a very serious matter. I think we are justified in getting all the information we can. I am not prepared to say where that information should come from, but I must say that the information we are getting is very valuable to the committee, and I think it is due to the Minister of Labour to say that the committee is entirely to take the responsibility of asking Professor Skelton to undertake this work. The minister, in my judgment, has acted fairly in the matter, and I am quite in sympathy with the course proposed.


Mr. J. P. TURCOTTE (Quebec County) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker I am not a
member of the special committee which has this Bill under consideration. However, _ I have had occasion to express my views in this House when the Bill was first introduced. I was then, and I am still, of opinion that the government should give a fair trial to such legislation as regards public works, I have followed the meetings of the special committee and have realized the difficulties in the way of carrying out such a proposal, and, on the other hand, its paramount importance to all members of the House.
This very day an expert was heard on the subject, and his statement goes to show that there is such a variety of interests concerned in this labour question, that too much care cannot be taken in working out its settlement. I think the conclusion arrived at by those hon. members who make up the special committee, is based on a sound view of the public welfare, and the country as a whole will profit by a thorough investigation of the subject. In that way, will a proper settlement of the question be effected, a settlement which will be beneficial to the labouring classes as well as to all others.
I understood an hon. member to say that the farming communitv is not specially interested in such a question. _ I believe, on the contrary, that in determining what are the rights and obligations of the government in a matter of this importance, we are doing something which is serviceable to the farming community, and as representing an agricultural constituency. I cannot but approve of the suggestion made by the special committee.


Mr. BRODER.: Mr. Speaker, to my mind it is a question whetheT it would not have been wise to have first brought in representatives of the manufacturing interests and of the labour interests, to have secured their evidence and then have the expert give his information and answer questions that might arise from their evidence. Anyway, I am satisfied that the members of that committee are approaching the question with every intention of doing everything they can for the public interest, and as far as I am concerned, that is the way I approach it. The labour element does not affect me at all, because I have no manufacturing centres to interfere with my political interests in that sense at all, but the country generally are interested in the outcome of this whole measure, whatever effect it might have. I do not wish to discuss that to-day, because I do not think that it is pertinent, but from what I have seen of the committee and learned, I feel it my duty to at least vote for the resolution.


Mr. DEVLIN.: I wish to suggest to the minister in charge of the legislation under consideration that in the study of the labour problem, it will be absolutely_ necessary that the one who is charged with the work should understand both languages. If he is to study the conditions of labour abroad, he will of necessity have to study the conditions which exist in France,, and for that purpose he will have to know the French language. Therefore, I would suggest to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. King) that, if possible, instead of naming one expert, a professor from Queen's University. Kingston, he should name two, one an English speaking man, and one a French Canadian, or at the very least, that the one to be named, should be thoroughly familiar with both languages.


Mr. BARKER.: I do not wish to vote upon this question without stating in a few words why I am disposed to comply with the unanimous request of the committee. I have had very considerable experience in expert testimony. If anything in this world is not satisfactory, it is the evidence of expert witnesses; and I think that if any evidence could be unsatisfactory, it would be that procured bv the expert this committee has, in its wisdom, recommended to collect evidence as to legislation of this character in foreign countries. The committee has recommended that a professor of Queen's University should be employed to do this work. My own conviction is that what evidence he may procure will not have the slightest weight upon the opinions of any people in this country, either labour men or employers, and I certainly think it will not influence the judgment of this House. 1 do not wish, however, to stand for a moment in the way of testimony being procured. I have no doubt that the minister knows perfectly well the leanings- of the particular gentleman he refers to on this question.


George Gerald King: I know absolutely nothing hbout his leanings.


Samuel Barker: Then I am very much mistaken in my estimate of the minister's

knowledge of the subject, because I doubt very much whether there is any one in the position of the professor he has referred to, who has formed any opinion or acquired any knowledge or experience in regard to the subject that the hon. gentleman does not know.


George Gerald King: If I understand the hon. gentleman rightly, he has said that I was aware of the leanings of this gentleman. I know of his professional standing and exceptional ability and capacity to deal with this question in a very efficient manner, hut I do not know in what way his leanings are.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman in that regard is in just about the same position as he is, in his department, with regard to the subject generally. He is what they used to call in the States, 'a know nothing.' I have no doubt that if the evidence this professor may procure in foreign countries should not be satisfactory to the labour men, they will want another professor employed to get the other side of the question; and if the evidence be not satisfactory to the capitalists they will say that the report is a one-sided one and does not amount to anything. The only question here, outside of the question whether this is a useless expenditure of public money, is whether we should override the unanimous recommendation of the committee. I do not like to vote against such a recommendation, and for that reason alone I shall support this motion.


Mr. CROCKET.: Ordinarily I would be 'disposed to stand by the unanimous report of a select committee of the House, and would have done so in this instance had it not been for the statements which I have heard from the Minister of Labour. Those statements have convinced me that this proposal is simply for the purpose of further shelving this question and of shirking a responsibility which properly attaches to the Department of Labour. For these reasons, I intend to vote against the motion for the adoption of this report.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I wish to place myself fairly on record.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon gentleman has spoken already.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I only asked a question. After the answer given by the hon. minister, I can consistently only vote against the adoption of the report, and for these reasons: When this question was discussed on the second reading of the Bill, the House gave the Bill its second reading unanimously, and referred it to a special committee. I then stated that, in so doing, we had endorsed the principle of an eight hour day. But when the Minister of Mr. BARKER.
Labour, in answer to my question, told us to-day that it is the intention of the committee to select an academic gentleman, who will investigate into the merits of the eight hour day, and asked us to agree to that recommendation, he asked this House to stultify itself. After we had affirmed the principle, he asks us to employ an expert in order to find out whether we were right or wrong in so doing. As one who has taken strong ground on the question I would be rather inconsistent if I were to vote for this motion. My hon. friend from Portage Laprairie (Mr. Meighen) has given expression to my sentiments to the letter, and I wish only to add my endorsement to what he has said. For these reasons I propose to vote against this motion.


Mr. BEATTIE.: I do not think I would be justified in voting for this motion especially after the declaration we have had from the Minister of Labour. Judging from what he has said, I can only come to the conclusion that the object of this motion is to shelve the question and prevent our doing anything. I charge the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Verville) with rank insincerity. He introduced a similar Bill last year and then withdrew it without giving any sufficient reason for so doing. That hon. gentleman charged me with not keeping faith with the workingmen although he knew I supported his eight hour Bill. Two years ago he travelled all the wav from Montreal to London to oppose my election, but the workingmen were so disgusted by his tactics that they would not go to his meetings. At one meeting he managed to collect together some thirty men, although he had engaged a brass band as an attraction, he was no more successful; and the result of his agitation against me was that I was elected by about 1,200 majority, pretty nearly all workingmen. As the object of his motion is evidently to shelve the measure, and thus deceive the working people whom that hon. gentleman pretends to represent, I shall' vote against it. If instead of getting a. college professor to report on the question of labour, the government would secure six good manufacturers, who had succeeded in building up their business by the sweat of their brow, and six good respectable, honest, mechanics, who are still earning their living by their hard day's toil, I think that these two representative bodies, seated around a table, would be able to come to a satisfactory settlement of this eight hour question without very much difficulty or delay?


Mr. NORTHRUP.: It seems to me that if there ia>
one member of this House who should rise and protest against the passage of this question, it is the hon. gentleman

who fathered the Bill (Mr. Verville). One would have thought that no member of this House would dare ask hon. members to adopt a measure which he had not considered sufficiently to enable him to give reasons why it ought to pass. Yet we have the singular spectacle of the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Verville) wanting the reference of the eight hour day Bill, which he introduced in this House, to an expert in order that he may obtain from this expert information which will enable him to decide whether the measure he himself introduced is a proper one or not. But perhaps the hon. gentleman is not so much to blame for making blunders of that kind, since evidently it is only from members on this side that any information on the labour question can be expected. We had the right hon. the leader of the House declaring to his own supporters that he could not find any one sitting behind him who was competent to preside over the labour bureau and give an intelligent opinion on questions affecting labour; and to make it more clear and positive to the people that the men behind him do not understand questions affecting labour, the right hon. gentleman brought in an outsider, who was supposed to be peculiarly fitted for the post by a lifetime spent in the interests of the workingmen. We had the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) brought in from the outside and put at the head of the labour bureau. What are the duties of that department? On referring to the statute, under which it exists, I find this laid down:
With a view to the dissemination of accurate statistical and other information relating to the conditions of labour, the minister shall establish and have charge of a Department of Labour, which shall collect, digest and publish in suitable form statistical and other information relating to the conditions of labour.
I find it in the revised statutes of 1906. So that for years we have had a department established for a particular purpose, presided over by a gentleman selected on account of his technical fitness for the position; and yet after all these years, we have the singular combination of a labour representative bringing a Bill into the House, without even having in his own mind any reason to justify it, and we have the Minister of Labour, whose duty it was to collect the very information which should be at the service of the labour representative, actually asking the House to allow him to employ another expert to instruct the House on the very questions he is supposed to know all about. It seems to me. Sir, that the American poet must have had just such a case in mind when he wrote:
In short, I firmly du believe In Humbug generally,
Fer it's a thing tliet I perceive To hev a solid vally;
This heth my faithful shepherd ben,
In pasturs sweet heth led me,
An' this'll keep the people green To feed ez they hev fed me.


James William Maddin: I addressed a question to the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) who introduced this Bill to the House. I asked the hon. member who had drafted the Bill in the form in which it was originally presented. I submit that when a Bill of such importance as this is introduced, the member who presents it is responsible to some extent for the contents of the Bill, and if, as in this particular case, he being a representative of labour in this country, presents the Bill on behalf of organized labour throughout the Dominion, he should be able to point with some pride to the terms in which it is drawn. But, strange to say, the hon. member does not feel like taking the House into his confidence and telling us who drafted the Bill. He is only willing to tell us that it was not drafted by the Labour Department. Perhaps by a process of exclusion, he might lead us to infer who really did draw this Bill. Mr. Speaker, the Bill as presented to this House embodies all the objectionable features that have characterized eight-hour Bills in their introduction to the different law-making_ bodies of the English-speaking world. This is not a new question; from time to time Bills have been brought up in the law-making bodies of this and other countries, from which the objectionable features formerly characteristic of such legislation, have been, to a great extent, eliminated. And I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that this Bill is word for word, the Bill presented to the Congress of the United States, with the exception that the Bill presented in the United States negatived certain cases in which the law should not be operative. In the United States, the Act was not to apply to contracts of transportation by land or sea; it was not to apply to military matters-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon member (Mr. Maddin) cannot discuss the Bill now; the Bill is before the committee and it is not in order to discuss it at this stage.


James William Maddin: I am not discussing the merits of the Bill.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The Bill having been referred to committee, it is out oi rhe House. The motion now before the House is the only matter that can be discussed in this debate.


James William Maddin: With regard to the resolution now before the House, that an expert be employed to inquire into this Bill, I wish to point out that, as this is not new

legislation, and had the Bill been properly framed and presented, had it been drafted in the light of recent legislation which is within the knowledge of nearly every member of this House-knowledge which every member could gather from the library here or from the ordinary publications of the country-it would perhaps not be necessary to call in an expert in connection with the matter. However, this resolution to appoint a professor from Ontario to cull information for the members of this special committee, leads to but one conclusion. It seems to demonstrate that the Labour Department has failed in the purpose for which it was instituted. I would like to know what object this department has' to serve in the interests of the people? We have an industrial struggle going on in the county of Cape Breton, which commenced in July 6. 1909. Representations were made to the Minister of Labour, and his reply has been that, the matter in dispute having been submitted to a board of conciliation, it is not the policy of the government to inquire into a struggle of this kind. The result is that this strike has been continued since July 6, last, and is liable to go on indefinitely. When the Department of Labour washes its hands altogether of industrial struggles and finds its sole excuse for existence in the publishing of the Labour ' Gazette ' and compiling statistics pursuant to the statute read bv the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup)-when that is their only service to their country-the minister has failed in his duty if he cannot submit to this seleect committee all the facts essential to the intelligent consideration of the Bill. As I have said, this matter of the eight hour Bill is not a new matter. For some eight or nine years the gentleman who enjoys the portfolio of labour has been employed in the department and the matter of an eight hour day is not a new thing to him. It has been the subject of consideration by legislatures and parliaments for the last forty or fifty years. Why, it is at least twenty years since the English labourer began to look forward to the eight hour day and when organized labour in England published on their posters and correspondence, the old lines:
Eiyht hours for work,
Eight hours for play,
Eight hours for sleep,
And eight shillings a day.
It cannot be said for a moment that the Minister of Labour would be taken by surprise with the introduction of a Bill regulating the hours of labour. Ever since labour was organized to defend its own interests, Bills to shorten the hours of labour have always received the greatest consideration from its representatives. It' is a subject that has been formulated in Mr. MADDIN.
legislatures and parliaments in many countries. I submit that this proposal to shift the resDonsibilitv from the minister to a professor is really an avoidance of the issue. This country wants to know, and particularly does organized labour want to know, where the parliament of Canada stands in regard to this question. Do they accept or reject the principle of an eight hour day? Or are they going to shift the responsibility to a professor in an Ontario university when they themselves should assume it, and answer the question, yes or no?


Mr. BARNARD.: The discussion to-day has demonstrated to me that the opinion I held when the Bill was up for the second reading, was the correct opinion, namely, that there was never any necessity to send this Bill to a committee of the House. It was done merely to avoid a straight issue raised by some members of the House to the effect that the Bill should be limited to - contracts on public works. The very fact that the committee, in order to gain time, is coming now and asking for the appointment of an expert shows that they have had but little difficulty with the subject they were expected to deal with. The hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) suggests that there should be a second expert appointed. I have not the slightest doubt that if the Minister of Labour finds that the first expert gets through his work before the end of the session, a second expert will be appointed. After hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) with regard to the appointment of this expert, I had an open 'mind upon this question, but I feel that in his heart he will now agree with me when I say that the evident insincerity of the replies of the minister to the different questions put to him, has shown beyond question that it is the intention of himself and his department to shelve this Bill. Therefore I propose to vote against this motion.


Samuel Hughes: Before the minister speaks I want to ask him a question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If any other gentleman wants to speak, he must do so before the minister speaks.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister in a position to give a definite statement to the House as to the cost of this officer, and how long he will be employed?


George Gerald King: I think the cost will be determined by the committee. I think the intention is simply to retain this gentleman to give such information as he can within a short time. It is not the intention of the committee to send him abroad any where, it is our desire to get the information that he has already in his possession. The amount to be paid him, I am
FEBRUARY 2. lylO.
sure, will not be considered by the House excessive. I presume it will be on a basis arranged after consultation between the members of the committee themselves.


Mr. BOYCE.: As the minister says it is not intended that this gentleman shall travel and obtain by actual experience a knowledge bf the condition of affairs on the eight hour day question in other countries, might I ask him whether he has not at his disposal now the same information which is obtainable by the services of this so-called specialist?


George Gerald King: Perhaps 1 have not made myself sufficiently clear to the House. This gentleman has been making a special study of this question for some time, he has all the information at his fingers' ends. The Department of Labour has in its library a great deal of information which will be brought before this House, but it will take an officer of that department considerable time to go through that information and classify it and bring the results to the House in a form as convenient as this gentleman is prepared to do immediately.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Could not all that be done by the minister's department? He says he already has it at his disposal in the department.


George Gerald King: I think I have answered that question. I explained to the House that the staff of the Department of Labour is not a very large staff, and the work is very considerable. I am sorry to see that hon. gentlemen opposite, apparently, have not looked over the annual report of the department, or they would know how extensive that work is. To take gentlemen of the Department of Labour off the work they are doing at present, would throw into confusion some of the work of the department, which I think it is desirable should be carried on as efficiently as it can be done with the staff we have at present.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I had not intended to address myself to the question


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The mover of the motion closes the debate, and the hon. gentleman cannot speak now.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I understood the minister was answering questions, I only rose for the purpose of asking a question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The debate is concluded, I cannot allow the hon. member to speak now. The minister is allowed to reply, but I warned hon. gentlemen that if any one wished to speak, he must do so before the minister spoke-.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: At that moment the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton rose, and said that before the minister spoke he would like to ask a question. The minister
answered that question, and in the course of his answer I took it upon myself to ask his leave to ask him a question. I was not going to address myself to the subject until I heard the remarks he has now made. It does seem to me, after hearing his remarks, that if we had any doubt before, we can no longer doubt now that there is an Ethiopian in the fence somewhere. This Bill was introduced by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) and was discussed in the House, and unless I am mistaken, my hon. friend the Minister of Labour committed himself to the principle of this Bill, if he did not in so many words, by allowing it to go to a second reading, and by referring to to a select committee. Now, as has been said by the hon. member for Hastings, what is the position of the hon. member for Maisonneuve, who introduced this Bill, what is the position of the minister, and what position does he ask this House to take? Here is an hon. gentleman who represents the whole labour organizations of Canada, asking this House to commit itself to the principle of a Bill, and then when the minister proposes that the committee be authorized to employ an ex-nert to advise them upon questions relating to the very principle of the Bill, the hon. gentleman from Maisonneuve, the head of the Trades and Labour Congress, sits silent, and allows that motion to go unchallenged. Why does he do it? Why does the member for Maisonneuve consent to that? If he is sincere in his desire for an eight-hour day, if he really intends to push through his measure, why does he consent to have his Bill knocked about from this man to that man, from this select committee to that travelling investigator, with the result, of course, that his Bill will have to go over until another session? I cannot believe, from the attitude of the hon. member for Maisonneuve, that he is sincere. I think he does not want this House to tackle this question upon its merits, he is anxious to relieve the Minister of Labour from difficulty, to shelve this question, to prevent it from being dealt with at this session. How does he try to square himself with the men whom he is sent here to represent? I think it will foe difficult for him to go back and tell them that he fought in the House of Commons for the Eight-hour Bill, but was unable to get it through. Now, by some arrangement with the Minister of Labour, by some promise, something that is not made clear, he simply sits quiescent while the minister hands over to a so-called expert the investigation of a principle, the acquisition of information which, if he was worthy to hold the position of the Minister of Labour, he ought to know already.


Alphonse Verville: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that I had a promise or



anything of that kind from the Minister of Labour?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: No, I do not think that.


Alphonse Verville: I hope my hon. friend will do me the honour to


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I think my hon. friend is quite too astute for that, but I certainly think that if there has been no arrangement expressed or implied beween my hon. friend and the Minister of Labour it shows that he is a very tame representative of labour. The position that the minister takes upon this question is absolutely untenable. Upon his own admission, what does he want to do? He is going to employ a specialist, a technical man, to go and investigate and acquire information which my hon. friend admits he has now upon the shelves of the department. There is no question as to what should be done with this motion. With regard to the insurance legislation before the House would the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) accept a similar resolution relegating the Insurance Bill to the investigation of professional experts, who might go around the country, acquire information and give us their opinions? Would such a resolution as that be accepted simply upon the flimsy and miserable excuse that the Minister of Labour puts up, that this man is so well versed in the subject and has such a wide experience upon it that he is in a position to advise the committee? Would the Minister of Finance adopt such a principle, and if he would not-and it applies to any other department of the government, why should we be asked to accept it from the Minister of Labour? This proposal is made for the purpose of assisting the Minister of Labour and the member for Maisonneuve out of some difficulty in which they appear to be. But I say that we ought not to delegate the powers of this House by accepting this resolution.
House divided on motion (Mr. King).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Allen,
Aylesworth,
Barker,
Beauparlant,
Belaud,
Black,
Blondin,
Borden (Sir Frederick),
Broder,
Carrier,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), Maddin,
Major,
Marcile (Bogot), Marshall,
Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Monk,
Conrnee,	Nantel,
Currie (Prince	Nesbitt,
Edward),	Neely,
Daniel,	Oliver,
Delisle,	Papineau,
Demers,	Paquet,
Devlin,	Pickup,
Doherty,	Proulx,
Douglas,	Prowse,
Dubeau,	l'ugsley,
Ecrement,	Rankin,
Ethier,	Reid (Restigouehe)
Fielding,	Richards,
Fisher,	Ross (Middlesex),
Fortier,	Ross (Rimouski),
Foster,	Roy (Dorchester).
Fowke, Gauvreau,	Roy (Montmagny),
	Rutan,
Geoffrion,	Schell,
Girard,	Sea ley,
Gordon (Kent),	Sharpe (Ontario),
Graham,	Sinclair,
Guthrie,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Harris,	Smith (Stormont),
Herron,	Sperry,
King,	Sproule.
Knowles,	Stanfield,
Kyte,	Stratton,
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Templeman, Todd,
Napierville),	
Laurier (Sir	Tolmie,
Wilfrid),	Turcotte (Nieolet).
Lavergne,	Turcotte (Quebec
Law,	County),
LeBlane,	Turgeon,
Lemieux,	Turriff,
Lovell,	Verville,
Macdonald,	Warburton,
Macdonell,	White
MacNutt,	(Victoria, Alta.),
McCoig,	Wilcox (Essex),
McColl,	Wilson (Laval),
McCraney,	Worthington.-114.
NAYS:	
Messieurs	
Armstrong,	Jameson,
Barnard,	Lake,
Beattie,	Lancaster,
Blain,	Lennox,
Boyce,	Meiglren,
Burrell,	Middlebro,
Chisholm (Huron),	.Northrup,
Cowan,	Osier,
Crosby,	Reid (Grenville),
Crocket,	Rhodes,
Crothers,	Schaffner,
Currie (Sirncoe),	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Donnelly,	Taylor (Leeds),
Edwards,	Taylor (New
Elson,	Westminster),
Goodeve,	Wallace,
Gordon (Nipissing),	White (Renfrew),
Henderson,	Wright.-36.
Hughes, Motion agreed to.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
DOMINION LANDS FOR HOMESTEADS. Mr. MACDONELL:
1. What is the estimated acreage of the Peace river, Mackenzie river and other unorganized districts?
['Very well.']
Angus Claude Macdonell: 


['']
Angus Claude Macdonell: 



Mr. J. A. CURRIE:: 1.	How many cases of suspected or identified rabies were reported to the Department of Agriculture during the years 1909 and 1910?	'
2.	Where were these cases reported from, and what action was taken by the government to prevent the spreading of this terrible disease?
3.	Were any farms quarantined by order of the department? If so, where?
4.	Were any domestic animals other than dogs ordered to be destroyed by the department or its officers to prevent the spread of the disease or danger from infection, under clause 5 of the Animals Contagious Diseases Act? If so, where?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to withhold compensation from owners of such animals, thereby putting a premium on the secret spreading of this terrible disease, or will the owners be compensated as provided by section 6 of the said Act?
1.	What is the total acreage of Saskatchewan ?
2.	How much of it is arable?
3.	How much of it is under cultivation?
4.	How much is held, unfilled, by railways, land companies, and other private owners?
5.	How many acres have been free homesteaded ?
6.	How many acres are still open to free homesteading?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	151,900,000 acres approximately.
2.	The total area surveyed - 66,600,000 acres. No definite figures can be given as to the proportions of unsurveyed land which is arable.
3.	5,814,723 acres approximately.
4.	About 37,100,000 acres.
5.	20,828,320 acres approximately.
6.	21,690,297 acres approximately. (Area surveyed and ready for homesteading at the present time.) '
93}


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER:: 1.	157 outbreaks involving 760 animals most of which, however, were simply placed in quarantine as contacts but did not develop the disease.
2.	From the following electoral districts: Welland, Ont.; Wentworth, Ont.; Hamilton, Ont.; Norfolk, Ont.; Brant, Ont.; Brantford, Ont.; Waterloo South, Ont.; Waterloo North, Ont.; Wellington North, Ont.; Perth North, Ont.; Perth South, Ont.; Huron West, Ont.; Oxford South, Ont.; Middlesex West, Ont.; Middlesex North, Ont.; Kent West, Ont.; Simcoe North, Ont.; Red Deer, Alberta; Assiniboia, Saskatchewan.
Immediately on receiving reports of rabies, or suspected rabies, an inspector was sent to investigate. All animals bitten or known to have been in contact with a rabid or suspected dog were quarantined.

All contact or suspected dogs were isolated and ordered to be securely chained until danger of infection was past.
A bulletin giving a full description of the disease and also including the regulations relating to rabies was freely distributed in each district where the disease was found or suspected. Copies of this bulletin were sent to medical health officers and other medical officers.
The existence of rabies was demonstrated in thirteen cases by animal inoculations from specimens sent to the biological laboratory.
3.	(a) Yes. (b) In the localities mentioned above.
4.	No.
5.	No compensation will be given. IMPORTATIONS OF MILITARY ARTICLES.


Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Is the government prepared to favourably consider the importation, free of custom duty, of special articles of uniform, arms, or accoutrements, for the use of the Canadian militia, and for authorized cadet corps, respecting which it is established to the satisfaction of the treasury board that such are not manufactured, and that facilities for the manufacture thereof, do not exist in Canada?
2.	What amount of money has been collected as customs duty on Windsor uniforms imported by Canadian Privy Councillors during the five years ended 31st March, 1909?
3.	Have any such Windsor uniforms been imported free of Custom duty? If so, under what authority?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	No. The government do not propose any amendment of the law in that respect.
2.	Uniforms and other clothing are classified together in the tariff, so that the customs statistics do not show separately the amount of duty collected on any particular uniform.
3.	Uniforms of all kinds arriving with the owner have been admitted free of duty as travellers' baggage, under the provisions of tariff item No. 703.


LACHINE CANAL-T. EVERS.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What was the total amount of money received by T. Evers as expenses, employed on the Lachine canal, from April 1, 19*9, to date?
2.	What was the nature of the work that brought about those expenses?
3.	How many times during the same period was T. Evers called for repairs of telephone, and what was the nature of those repairs?
4.	Who is the proper authority to judge of the competence of electricians or any other persons who may have anything to do with electricity on the Lachine canal?
5.	Is the government obliged to furnish the light to the establishment of the Inland Navigation Company? If so, on what condition ?


Mr. FISHER.: 


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:: 1.	Thos. J. Evers received from the Department of Railways and Canals the sum of $131 for transportation allowance in connection with his duties. He is allowed a fixed monthly allowance of $15, dated from July 1, 1909.
2.	Thos. J. Evers has charge of the repairing and maintenance of the telephone instruments, interior switches, and inside wiring, in connection with the private telephone system, along the entire line of the Lachine canal, also the superintendent's office and government stores, Mill street.
3.	Mr. Evers makes the required visits along the line of the Lachine canal whenever his duties demand it; sometimes complaints are made through no fault of Evers, as the telephone wires are strung on the same poles as the electric light and power wires of the Lachine canal.
4.	D. O'Brien, the officer in charge of the operating and maintenance of the Lachine canal staff and repairs, certifies to the competency of the electricians on the Lachine canal. All matters requiring expert knowledge in this connection are referred to Mr. John Murphy, electrical engineer, Department of Railways and Canals.
5.	The Inland Navigation - Company of Hamilton, Ontario, made application in the regular way to have the wire system run through the sheds which are on the lighting circuit of the canal at basin No. 1; this was granted in the interest of canai navigation, and no charge is being made. The other sheds on the Lachine canal are treated in the same manner.


MARITIME DREDGING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
Oswald Smith Crocket: Referring to the answer given by the Minister of Public Works on the 27th January, instant, to a question as to what payments had been made to the Maritime Dredging and Construction Company for dredging at Gas-pereaux, New Brunswick, in which the minister stated, ' No dredging was done by the company at Gaspereaux during the present fiscal year, as by reason of the alleged difficult and exposed location where the work was being performed, they declined to return to it last spring at their tender price of the previous year. They also gave as a further reason for declining to accept an extension of their contract and as evidence of the unusual difficulties attending this work, that one of their tugs had been wrecked, resulting in large financial loss
1.	On what date respectively was the work of 1908 begun and concluded, for which the payment of $33,969 was made?
2.	What is the date of the contract under which the above payment was made?
3.	What is the date of the order in council authorizing said contract to be entered into?
4.	Did said order in council authorize a contract for work to be done beyond the close of the calendar year 1908?

5.	Was the company asked to accept an extension of their contract last spring?
6.	If so, was the request in writing or verbal, and by whom and to what officer of the company was it communicated?
7.	If in writing, will the minister lay the correspondence on the table of the House without notice of motion?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Work started August 17, 1908. Dredge ceased operations October 29, 1908.
2.	First contract by letter of superintendent of dredging to the company, dated August 10, 1908, authorizing company to commence .work provided they would accept the lowest price per cubic yard, scow measurement, to be obtained by tenders, which were then being called for. Formal contract being executed by the contractors. November 6, 1908; by the department November 23, 1908.
3.	November 20, 1908. Delay in passing order in council was due to the fact of the chief engineer requiring reports of experts independently of the resident engineer as to the value of the work before recommending the execution of a contract agreeing to pay the tender price of 90 cents per yard. These Teports were made by the late W. J. Mc-Cordock, superintendent of dredging, and J. K. Scammell, resident engineer at St. John, and were only received in October, the last one-that of Mr. Scammell-being dated October 19.
4.	No.	.
5.	The company was asked if they would accept an extension of their contract last spring in case an order in council was passed granting such extension.
6.	Verbal. By myself to the president or one of the directors of the company, and, I think, to both.
7.	Answered by reply to No. 6.


TORONTO HARBOUR,
Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	What is the name of the contractor or contractors for the 'extension of the breakwater and work in connection therewith at the eastern entrance, Toronto harbour?
2.	What is the amount of contract, or contracts, for said work?
3.	What is the name of the sub-contractor, or contractors, of such contracts?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: No contract has been awarded for the extension of the breakwater at the eastern entrance, Toronto harbour; but the department is rebuilding, by day labour, the superstructure of the piers at the said eastern entrance, under the supervision of the district engineer.
SALMON RIVER POSTMASTERSHIP. Mr. JAMESON:
1. Is there a vacancy in the postmastership at Salmon river, Digby county?
2.	If so, when did it occur, and who has since been acting?
3.	Has any petition been received signed by residents of Salmon river, asking for the appointment of a postmaster ?
4.	If so, when was it received, who did it recommend, and why has the appointment not been made?
5.	What action does the minister propose to take, when will he act, and upon whose recommendation ?


Hon. R. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The office has been vacant since the death of the former postmaster, Mr. H. C. Perry, on the 16th September last, Mr. Edward T. Doucette has been placed in charge as acting postmaster.
3.	Yes.
4.	Petitions were received on or about the 9th November last, in one of which a Mr. H. J. Foley was recommended. The other asked for the establishment of a post office at some distance from Salmon river, which would involve either a change in the location of the Salmon river post office or the establishment of another post office in too close proximity to the Salmon river office. No action has been taken on these petitions.
5.	A decision has not yet been made in the matter.


WINDY GATES POST OFFICE.
Mr. SHARPE:: 1.	Why did the government change the post office at Windygates, Manitoba?
2.	Was there a petition from the people served at that post office? If so, how many names were on it?
3.	If there was not a petition, who recommended the change, and what reasons did thev give for asking for a change?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	The post office having been rendered vacant by the death of the postmaster, it became necessary to make a new appointment to the postmastership.
2.	A petition containing 34 signatures, asking that the location of the office might not be changed, was received at the department.
3.	The change was recommended by Mr. J. F. Greenway, who, having made special inquiry, found that it would be in the best interests of the community.


PURCHASE OF GOVERNMENT VESSELS.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	Has the government purchased or agreed to purchase or lease any ships in connection with the proposed Canadian navy ?
2.	Have any orders in council been passed in connection with the purchase, lease or construction of said ships? If so, at what date or dates?

3,	Have any sums of money been paid in connection with the acquisition of ships in connection with the Canadian navy? If so, what sums?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Negotiations have been going on for the purchase of one steamer for the protection of the fisheries in British Columbia and for the purchase of another ship in connection with the navy, the latter subject to the approval of parliament,
2.	Order in council has been passed authorizing the purchase of one steamer, subject to the approval of parliament.
3.	No money has been paid.


NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
On orders of the day being called:
George Eulas Foster: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he is able to lay on the table of the House correspondence with reference to the purchase or the proposed purchase of a vessel for the Canadian navy. I understand that the debate takes place to-morrow and I think this correspondence ought to be in the hands of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: This correspondence has not yet been completed and it is not therefore in a position to be brought down. I hope to be able to satisfy my hon. friend as to what there is in it.


George Eulas Foster: Of course the whole thing is not contemplated, but what objection on earth can there be if there is an agreement and that agreement is in form to be brought before the House, to bringing down the correspondence?


Wilfrid Laurier: The only
objection is that it is a matter not completed on this side, it is subject to the approval of parliament and we cannot pay a dollar until we have brought it before parliament. On the other side it has to be subjected to some authority which I do not know at the present time.


George Eulas Foster: It is not confidential I
suppose?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not
confidential.


SUNDAY POSTAL SERVICE.
Mr. NEELY.: I wish to call attention of the House and particularly of the Postmaster General to a matter of public importance brought to my attention quite recently. It affects the people of the west if not of the whole of Canada to quite a considerable extent. An item appears in the Manitoba 'Free Press' of June 31, headed 'Post office will close on Sundays'.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Hon. gentlemen cannot discuss that question now.


Mr. MONK.: 


David Bradley Neely: I was going to put a question to get information in connection with this point. The item refers only to the order that had come to the local postmaster of the city of Winnipeg, and I am anxious to find out if all postmasters throughout Canada have received a similar order. If that is the case, personally I am called upon to protest very strongly against the action of the Post Office Department in connection with the matter.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: This question is a very vexed one. During last summer we were asked at the Post Office Department to get the views of the people especially in the western provinces, as regards tlie partial closing or opening of post offices on Sunday. Feeling exists on the same subject in the province of Ontario. I directed two officers of the department but chiefly one, the superintendent of post offices in Canada, Mr. Ross, to go into this matter very deeply. He went to the west and I must say that the consensus of opinion as gathered by Mr. Ross and my officer in the west is to the effect that there should be a strict Sunday observance in post office matters. However, I have not yet had time to read the whole report, which is very voluminous, and I expect that within a few days I will be able to give the House the decision of the department in the matter. It is a very difficult and a very vexed question, and I must say from what I hear in the western provinces, that the sentiment seems to be practically unanimous in favour of Sunday closing in the various post offices.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the minister issued any order regarding it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The matter is at present being studied by the department. It may be in some instances the officers may have given orders which I did not know personally, but the ordinary regulations of the department are to the effect that post offices should not be open on Sunday. But, in some cities, where the trains arrive on Sunday it has been found necessary to keep the offices open during a certain portion of the day for the mails. It has been the custom of the department not to interfere in such cases, but even in regard to them, judging by the report I have read, the opinion in the west seems to be against the opening of these offices.


Mr. CONMEE.: I would like to ask the minister what evidence he has of that opinion?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am afraid the question cannot be discussed now.


James Conmee: Very well.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Railways and canals

capital-cut-off at Moncton, $100,000.
Mr. GRAHAM.: The estimated cost of this is $215,751.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How is the work being done?


George Perry Graham: We will ask for tenders when we come to do the work.


Mr. JOHN HAGGART.: Is this work intended to be a portion of the Grand Trunk Pacific?


George Perry Graham: We will no doubt have to handle some of their business there and this will be a facility, but whether or not we need it for our own business.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When will it be completed?


George Perry Graham: It will take two years. It is intended to commence during the coming summer.


George Eulas Foster: If the Grand Trunk Pacific had not been built would this expensive cut off have been constructed in the interests of the Intercolonial railway?


George Perry Graham: My information from the chief engineer is that he would advise it in our own interest had there never been any Grand Trunk Pacific.


Samuel Barker: Does the recently appointed Board of Management recommend such a matter as this before it is presented to parliament?


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact this vyork was projected and approved of by the House before there was any board. $50,000 was appropriated but we have not yet secured the right of way.


Samuel Barker: Where you are expending large sums of money on work of this kind which will be for the benefit of other railways an effort should be made to get these other railways to divide the cost.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has any portion of the right of way been acquired?


George Perry Graham: Not yet.


Samuel Hughes: Will this run through the city or outside the city?


George Perry Graham: Outside the city. There are grades in the city and we want to avoid them.
Moncton locomotive and car shops, &c., $343,825.


George Perry Graham: This is intended to complete the very large expenditure at Moncton in this connection. Last year I gave
the figures for everything done at Moncton and they amounted to about $3,000,000. This is a very large expenditure, but I think I am safe in saying that while the Moncton shops are not as large as some others on the continent which I have visited, in many respects the lay out of our shops is better than in any others, and there ought to be more economy in doing the work. We have already had some improved results from the new machinery and the general lay out of the shops, even with the small stafi of men we have employed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Can the minister tell us how much the machinery cost and how much the building cost?


George Perry Graham: This is not for machinery, but for shops, yards and tracks. There is an item further on for machinery.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Do I understand that the shops, yards, etc., exclusive of machinery, will cost $3,000,000?


George Perry Graham: Yes, the new shops, round-houses, terminal facilities, and so on, will cost $3,000,000 before they are completed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And the machinery is in addition?


George Perry Graham: Yes. The machinery,
I think, will cost, probably, half a million dollars.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Are the new buildings now completed? There was to be a passenger car repair shop, a freight car repair shop and a number of other buildings. Are they completed now?


George Perry Graham: The ones that were un der contract are completed. These are practically additional buildings.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the engine house under contract?


George Perry Graham: No, a contract will be let,


Samuel Barker: There is now a new commission practically managing the road. Have they any control over expenditures such as are here shown? Does the minister get from them a report recommending estimates, or is that done, as in the past, from the minister's own office?


George Perry Graham: The estimates for the Intercolonial are practically all prepared under the advice of the board. The deputy being the chairman of the board, of course, it all comes through him. My experience is that the management, even before there was a board, discussed these matters and recommended estimates. The general manager had a large say in preparing the estimates. The board, while it has no

supreme power, and while we might cut out something it recommends-for people "ho do not have to provide the money are apt to be liberal in their requests-has much to do with preparing the estimates.


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister has not explained what I want to know. It is very important that we should know, for the future, whether everything of this kind that is recommended to parliament, is based upon a formal written report of the board. I can understand, of course, that the minister is not bound to accept their recommendations. But it would be a prudent thing for him to get their recommendation upon every item, and these should be open to this committee.


George Perry Graham: My information is that these estimates were discussed before the board; I think the hon. member (Mr. Barker) is right-if we are to have a board that board ought to make recommendations. As the hon. member says, the minister is not bound to accept those recommendations, but the board should make representations, these to be considered for what they are worth. I think that is very rea-* son able.


George Eulas Foster: Then, that will be done.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: The other day the Minister of Railways 3poke of the items charged to capital account. I would like to get from him a precedent, either in the Baltimore and Ohio, the New York Central or the new rules adopted by the Interstate Commerce Commission concerning charges to capital account for a case where a station-house or workshop has been burned down and the cost of replacing it charged to capital.


George Perry Graham: I think I can get that for my hon. friend before we get through. At least, I can get cases where these buildings have been pulled down, and I suppose that will be the same thing.


John Graham Haggart: No. This is a cas-e where the buildings were burned down and the whole cost of restoration is charged to capital.


George Perry Graham: It was not all burned down; there is quite a shop standing and the government still own it.


John Graham Haggart: This money is supposed to be used to replace buildings that were burned.


George Perry Graham: A good deal more than replace them.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the department abandoning the old buildings left by the fire?


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: We have not done so. There was a proposition to lease them, but it did not materialize.


Oswald Smith Crocket: As I understand, it is proposed to abandon these shops and do all the work

Jr


George Perry Graham: Far more economical work can be done in the new shops, so that we can soon earn the value of the old shops.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the valuation of the old buildings?


George Perry Graham: I have not the figures here.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What is to be done with the old building? *


George Perry Graham: Well, that depends on finding the party of the second part. I thought at one time that we could get an industry to lease this building, but the amount they offered was not worth while.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it intended to use the ground space for yard-room, or is it still in the market?


George Perry Graham: Personally, I am a bit averse to disposing absolutely of government property, particularly at Moncton, where, as my hon. friend suggests, we need the land for some purpose-the Grand Trunk Pacific may need it. I am free to say that we have not yet a definite policy on that subject.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What ha3 become of the property bought from Mr. Lodge? No use has ever been made of that property.


George Perry Graham: It has been used, I be-lieye, as part of the old yards.


George Eulas Foster: I think the minister will agree that this is a very important matter.
I understood him to say yesterday that the Interstate Commerce Commission had laid down principles as to charges to capital, which, after conference with the great railways in the United States, were accepted and are now being acted upon, and I understand that the minister intends to adopt the same plan in connection with the accounts of the Intercolonial. I was glad to hear him say this, because I thought it provided a solution for two things, one the subject of the old controversy that has gone on for some several years as to expenditure on capital and on income, and the other in the interest of honest book-keeping and good accounting. Now, if we can have those principles, so adopted and carried out in the United States and which are henceforward applicable to the Intercolonial, put in black and white where we can get at them, it would be a great benefit, and it would tend to honest accounting. I am not pressing this for the sake of contro-

versy, but I have no doubt that some principle is necessary. I should hope that under the new departure the minister is now willing to enunciate those principles, and put them into strict operation on the Intercolonial.


George Perry Graham: I have taken pains to get the decision my hon. friend has spoken
of; here it is:
A number of points have been raised by correspondents relative to depreciation that call lor the following general statements, all of which bear upon the manner in which depreciation accounts should be treated:-
1.	The question of depreciation is fundamentally a question of operating efficiency, or of keeping full the numbers in equipment series.
2.	The depreciation rules may be worked either on the basis of the value of individual cars and locomotives, or on the basis of the value of series of cars and locomotives. On this point, accounting officers are at liberty, until advised to the contrary, to follow whichever method seems to them the more appropriate.
3.	The basis of accumulation-that is to say, the amount to which the percentage rate is applied-ought, in strict theory, to be the original cost. For the current year, however, accounting officers are at liberty to accept original cost estimated, if not known, record value, or purchase price. The term ' record value ' should not be interpreted to mean the value of the equipment as it stands in the capital account unless that account represents the original value of the equipment on hand, but the actual cost or value of all equipment, regardless of where charged when purchased; and in ease purchase price be accepted as the basis of the percentage charge to depreciation, the percentage rate should be limited to the rate required to replace the price paid. A second-hand locomotive, for example, is not called upon to provide for its replacement, when abandoned, by a new locomotive. As stated above, it is values and not locomotives with which depreciation charges deal.
4.	The application of depreciation charges for the current year and subsequent years must not be influenced by the practice of years past. In case property has been appreciated by excessive charges to operating expenses in years past, the value thus placed on the property must be regarded as a permanent undivided asset to the stockholders. On the other hand, in case property has depreciated on account of insufficient charges to operating expenses in years past, this fact must not be permitted to influence the determination of the depreciation rate for the current year.
5.	The monthly charges to operating expenses for ' depreciation ' in the several classes of equipment, will, of necessity, create or require corresponding liability accounts to which such depreciation may be credited. To that end, carriers will be required, beginning July 1, 1907, to set up an appropriate liability depreciation account for each of the several classes of equipment upon which depreciation is charged. These accounts should be designated as follows:-
(a)	Locomotives - replacements (including both steam and electric),
(b)	Passenger-train cars-replacement,
(c)	Freight-train cars-replacement,
(d)	Electric equipment of cars-replacement,
(e)	Floating equipment-replacement,
(f)	Work equipment-replacement (except locomotives).
To these replacement accounts should be credited monthly the amount of accrued depreciation on each class of equipment, respectively. Such credits should invariably equal the gross charges to maintenance for depreciation.
To these several replacement accounts under their appropriate heads should be charged, at cost, all equipment purchased, built, or otherwise acquired for purpose of maintaining the value of a carrier's equipment.
The monthly charges to operating expenses for ' renewals ' of the several classes of equipment will be similarly treated.
It is not intended that these accounts should be restricted to individual cars or locomotives, or that carriers are not at liberty to renew or replace equipment upon which depreciation has accrued prior to the retirement of such equipment. On the other hand the several amounts standing to the credit of those replacement accounts should be available to carriers for the purpose of replacement of equipment to the extent of such credits; however, all replacements in excess of such credits must be considered as betterments or additions, and charged either to income or capital.
I have also a classification of expenditures for additions and betterments, for steam roads, adapted by the Inter-state Commerce Commission, and which the Intercolonial has adopted as their standard. Then I have a classification of the road and equipment for original construction which we have adopted. I will lay these two statements on the table.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is any portion of this amount applied to the payment of the sewer, the contract for which was let to Mr. E. A. Walberg? I understand that there is a claim against the government for something over $100,000 for the construction of a sewer. The work was let under a purely verbal contract, entered into with the local engineer.


George Perry Graham: That is in the courts yet. The referee gave a certain figure, Mr. Walberg appealed to the Exchequer Court, and got another judgment. I have now under consideration the advisability of appealing from that judgment.


John Dowsley Reid: Are you giving him any more contracts?


George Perry Graham: I do not think he has any at the present time.


Adam Brown Crosby: I want to ask the minister what the department is doing with regard to the Cunard property which they

acquired in Halifax some years ago, and when they intended to make use of it?


George Perry Graham: There are plans under consideration for building a freight shed at that end of the city, and a new wharf, and I think a flour shed on the wharf. But the plans are not yet completed, and we have nothing in the estimates this year. We have a large capital account and we are going as slowly as possible in order not to unduly increase it.


Adam Brown Crosby: I think the people in Halifax were willing that the department should acquire this property, but they ex-pe*ted that the department would use it. They expected that within a reasonable time some construction would take place; it was understood that a flour shed and a new wharf would be built. I think the time has now come when the work should be carried on. Can the minister give us some definite intimation as to when this work will be begun? I think the property was acquired six or seven years ago.


George Perry Graham: I understand that the front part of the stone building is now occupied by the Cunards under lease, and the other part is occupied by Halifax merchants, and the whole is in use. I understand the property was bought only a short time before I became minister. It was offered cheap; the government thought they would eventually need it, and they took advantage of the opportunity and purchased it. We require it, and we intend to go on and utilize it, But I do not think it was bought with the intention of immediate use.


Adam Brown Crosby: Does the minister mean to say that they bought it on speculation, and they are going to keep it for some time? If that is the intention, I am sure it will not meet with the approval of the people of Halifax.


George Perry Graham: Nobody could buy it from us.


Adam Brown Crosby: If the Railway Department is going to keep it in the shape they have got it now, we would like to have some use made of it. We don't want the Railway Department or anybody else to come into Halifax and buy up a valuable piece of water front, and hold it without making some improvements. I understand the minister to say that he does not know what they are going to do with this property, they have made no plans; he has not made up his mind what he is going to do with it.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend has rather overstated what I said. We bought the property because it was a good thing to buy, and we will need it. The department has of course considered sev-Mr. CROSBY.
eral things in connection with it, but at the present time we have formed no plan, and we are not asking this year for any appropriation.


Adam Brown Crosby: Then I will ask the minister something easier. I would like to ask him how much accommodation there is at the round-house for locomotives, and how many they can put in there? I would like to ask the minister if it is intended to do the same amount of work in that shop as has been done in the past. There is quite a large amount of ground although the roundhouse does not seem nearly as elaborate as I would like to see it. I would like the minister to give me some idea of how many locomotives can be stored in the round-house at one time?


George Perry Graham: The roundhouse at Halifax will be used for repairs just as other roundhouses are. There is a car repair shop there as well. Arrangements were made some years ago for the construction of central shops at Moncton, where all the heavy repairs could be done. The board is carrying out that plan which was adopted by the then management and approved by parliament. The roundhouse at Halifax is like the roundhouse at other places and the same kind of work is being done there.


Adam Brown Crosby: Will all cars that go into Halifax be repaired there? We are not jealous at all of Moncton, nor are we jealous of any other place, but we feel that we should have what belongs to us and we do not believe that a locomotive or a car should be taken from Halifax to any other part of the Intercolonial to be repaired.


George Perry Graham: I do not think I can add anything to what I have said. The road is under the management of expert railway men who know more than I do about where these things ought to be done. A very large amount has been expended at Halifax for giving exceptional facilities for shipment, and we have made provision for these heavy repairs to be done at Moncton. I cannot say how big a hole there should be in a boiler before it will go to Moncton rather than stay in Halifax, but we must leave it to the management to look after these details.


Adam Brown Crosby: That answer will hardly satisfy me. I am quite satisfied that the minister is going to leave things to the board which he does not want to deal with himself, and take things to himself that he does not want the board to interfere with. While there has been a considerable expenditure at Halifax I am proud to say that with the exception of acquiring the roundhouse site, you have got pretty good value for your money. There has not been any evidence of any money being squan-
2T41

dered there except in acquiring the roundhouse site. Of course, I need not tell you anything about that, because you know how you got your friends fixed up in that regard. There has not been very much spent in Halifax for the Intercolonial. The road has its terminus at Halifax, and you have a perfect right to spend a lot of money there to facilitate its operations.


George Perry Graham: How much would my hon. friend call a lot of money? Suppose we spent it in Hamilton. How much does he think has been spent in Halifax for the Intercolonial -* $4,379,000? I think that is quite a lot of money.


Adam Brown Crosby: Since when?


George Perry Graham: Up to the present time.
"Mr. CROSBY. Since 1867?


George Perry Graham: I have not the date, but we keep the expenditure in every place in Canada. That is a lot of money.


Adam Brown Crosby: It might be a lot of money if it had been spent last year, but if it has only been spent since confederation it is not very much. I presume that for every dollar you spent there you have got value.


George Eulas Foster: Except the Henderson property.


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister would not even admit that he did not get value for the Henderson property. But, 1 am not worrying about the Henderson property; I am worrying about getting fair play for Halifax as a part of the Intercolonial railway. The minister states that there is a machine shop there, and all the equipment necessary for the repair of cars and locomotives, and I want to know whether the minister would be in sympathy with the idea of taking a car from Halifax to Moncton to be repaired. I can quite understand the statement of the minister that they have made provision for construction at Moncton. I -want to be fair to the minister, and I am sure he would be as fair to me, and if he has the facilities at Halifax to do the work I want to know if it would not be fair and reasonable to ask that it should be done at Halifax?


George Perry Graham: No jealousy is allowed to exert any influence upon these matters, even if such a thing did exist. But, the practical work of the Intercolonial railway will have to be left to the men who are employed and paid to give us advice as to what should be done. I think it is fair to say that such repairs as are made in the roundhouse at Halifax, which is not what is known as a machine shop, as the Moncton one is, will be done at Halifax.


Mr. DANIEL.: Perhaps it will satisfy my hon. friend from Halifax if the minister
would send to Halifax to be repaired the sleeper that I had the misfortune to come from St. John in the last time I came. I think it would give a good deal of work for a good deal of time at Halifax to put that sleeper in good condition. Either the sleeper was very bad or the roadbed was very bad, and from what we heard from the minister yesterday I presume it would be rather presumptuous to blame it on the roadbed. So, we have to blame it on the sleeper and I would suggest that the sleeper be sent to Halifax, because in this way you will perhaps find it necessary to spend a good deal of money there.


Adam Brown Crosby: I will second that motion.
New machinery for locomotive and car shops-$38,700.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What is the nature of this machinery?


George Perry Graham: I will read the list.
1 6-inch, track machine, 1 rivet and track bolt machine, 1 double car axle lathe, 1 cold saw to saw off to 12-inch diameter, 1 100-inch, wheel lathe, 1 48-inch, tire-turning boring mill, 1 42-incli. car wheel borer, 1 6-foot radial drill, 1 6-spindle arch-bar drill, 1 1,200 lb. steam hammer, 1 quartering machine.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would like to ask the minister whether this machinery is purchased by the purchasing agent of the Intercolonial railway or by tender.


George Perry Graham: It has not been purchased yet.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would like to put in a plea in favour of having this machinery, so tar as practicable, purchased from Canadian manufacturers. I believe the Prime Minister laid down the policy _ that we should build our own steel ships even though they should cost 331 per cent more than on the other side of the water. Representations have been made me by people who should know, that a very large proportion of the new machinery at present in the new shops at Moncton was purchased in the United States, although a large part could have been purchased in Canada at very little, if any, increased cost.


George Perry Graham: The great bulk is of Canadian manufacture. I agree with my hon. friend absolutely, and perhaps would go further. I have given instructions that- we purchase Canadian machinery whenever possible, if anything nearly equal can be got. Some times we come across machinery which our experts Tequire and which cannot be got in Canada, and we have to go outside. But the rule is to buy Canadian machinery whenever possible.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am pleased to hear this statement, because I was led to believe by competent machinery men that a large pro-

portion of our machinery had been bought in the United States. Of course a good deal was purchased before the present minister took the office.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is the minister providing at Halifax such machinery as this item is intended to provide at Moncton?


George Perry Graham: We are not doing the work at Halifax for which this machinery is required, and consequently it is not required there.
Original construction, $800.


George Perry Graham: This is an item which has been in the estimates from time immemorial. It is for the purpose of meeting land damages and claims not settled.


George Eulas Foster: What was paid last year?


George Perry Graham: I do not think anything was paid out of it last year.


John Stanfield: I would suggest to the bon. minister a method of getting rid of this $800, and at the same time of doing an act of justice. In 1902, a man was killed in the Truro yards. He was working on the coal chutes when an engine started up and the man got jammed in a coal shed and was killed. The department offered the widow, who has ten children, $100 to settle the claim. Had it been the case of an ordinary company, the widow could have sued and got heavy damages. I would ask the minister to take this case into consideration and see if he cannot do anything. It is certainly one which calls for compensation. The name of the widow in question is Mrs. Charles MacNutt.


George Perry Graham: I do not know anything of the details, but I should imagine that there was no legal liability and that the $100 paid was for two months salary usually given servants of the railway in such cases.


John Stanfield: If a cow were killed on the track, the government would give as much compensation as it did in this case. I am asking that something should be done in justice to this poor woman whose husband lost his life in the government service.
Pintsck gas apparatus, $6,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is this considered perfectly safe apparatus or is it liable to cause fire? I notice that in the case of the terrible accident out west, two or more cars caught fire. Whether that was due to the Pinstch gas apparatus or not, I do not know. If anything can be done to prevent cars taking fire in case of accident, it ought to be done.


George Perry Graham: This is a matter to which I have given some little attention. In every train I go on and every car I enter, I first try to investigate the light. Railway ex-Mr. RHODES.
perts fell me that outside of electricity, which at present seems impracticable for general use, the Pinstch gas is the safest light known.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What caused the cars to catch fire after the accident out west?


George Perry Graham: I do not know, but that accident occurred in the day time when there was no light burning.


James Conmee: Was there not a stove?


George Perry Graham: There may have been.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is this light safer than what is used by the Canadian Pacific railway?


George Perry Graham: It is the same gas.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In travelling by the Intercolonial railway, one cannot read at night. The Pintsch gas system installed on that line is not a good light, and many travellers take the Canadian Pacific railway in preference, because the light is better.


George Perry Graham: I believe there is an improved mantle on the Canadian Pacific railway, but we are seeking to improve the system on the Intercolonial railway. We have been studying the question of improving the lighting of the cars. It will make the cars lighter, but there is another feature that with the mantles the consumption of gas is not so great, so that it is an economy.	.


John Stanfield: I would like some light on this question of compensation of the widow of whom I have spoken.


George Perry Graham: I do not know anything about the case at all, but I will go through the files and investigate if my hon. friend thinks I should. It has no doubt been dealt with by the Railway Department and the Justice Department before our day.


John Stanfield: The unfortunate part is that the accident happened in 1902 and before it was handed over to me it was outlawed. If the minister will allow me I shall send him a full statement and he can take it up.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Has the matter of the lighting of cars by electricity been carefully considered. I 'understand that it is expensive.


George Perry Graham: Some individual cars are lighted by electricity-generating their own electricity as they move, but it is a bit unreliable, it is expensive, and makes the hauling of the car a little more difficult. It is really impracticable for general use on a whole train.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: There is no doubt that as the cars are now lighted there is great danger from fire. In case of accident

where a car, pullman or otherwise, is thrown off the track, fires often occur from this cause.


George Perry Graham: Experts tell me that very few fires can be traced to the Pintsch
gas.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not know about that, but I think there have been cases where cars have been fired from the light. If there is any means of avoiding fires of this kind it is a matter that should engage the attention of the government. -


George Perry Graham: I think that is so.
Riviere du Loup-engine house, &c., $63,720.


George Perry Graham: This is a revote of an unexpended balance. The proposed outlay was $158,500, but that was reduced to $113,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does that cover the whole expenditure for this work?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Robinson's Crossing-subway at, $6,000.


George Perry Graham: This is to get rid of a dangerous level crossing at this particular point. Careful estimate makes the cost $5,040.


Samuel Barker: On a public road?


George Perry Graham: This is on a much travelled public highway in Nova Scotia.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I asked the minister yesterday to have his deputy in passing through Amherst look into the question of a crossing there.


George Perry Graham: We work in our department even more rapidly than that. We have written to get particulars and see if it will be feasible.


John Stanfield: I asked the deputy minister to look into a crossing at Dens-more.


George Perry Graham: The deputy tells me he has some notes, but he will look the matter up and let my hon. friend know.
Side ladders for box cars, $1,000.


Haughton Lennox: Are not all the cars now equipped with ladders?


George Perry Graham: You can only put the ladders on the cars as you get the cars in the shop, and this is about as many as we can get in during the year. It costs about $2.50 a car, and of course the side ladders go on all new cars.
St. John-to increase accommodation at, $46,150.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Where is that to be spent?


George Perry Graham: Freight car repair shops, addition to freight sheds, steam heating for
office, and granite paving for roadways around station. The expenditure to date at St. John by the Intercolonial railway has been $2,681,941.26.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Since confederation. That is about one-half the amount spent at Halifax.


Adam Brown Crosby: We are not a bit jealous of St. John, but I see here you are having repair shops put there. You intend them to repair cars at St. John and not take them to Moncton? That is exactly what I asked in regard to Halifax.


George Perry Graham: While we call it a repair shop, it is only a rough building to enable light repairs to be made that cannot be made in the open.


Adam Brown Crosby: Just so that St. John can get in out of the rain; that is all right.
Ste. Rosalie-improvements at, $8,500.


Samuel Barker: Will that complete?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Sydney Mines-diversion, $100,000.


George Perry Graham: This is the item to which my hon. friend from Sydney (Mr. Maddin) referred yesterday. He was evidently under the impression that we had not an item to provide for this. This is a diversion of some 84 miles. It is proposed to run the trains back from George river to Sydney mines. It will get rid of one of the worst grades we have on the line and also of a branch line. The expenditure last year was $2,500 but this year we intend to proceed more vigorously and are asking $100,000.
To increase accommodation and facilities along the line, $38,700.


George Perry Graham: This is to provide for an engine house at Blackville, a station at
Little Metis, yards for feeding cattle at Ste. Flavie, a station at Cape St. Ignace, snow fences at several points, a track scale, $2,500.


Mr. BEAUPARLANT.: Although the hour is rather late, I would ask the indulgence of the committee while I make some observations which I think may properly be made on this particular item. According to a statement made by the minister recently lie is giving some consideration to the providing of a remedy to the present system of prosecuting claims for damages against the Intercolonial railway by people living along the line-damages caused by fire, killing of cattle, &c. I understand that I cannot move an amendment at this moment, but what I wish to do is to make a suggestion for the avoiding of useless costs which are specially regrettable in claims for damages to small

amounts. I would sugggest the following amendment to the Government Railway Act, after art. 60:
60a. The action may be taken and decided before the court of the district or the county where damages occurred and having jurisdiction to the amount claimed.
The object of this suggested amendment is to relieve claimants from the necessity of paying law costs in excess of those allowed by the Exchequer Court. At present any one who has a claim of the character I have mentioned must either come to Ottawa himself or be represented by an attorney or by an agent, whose charges will, in most cases, exceed the amount of taxed costs allowed by the Exchequer Court, even should the claimant win his suit. The plaintiff has thus, under the present system, even when he wins his suit, to pay out in costs more than the' court allows him; and as claims of this kind are very numerous all along the line, it seems to me that the government ought to provide some remedy to the present system, and I trust the hon. minister will take my suggestion into his favourable consideration.


George Perry Graham: I am very pleased to have that suggestion from my hon. friend. The difficulty he points to is one concerning which I am endeavouring to get a satisfactory solution. What he suggests is part of what I have in mind, and the only thing to be decided is whether it can be satisfactorily worked out, as the matter is a little more difficult than it appears on the surface.
The only item left is the one we discussed yesterday with regard to Chatham. My hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) asked me about the right of way. We have not really purchased any property at all yet along the right of way. We had our man making certain valuations and have outside valuators going over his figures to see if they are approximately correct. If we cannot decide on a proper valuation, we will expropriate.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Were there two surveys through the town of Chatham?
We shall have to decide in a very few days.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The reason I ask is that there have been some property transfers taking place in Chatham within a verv short time. I understand that one gentleman very prominent in politics there has purchased the old foundry property, anticipating that the government will require it. If the minister is not able to tell what location it is proposed to adopt, some people at Chatham seem to have ascertained the fact and have scooped some of the property the department will have to buy.


George Perry Graham: I have tried to make it clear, and emphasize the point again that we are going to buy these properties irrespective of any transfers that may have been made, and will buy them at their proper value. If the owners do not consent to a fair value, we shall expropriate. .


Oswald Smith Crocket: Have negotiations been had with the present owners of the property?


George Perry Graham: I think an effort has been made to get the several owners of the property to name a price. That is the first step. Some of them have declined to name a price.
t Mr. BARKER. I would remind the miu-*'ister of our experience in the Halifax roundhouse property. The government sent down people to value the property there, and these people would not inquire what had been paid for property within thirty days.


George Perry Graham: We try to bring our.best judgnjent to bear on the opinion of the valuators.


Samuel Barker: I mean more than judgment. Sitting here, your best judgment on a matter of that kind is not enough. I have found that, again and again, the valuators sent to look into the valuation of property, have declined to ask what a man had paid for the property, even if he had bought it within a month or so.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Were both surveys made by the same engineer?


George Perry Graham: They were both made under the direction of the engineer of the Intercolonial railway.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the government determined upon the route to be adopted?


George Perry Graham: We expect the plans in two or three davs. For all practical purposes, I think the chief engineer has made up his mind as to what the route will be.


Aimé Majorique Beauparlant: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: AVho is the valuator who has been sent down?


George Perry Graham: The man originally seut was our own engineer, Mr. O'Dwyer. He has taken the preliminary steps. To make sure that his valuation is right, we will have other valuators check it. The public interest will be protected in every way. We desire to get the property at a fair value.


Samuel Barker: I hope and expect so, now that you have a board. But it- was not so a year ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Surely, if property has changed hands recently, the actual price paid -is the best evidence of value, and it would seem that the best course would be to ascertain the facts concerning such transactions.


George Perry Graham: I think that the safest way is for the government to expropriate the property, and then there can be no question. We intend to take all the precautions necessary, as we want to get full value. My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) asked yesterday about the expenditure on the Canada Eastern. I gave that information last year. It is quite a long statement, and I hope he will not mind if I send him the number of the page on which it appears in 'Hansard.'


Oswald Smith Crocket: As to the Chatham diversion, the minister promised to bring dowm a plan. That can be seen at the department, I suppose?


George Perry Graham: Yes, we have it.
Some resolutions reported.


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


Mr. FIELDING.: * The Naval Bill.
House adjourned at six o'clock.

Thursday, February 3, 1910.