1911-01-11

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER delivered a message from the Governor General as follows :
[Stage Direction]
Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the Address which you have adopted in reply to my speech at the opening of the session of parliament, and thank you for it sincerely.
Government House,
Ottawa, December 28, 1910.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 63) to incorporate the British Columbia and Dawson Railway Company.- Mr. Burrell.
Bill (No. .64) to incorporate the British Columbia and White River Railway Company.-Mr. Congdon.
Bill (No. 65) respecting the British Crown Assurance Company, Limited.-Mr. McColl.
Bill (No. 66) respecting the Brockville, Westport and Northwestern Railway Company.-Mr. Stratton.
Bill (No. 67) respecting the Burrard, Westminster Boundary Railway1 and Navigation Company.-Mr. Taylor (New Westminster).
Bill (No. 68) respecting the Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Fowke.
Bill (No. 69) respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Mr. FOSTER.: Bill (No. 70) respecting the Canadian Western Railway Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 71) to incorporate the Empire Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill (No. 72) respecting the Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway Company.-Mr. Currie (Simcoe).
Bill (No. 73) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 74) respecting the International Railway Company and International Traction Railway.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 75) respecting the McClary Manufacturing Company.-Mr. Beattie.
Bill (No. 76) respecting the Ontario, Hudson Bay and Western Railway Company.- Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 77) respecting the National Weekly Indemnity Company, and to change its name to National Guarantee and Accident Company.-Mr. Wilson (Laval).



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(The questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

*Mr. MACDONELL:: Is it the intention of the government during the present session to amend the Superannuation Act with regard to letter carriers, so as to entitle those who are otherwise eligible within the meaning of the Act, to receive superannuation allowance on attaining the age of 55 years or thereabouts; or on the completion of 25 years service, or thereabouts, whichever first happens, or substantially to the above effect?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It is not the
intention of the government to introduce such legislation.


SCHOOL LANDS IN ALBERTA.
*Mr. MCCARTHY:: 1.	What are the total acreage of school lands in Alberta, held in trust under section 39 of the Dominion Lands Act, still undisposed of?
2.	What is the amount already realized from the sale of such lands in Alberta?
3.	What is the amount of the deferred payments or amounts yet to be paid in respect of sales of such lands?	_
4.	What is the income derived from the investment of the funds so obtained from the sale of such lands in Alberta?
5.	From what sources is that revenue derived?
6.	What is the cost of administration of the fund?
7.	What items make up that cost?
8.	What amounts have been paid to the province of Alberta by reason of the sale of lands or interest from the same?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Approximately eight million acres.
2.	$4,209,212.47.
3.	$3,354,835.92.
4.	Total interest on fund to March 31, 1910, $76,913.14. Revenue other than principal and interest on sales from commencement to March 31, 1910, $249,486.21.
5.	Interest on principal moneys, and revenue from timber dues, hay permits, grazing rentals, interest on sales.
6.	From January 1, 1880, to March 31, 1910, $61,174.13.
7.	Clerical assistance, expenses re auction sales,. printing, stationery, &c.
8.	Interest on fund from commencement to April 1, 1910, $76,913.14; Revenue other than principal moneys and interest on sales, $249,486.21.


WHARF AT ST. GABRIEL DE STRATFORD.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MONK :
1 Has the government called for tenders for a wharf at St. Gabriel de Stratford on Lake Aylmer, province of Quebec?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received tor said work and who was the lowest tenderer?
3.	What was the amount of the lowest tena<4. Will the contract be given to the lowest tenderer ?
Mr. PUGSLEY :: 1.	Yes, tenders were received until December 5, 1910. 2, 3 and 4. Until contract is awarded, such information is not made public.	.


WHARF AT GARTHBY.
[Stage Direction]
* Air. MONK :
1.	Has parliament voted any money for the
extension of the wharf at Garthby, province of Quebec?	,	, '	.,
2.	If so, what is the amount voted tor said
object?	,.	,	,	„
3.	When is the work m question to be exe-exited ?
4.	Have tenders been invited? If so, in
what manner?	. , ,
5. Is the work going to be executed by tender and contract, or by the day?
Air. PUGSLEY :: No vote has been granted by parliament for the extension of the wharf -at Garthby, Que.


IMMIGRATION AGENTS TO BRITAIN.
[Stage Direction]
* Air. BRADBURY :
Have any farmers or others been sent by the government from Manitoba to Great Britain by this government since last session? If so, who, for what purpose, and from what district ?
Air. MURPHY :: Yes, the following, to promote immigration : George Cluff, Alorris, Alan.; Henry
Sampson, Brandon, Alan.; J. Riddell, county of Alacdon-ald ; John Williams, Mel-ita ; George Gordon, Oak Lake.


CANADIAN NAVAL SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
* Air. MONK :
1.	To what type or mark do the guns of the ' Rainbow ' belong ?
2.	At what date were the said guns manufactured?
3.	To what extent were said guns used up
to 1905?	, .
4.	To what extent have they been used since 1905?
Wilfrid Laurier: 


H. M. C. SHIP ' RAINBOW.'
[Stage Direction]
Gun.	Type.	Mark.	Date of Manufacture.	Used up to 1905.	Used since 1905.
				Rounds.	Rounds.
t6-in.	Q.F.	II	1902	222	4II	1897	222	44.7-in.	III	1891	202	4f|	III	1891	207	4III	1891	185	4III	1891	188	4III	1891	193	4III	1891	205	46-pdr.	I	1886	608	4I	1890	232	4I	1891	279	4I	1890	142	4I	1890	259	4I	1904	193	4I	1890	302	4I	1890	340	43 ..	I	1895	495	4Maxim	Machine.	II	1896	10348	1650II	1896	11286	100II	1893	23840	1240"	"	II	1896	10189	100
t This is up to 1908. The exact number up to 1905 is unknown.

Mr. LENNOX :: 1.	Has the arbitration board, constituted to determine questions as to overbreak, overclassification, &e., on eastern division of the Transcontinental railway completed its work. If so, will the minister lay the report upon the table of the House?
2.	If not, when did the arbitration enter upon their duties, how long have they been actually engaged in the investigation, and at what stage is it now?


Mr. GRAHAM :: 1.	Work completed except making award, which cannot be done until Arbitrator Kel-liher reaches Ottawa.

2. The time engaged under first appointment :
Days.
Collingwood Schreiber, H. D. Lums-den and B. B. Kelliher, 19th May,
1909 to 11th June, 1909	 23
14th June, 1909 to 30th June, 1909 16
Under second appointment : Collingwood Schreiber, Gordon Grant and B. B. Kelliher :
Days.
30th September to 8th October, 1909	8
20th November to 7th December,
1909	 17
23rd May to 10th June, 1910 .... 18 13th June to 22nd June, 1910 ....	9
24th October to 30th October, 1910	6
1.	In respect of the giving out of contracts upon the National Transcontinental railway, were estimates in detail as to quantities prepared before the reception of the tenders?
2.	Was this information at the disposal of would-be tenderers?
3.	Were the estimated quantities shown on the profile?
4.	Were they communicated to the commissioners, or to any one of them, prior to the reception of the tenders?


Mr. GRAHAM.: The following information is supplied by the National Transcontinental Railway Commission:
1.	Yes.
[DOT]	2. No.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.


SEVIGNY ISLAND.
Mr. LORTIE:: 1.	Whence comes the name of Sevigny, on an island of the St. Lawrence, registered in the Department of Agriculture?
' 2. How long has it borne this name?
3. Has it been sold, leased or given away since 1838?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	The Marine Department has no information as to the origin of the name Se-vigny island. It appears as an alternative of the name Petite lie aux Cygnes, on the registered plan of the cadastre of the island, and was adopted by the Geographic Board of Canada on 16t,h February, 1909, as the more convenient of the two, on the recommendation of the official representative for the province of Quebec.
2.	Not known, but the name Sevigny island appears on Sullivan's plan of 1882 as well as on the cadastral plan.
3.	The Department of Marine and Fisheries has no information in regard to this.


George Perry Graham: [DOT]


GRAZING LEASES.
Mr. MCCARTHY:: Have any applications been received for a closed grazing lease of a township, or a part thereof, in the foothills situated west of section 26, township 24, range 5, west of the 5th meridian between southerly limit of township 24 and northerly limit of township 25? If so, who are the parties applying for same, and what are the dates of the respective applications ?


Mr. OLIVER.: Grazing leases granted since 1905, all subject to cancellation on two years notice:
Township 24, Range 5, West 5th Meridian-J. and R. Copithorne, February 20, 1905; J. Bateman, March 27, 1905; J. A. Fraser, April 12 and 22, 1905; E. C. Barnes, June 27, 1908 and April 25, 1910; J. and K. Copithorne, December 22, 1910.
Township 25, Range 5-J. J. Fotts, May 22, 1905; F. Kidd, May 22, 1905; Potts and Lusk, June 15, 1906; Charles Roper, August
21,	1906; Bert Cope, April 22, 1907; Wm. K. Burke, July 15, 1907.
Township 24, Range 6-E. C. Barnes, June 27, 1908; C. E. Logan, April 12, 1910; E. C. Barnes, April 25, 1910; Wm. H. Ricks, May 13, 1910; C. E. Logan, June 6, 1910; W. H. Edge, June 28, 1910; E. C. Barnes, July 2, 1910; D. L. McDougall, September 9, 1910; G. M. McDougall, October, 1910;
S.	Copithorne, October 25, 1910; Jumping Pound Stock Association, December 2, 1910; Elize Bennett, December 17, 1910.
Township 25, Range 6, West 5th Meridian -Charles Roper, July 30, 1908; G. M. McDougall, February 18, 1910; H. B. Parsons, June 23, 1910; Bert Cope, September 29, 1910.
Township 24, Range 7-None.
Township 25, Range 7-None.
Township 24, Range 8, West-of the 5th Meridian-E. Loder, April 3, 1905; E. Loder, November 7, 1905.
Township 25, Range 8, West of the 5th Meridian-None.
Township 24, Range 9-C. E. Bailey, May 1, 1905; E. Loder, August 30, 1905; E; Loder, November 22, 1905; Calgary Lime and Cement Company, April 7, 1906; Western Canada Cement and Coal Company, May 15, 1906; A. M. Baptie, January 14, 1907; A. M. Baptie, March 6, 1907.
Township 25, Range 9-None.
Township 24, Range 10-Vincent Towers, August 11, 1905.
Township 25, Range 10-W. Spencer, April
22,	1908.
Township 24, Range 11-None.
Township 25, Range 11-W. Spencer, April 21, 1908.	'


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Mr. AMES:: 1.	In respect to the section of the Grand Trunk Pacific between Lake Superior Junction and Winnipeg, did the contract for con-

struct ion specify a time limit in which to complete the work? If so, what was that limit?
2.	When was the work commenced?
3.	When was the line opened for traffic?
4.	Was there any penalty for delay?
5.	Did the government make any special concessions or grant any additional inducements to the contractors for hastening the work to completion ?


George Perry Graham: The following information is supplied by the National Transcontinental Railway Commission
1.	Yes. September 1, 1907.
2.	Shortly after agreement was executed.
3.	For freight traffic on the first day of October, 1910.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.


THE LTJMSDEN INVESTIGATION.
Mr. LENNOX:: 3.	By the authority of the committee of the House.
4.	Answered by number one and two.


FISH HATCHERIES.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	How many fish hatcheries under federal control are there in each of the provinces, where are they located, and when established?
2.	How many applications for fish fry were received at each of the hatcheries during the past year, and how many such applications were granted?
3.	How many applications for fish fry were received from Frontenac county, from whom received, and how many were granted?
4.	If any applications from Frontenac were refused, why were they refused?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	What was the cost of the Lumsden investigation under the following heads, respectively:-For witnesses, with names and sums separately; for reporting staff; for counsel or solicitors, to whom paid and. what sum to each, including Mr. Smith; for printing; and for other expenses?
2.	What was the total cost?
3.	By whom were the solicitors or counsel, respectively, engaged, and upon what authority were they paid?
4.	What was the total cost of the Hodgins inquiry ?


George Perry Graham: 1 and 2. Cost of Lumsden investigation- April 7, 1910, J. C. Hanley,
reporting	$ 331 60
May 6,	1910, Hugh D.
Lumsden	 378	07
May 12, 1910, T. Bengough,
reporting	
42	30May 25, 1910, F. H. Chrysler, barrister	
2,500	00May 25, G. F. Moss, barrister	
2,817	80May 25, 1910, Smith, Mackey & Skinner, barristers 3,800	00
Amount of accounts paid. $9,869 77
A. E. Doucet, engineer,
N.	T. Ry., Quebec.. ..	238	80
H.	E. Huestis, engineer,
N. T. Ry., Quebec		238	80
H. B. Cressinan, engineer,
N. T. Ry., La Tuque,
Quebec	 34	70
E. R. Poulin, engineer,
Winnipeg, Man	 317	80
G.	Fe Richen, engineer,
Vermilion	 350	10
Amount of account yet to be paid	$1,233 40

Total	$11,103 17
Nova Scotia-
Bedford, salmon	
Margaree, salmon	
Windsor, salmon	
Bay View, lobster	
Canso, lobster	
New Brunswick-
Restigouche, salmon	
Miramichi, salmon	
Grand Falls, salmon	
Shemogue, lobster	
Shippigan, lobster	
Prince Edward Island-
Kelly's Pond, salmon	
Charlottetown, lobster	
Georgetown, lobster	
Quebec-
Tadousac, salmon	
Gaspd, salmon	
Magog, salmon trout	
Lac Tremblant, salmon trout.. [DOT][DOT]
St. Alexis, speckled trout	
Port Daniel, lobster	
Magdalen Islands, lobster	
Lake Lester, rearing ponds	
Ontario -
Newcastle, salmon trout	
Ottawa, salmon trout	
Wiarton, salmon trout	
Sandwich, whitefish	
Sarnia, pickerel	
Quinte Ponds, bass	
Manitoba-
Selkirk, whitefish	
Berens River, whitefish	
Winnipegosis, whitefish	
British Columbia-
Fraser River, salmon	
Granite Creek, salmon	
Lakelse Lake, salmon	
Harrison Lake, salmon	
Pemberton, salmon	
Rivers Inlet, salmon	
Babine, salmon	
Stuart Lake, salmon	
Cowichan, salmon .. ,	
Anderson, salmon	
Kennedy Lake, salmon	
1902 1906 1891
1874
1874 1880
1904
1904 1909
1875 1881
1905 1904 1909
1904
1890
1876 1908
1894
1908
1902
1905
1906 1906 1908 1908
1910 1910 1910

2.	189 applications were received at the Department of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa, of which 136 were filled from the various hatcheries as follows;-
Bedford, N.S	 21
Windsor, N.S	 11
Grand Falls, N.B	 2
Tadousac, P.Q	 2
Lake Lester, P.Q	 5
St. Alexis, P.Q	 8
Magog, P.Q	14
Lac Tremblant, P.Q	 9
Ottawa, Ont	37
Newcastle, Ont	17
Wiarton, Ont	 4
Sarnia, Ont	 1
Quintd, Ont	 5
3. Three.
Alex. Munro, Mr. Van Luvens, Dr. J. W. Geddes.
One.	'
4.	Mr. Van Luvens desired to obtain Rainbow trout, which are not incubated in any of the government hatcheries.


Dr.  J. W.@: Geddes' application was received too late in the season to receive consideration last spring, and it is not the government's policy to distribute white-fish in the smaller inland lakes.
A very limited number of bass were available for distribution last fall, and only a very small percentage of the requests received could be considered.


PUBLIC WORKS IN NIPISSING.
Mr. GORDON (Nipissing):: 1.	What is the total expenditure on Monet-ville Cut, east end of Lake Nipissing, what progress has been made with the work, and are there any men employed there now? If so, how many?
2.	When will the work he completed?
3.	From whom was lot purchased by the Public Works Department at Sturgeon Falls, what was the amount paid for same, and when?
4.	From whom was the lot purchased at Sudbury, what was paid for same, and when?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	(a) $7,869.29.
(b)	The principal cut, 275 feet long, was excavated to grade at elevation 636, during the period September 17, to December 18, 1910.
(c)	Yes.
(d)	One man, caretaker of plant and supplies.
2.	Expect to complete work in June next.
3.	Lot at Sturgeon Falls purchased from Michaud & Levecque for $2,000, paid July 29, 1909.
4.	Lot at Sudbury purchased- from Mrs. M. A. McCormick for $12,000, paid July 29, 1909.


Mr. BRODEUR.: 


CUSTOMS IMPORTS.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What was the number and value, of the quantity and value, of each of the following articles, when dutiable, imported into Canada from the United States during the year ending March 31, 1910; horses, cattle, sheep, swine, hay, straw, wheat, barley, oats, pease, beans, rye, buckwheat, potatoes, butter, cheese, eggs, bacon, hams and lard?
2.	What were the quantities and values of each of the above articles, when dutiable, exported from Canada to the United States, during the same period?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	The quantity and value of the undermentioned articles, entered for consumption in Canada, from the United States, during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1910, were as follows:
Entered for Consumption. Quantity. Value.
		Dutiable.	
Horses	6,604	$ 401,503Cattle	1,012	25,150Sheep	"	35,844	131,492Swine	2,760	2,140Hay	7,680	141,956Straw	89	1,880Wheat	* ..bush.	54,964	55,139Barley	. . . "	164,532	99,810Oats	ff	23,361	13,833Pease	ff	12,875	35,496Beans	"	23,157	55,806Rye	1,306	1,399Buckwheat	444	426Potatoes	215,228	179,849Butter	61,081	16,163Cheese	215,741	45,319Eggs	750,476	177,577Bacon and hams,	shoulders	and sides	.. ..lbs.	5,453,257	816,042Lard	.. .. " 10,915,679	1,347,8872.	The quantity and value of the undermentioned articles (Canadian produce) exported from Canada to the United States during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1910, were as follows:Canadian Produce.	Quantity	. Value.Horses	No.	1,906	453,186Cattle	ff	12,210	642,674Sheep	ft	104,349	569,679Swine	ff	204	6,088Hay	86,127	673,220Straw	4,789	24,081Wheat	1,856,181	1,883,647Barley	f	147,596	66,608Oats	ft	1,285,660	534,680Pease, whole.. ..	. "	232,560	273.956Beans	12,778	24,663Rye	"	10,388	7,347


Buckwheat .. ..: 163.971	90,802
Potatoes	ft	678,632	345,903Butter	lbs.	1,103,827	199,854Cheese	"	154,490	23,995Eggs	35,732	11,551Bacon and ham.	107,166	14,899Lard	34,914	2,555
RE GEORGE E. ELLIOTT. . Mr. BRODER:


Is George E.: Elliott in the employ of the Inland Revenue Department at Peterborough? If so, what are his duties and salary?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 


George E.: Elliott is in the employment of the Inland Revenue Department at Peterborough. His duties are to assist the Collector of Inland Revenue in the supervision of the different licensed establishments in that city.
His salary is at the rate of $500 per annum.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY EXPENDITURE.
Mr. AMES:: What will have been the total expenditure upon, in connection with or in consequence of, the National Transcontinental railway up to the 31st of December, 1910, and what amount is it estimated will be required to complete and fully equip the said road between Winnipeg and Moncton?


George Perry Graham: That will have to stand as it will be some time before the figures up to the end of December can be obtained. The returns from every district will have to be made. If the hon. gentleman will make it a motion for a return I will expedite it in every way.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would it aid in the speedy production of this information if it were given approximately, say within a few thousand dollars?


George Perry Graham: I do not think it would answer my hon. friend's purpose, I had better get him the actual figures.


CONTRACT FOR QUEBEC BRIDGE.
Mr. LENNOX moved:: For a copy of the last advertisement for tenders, and the specification and contract or proposed contract for the erection of the Quebec bridge?.


George Perry Graham: As I stated some days before the recess the question of tenders for the Quebec bridge is now under consideration, and it would not be in the public interest to have this motion pass until we have disposed of the tenders, so that everything in connection wdth the matter can he brought down.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Why should not the motion pass and the return be brought down when the public interest would permit?


George Perry Graham: The difficulty with that would be that every day we would be asked when the return was coming down. I think my hon. friend would say that it
is not in the public interest, while we have the tenders before us that we should have a discussion of the matter. There will be a lot of other information that will be included later.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand.


IMMIGRATION FIGURES.
Mr. WILSON (Lennox) moved:: For a return showing the number of immigrants who have come to Canada since the 31st of March last up to the present time, the countries from which they came, the number from each such country, the number of males and the number of females in each case, the number under fourteen years of age, between fourteen and twenty-one years, between twenty-one and f&rty, and between forty and sixty in each case, their occupations before coming to Canada, their religion, their destination in Canada, their occupation when they arrived at such destination; also the number who have been prevented from landing, and the number deported.


Frank Oliver: Before the motion is put I wish to explain that the returns are complete and have been tabulated up to the end of August, 1910, but no later. Number of males and number of females can be given in the case of all persons over fourteen years of age, all under fourteen are classed as ' children,' no account being taken of sex.
Number of immigrants between fourteen arid twenty-one, between twenty-one and forty and between forty and sixty cannot be stated. Occupations before coming to Canada and religion not tabulated. Destination in Canada can be stated by provinces. Intended occupation in Canada can be given; also number who have been prevented from landing and number deported.


Uriah Wilson: Will the minister bring down the return as amended?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PAYMENTS TO DUSSAULT & LEMIEUX.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario) moved:: For a return showing during the seasons 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910, wlxat amounts were paid to Messrs. Dussault & Lemieux, dredging contractors, for work done by the ' International,' the government dredge, leased to the said contractors.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend consent to adding the words ' so far as can be ascertained ' after the words ' dredging contractors.' The reason is this: during the early years of Dussault & Co's contract, which was awarded before I became minister, the dredge ' International ' was leased to the contractors, and the contractors paid a certain amount per cubic yard. Later on

-I do not remember in what year, but it was after I became a minister-instead of allowing so much per cubic yard, the dredging contractors were charged so much per day for the use of the dredge ' International.' My hon. friend can see that after that contract was made it would be, I assume, quite impossible to tell how much dredging was actually done by the * International,' because the services of the dredge were being paid for by the day. I may state, also, that the contractor had some three dredges of his own at work on the same dredging as that on which the ' International ' was engaged. If the hon. gentleman will consent -to the words ' so far as the same can be ascertained ' being added to the motion, I shall obtain all the information it is possible to obtain.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Of course I cannot expect to get any more information than can possibly be ascertained, but it strikes me that it is easy to tell exactly the amount of dredging that would be done by the ' International.' There ought to be no difficulty in ascertaining that.


William Pugsley: The actual quantity taken away in the scows would be known, but whether it could be ascertained how much would be dredged by each dredge I do not know. If that can be ascertained it will be, and meantime I will ask my hon. Mend to consent to these words being inserted.
Motion, as amended, agreed to. REGULATIONS UNDER NAVY ACT.


Mr.  F. D.@: MONK moved for:-
Return showing all rules and regulations passed by the Governor in Council under the provisions of the Navy Act, adopted at the last session of parliament.
He said: This motion is for the purpose of obtaining copies of the regulations which have been adopted by the government under the Navy Act of last session. There are a number of sections which give power to the government to pass regulations in execution of the law. It would be interesting for parliament to see these regulations before we proceed with the naval estimates for the coming year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Return showing all cases where in construction work on the National Transcontinental railway a richer mixture of concrete was used than that indicated in the standard specification, to an extent affecting the cost of the work to the amount of $5,000 or more; also the original estimated cost and the actual cost in each of such cases.-Mr. Ames.
William Pugsley: Address to His Excellency the Governor General for a copy of all correspondence, offers, agreements, Orders in Council, reports, records, regulations, or other papers or documents, relating to the grant or surrender to one Merrill, or some other person or corporation, of the concession or right to bore for and acquire natural gas, upon or under the Six Nation Indian Reserve, at or near Brantford, Ontario ; together with a statement of all moneys paid for said concession or right, and also of all moneys subsequently received by the Six Nation Indians, or by the government on their behalf for such concession or rights.-Mr. Ames.
Return showing a list of the members of the engineering staff who have been dismissed, or have resigned for left the service of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission since 1904, with position formerly held, the date of leaving, and the assigned cause in each instance.-Mr. Ames.
Return showing what amounts to date have been paid on force account to each and to all contractors connected with the National Transcontinental railway, setting forth the district affected thereby.-Mr. Ames.
Return showing in respect of all cases on-the National Transcontinental railway, where the original specifications have not been adhered to; the estimated cost as per original plan; the actual or estimated cost as per amended plans; the name of the contractor and of the resident engineer, and the reason given by the latter for such change.-Mr. Ames.	.
Return showing the clause in the standard contract on the National Transcontinental railway having reference to train hauled filling, with a statement showing what amounts have been paid to date, and to whom, for services of this nature.-Mr. Ames.
Return showing in all cases where finished structures on the National Transcontinental railway, have differed materially, to an extent involving a difference in cost of more than $10,000, from the original standard plans; the original estimated cost of the structure; the cost according to altered plans; the nature of the change; the name of the resident engineer, and of the contractor or sub-contractor; the reason, if any, given for the alteration of plans; and a copy of the correspondence exchanged thereon between the headquarters staff and the engineer on the ground.-Mr. Ames.
Return showing as to each contract district of the National Transcontinental railway between Moncton and Winnipeg, respectively, what was the original departmental estimate of quantities of solid rock, broken stone, earth, sand, &c., and the quantities of each kind of excavation, as above, already paid for.-Mr. Ames.
For a copy of all memorials, petitions and requests received by the government since last session advocating the enlargement of the Welland canal, as well as all memorials, petitions, resolutions, &c., favouring the construction of the Montreal and Georgian bay canal. -Mr. Hodgins.
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or memoranda had between this government,

or any member thereof, and the provincial governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, or either of them, or any of their members, in reference to securing control by such provincial governments of the lands, timber, water-powers, coal and other minerals, or any of the natural resources which exist within the respective boundaries of said provinces.-Mr. Herron.	[DOT]
For a copy of all letters, agreements, telegrams, or memoranda with respect to the application for water-power license on the Elbow river west of Calgary.-Mr. McCarthy.
For a return setting forth:-
1.	The total value of buildings, or parts thereof, owned by the government and occupied as post offices; also the estimated total annual rental value of the same.
2.	The amount expended during the fiscal year 1909-10 by the Department of Public Works upon repairs, renewals, upkeep, maintenance of buildings, &c., used in whole or in part, in connection with the postal service.
3.	The amount of subsidies paid out through the Trade and Commerce Department during the last fiscal year for services where the carriage of mails forms part of the subsidy contract; also the portion of said amount charged back to the Post Office Department.
4.	How many of the services now performed by other departments for the Post Office Department were performed at the expense of the latter before 1892?-Mr. Ames.
For a return showing the concessions granted to Canada by British countries, the products of which may be imported into Canada under che preferential tariff.-Mr. Ames.
For a statement giving a concise history of the negotiations in regard to reciprocal trade carried on since 1900 between the governments of Canada and of the Australian commonwealth, together with a copy of official telegrams upon the same subject exchanged between the two governments, or between the official representatives thereof, since the Imperial Conference of 1907.-Mr. Ames.
For a copy of all applications, reports, records, correspondence, &c., in connection with the entry or cancellation proceedings in respect of the S. W. i section 10, township 38, range 15, west 2nd meridian.-Mr. Lake.
For a return showing the names of all persons who have been fined for breach of fishery regulations in the coast w aters of Prince Edward Island since the year 1900 up to this date, together with a statement of the penalties inflicted, moneys collected, and fines or portions thereof remitted, in each case; and for a copy of all instructions issued, reports, correspondence and documents relating in any manner thereto.-Mr. Fraser.
For a copy of the lease made between the government and the Canadian Light and Power Company relating to the Beauharnois canal.-Mr. Lortie.
For a return showing the respective quantities of each of the staple varieties of fish landed by Canadian Atlantic fishermen yearly, since 1870, and the respective yearly values thereof.-Mr. Jameson.



NOTICE OF QUESTIONS TO BE INTRODUCED BY MR. MACLEAN (YORK).

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
["In the old Bill, clause 8 provided that the man working eight hours should get the per diem wages, that is, the wages for ten hours' work. _ I think that is the intention of the Bill, From the present Bill that clause has been eliminated, so that if a man goes to a contractor to get work, the contractor will say to him: 'You do not have to work more than eight hours a day unless you like; you may if you choose work 10 hours; I am paying three dollars a day to those who work 10 hours.' If the man does not choose to work 10 hours a day, he gets no work on that contract. I want to know from the minister what follows. Suppose $3 is the regular 10 hr. current wages. If a man works only eight hours a day, the contractor has a right to pay the man only $2.40 a day, or a deduction of 2 hours. There is nothing in this Bill to make him pay more, unless the provision at the end of the Bill for one-fourth more than regular pay for overtime. It is intended to make the working man believe that this measure is in his favour, but it is not so unless it is distinctly provided that if he works eight hours he will get 10 hours' pay.\nProgress reported."]
Mr. MACLEAN (York).: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity of giving notice to the House that when the government's measure renewing the bank charters comes up I will propose clauses providing for public inspection of banks, for national bank notes properly secured taking the place of the present note issue of the chartered banks and for repealing the double liability clause.
I also take this opportunity of giving notice that I propose to move in amendment to the motion to go into Supply;
That before the said motion do pass this House desires to affirm the opinion that parliament should empower the provinces to expropriate telephone lines within their respective borders owned by private companies incorporated under federal law.
That before the said motion do pass this House hereby declares that steps be at once taken to ascertain the rights of the public using the Canadian Pacific railway to a reduced tariff because of the provision in that regard contained in the Act of parliament ratifying the agreement with that company;
That before the said motion pass this House desires to affirm the opinion that a public owned cable service between Canada and the mother country would be of great benefit to the public and to the two governments;
That before the said motion pass this House desires to affirm its belief that a public owned telegraph service would cheapen and improve communication between the people of Canada;
That before the said motion pass this House desires to express its opinion that the preparation and administration of the customs tariff should be in the hands of a tariff commission;
That before the said motion pass this House desires to affirm the opinion that a wide extension of the parcel system of the post office would be in the public interest;
That before the said motion pass this House desires to express the opinion that the control of the capitalization of the railways of Canada should be within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Wilfrid Laurier: With what does my hon. friend propose to commence this pretty large programme?


William Findlay Maclean: It is rather a big order, and I bring it before the attention of the government and the House in this way so that it may get a certain publicity


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: Hon. gentlemen say ' hear, hear ' in a -way 10 indicate that they did not know there are political peacocks in this House. There are a good many of them, and they like to spread their tails sometimes before the public. But, I simply, as a humble member of this House, intend to bring up these questions in the line of important public policy before this House during the present session. I bring them up in this way, and I am perfectly within my right in doing so, for the reason that it does elicit public opinion and there will be considerable public opinion expressed in the country when propositions of this kind axe brought within the purview of this House. Also, in bringing up questions of this kind heretofore in the House I have often heard it said by hon. gentlemen that they did not know that they were coming up. These questions will come up as the opportunity presents itself, and I therefore desire to give notice of them.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no fault to find with my hon. friend, but I simply ask him -what question he will first take up?


William Findlay Maclean: The first question I will bring up is that in connection with the Canadian Pacific railway, its charter and the right of the public to a reduced tariff in connection with that road. I will also give my right hon. friend due notice of the others as they come along.



Mr. LAKE.: I wish to give notice that I propose to ask permission to move the adjournment of the House to-morrow for the purpose of calling attention to a particularly objectionable article affecting immigration into western Canada and the conditions of life there* which has recently appeared in an English periodical called ' John Bull.' I would have taken this question up to-day, but one or two hon. gentlemen asked me to defer it until tomorrow.


PRESERVATION OF FISH IN TRENT RIVER.
Mr. OWEN.: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) if anything is going to be done with respect to the preservation of the fish in the waters of the Trent river. I may say that dams have been erected along the Trent Valley canal without providing for a fish sluiceway. The waters of the Trent river have been noted for many years, at least as long as I can remember, for their beautiful game fish. Persons come in large numbers annually, especially from the Mr. MACLEAN (York).
United States, to fish in these waters, and leave a large amount of money with the people who live along the banks of the river. The view of many fishermen there is that the fish will follow the current and pass down through the locks and the basins until they reach the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario, whereas, if sluiceways were provided the fish would be turned back to their feeding grounds. Therefore, something should be done for the preservation of the fish of the waters of the Trent river.


George Perry Graham: In reply to the question raised by the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Owen), it is one worthy of attention, and I will certainly make inquiry into the matter to see what the necessities are and what is being done in that connection.


WESTERN FARMERS' DELEGATION.
Mr. STAPLES.: Mr. Speaker, I intended to have brought to the attention of the Hcuse an article which appeared in the ' Grain-Growers' Guide ' before the adjournment previous to the holidays, but owing to the rush which always exists on the day of the adjournment, I did not have an opportunity. The article I refer to is as follows:-


THE NEED OF DECIDED ACTION.
[Stage Direction]
The arrival of the farmers at Ottawa on December 16 is being awaited with intense interest by the members of the House. The fact that 40,000 Canadian farmers deem it worth while to send seven hundred delegates to Ottawa at the cost of $50,000 commands serious consideration. It comes home to the members of the House of Commons that if they had. been doing their duty as legislators the farmers' delegation would not have gone to Ottawa. There is no other construction to put upon the movement. Representative government at Ottawa has proved a decided failure. The western farmers have elected men to represent them and to protect their interests in the House of Commons, only to be laughed at and ignored by their members when election day is past. If the western members of the House of Commons were not absolutely false to the trust reposed in them the present situation would not have arisen. The western members know full well what the western farmers want, and they also know that the farmers represent a large majority of the western people. No person can doubt the justice of the farmers' demands, and yet their representatives have ignored them. There is not a single member in the House of Commons who has publicly expressed Ins belief in the justice of the organized farmers demands. This seems incredible yet it is true. Are the farmers too radical? Iliey were not too radical when they elected those gentlemen to Ottawa. If the western members stood together to protect the interests of their constituents they could force the hands of any government. To the ordinary member of the House of Commons the ' good of the

party5 comes first, while the people in the country care not about party so long as they get a square deal. The organized farmers should not go to the great expense and pains of presenting their case at Ottawa unless they do it in clear and unmistakable terms. It is time to read the ' Riot Act' to some of the misrepresentatives at Ottawa. They should be given to understand that their tenure of office is short unless their methods change. In western Canada every man favours government ownership and operation of the Hudson's Bay railway and the terminal elevators, and yet some of our members and also members of the government tell us that they (personally) ' do not believe in the principle of government ownership.' With all due respect to these gentlemen, they should be most clearly informed that it is the will of the people, and not of two or three men, that are supposed to prevail in British dominions. If the members of parliament and government are not prepared to obey the will of the people then it is time they gave way to men who are true democrats. The organized farmers have nothing to gain by undue humility to the members of the House of Commons or the government. They have right on their side and sooner or later there comes a day of reckoning for all those who openly and insolently refuse to regard the voice of the people.
I do not know what purpose the writer of this article had, because he certainly has ignored the facts. He may have had an ulterior motive, but I wish to tell the Grain Growers' Guide, or the person who wrote that article, that if he had been familiar with what has taken place in this House for many years back he certainly would not have misrepresented hon. members of this House. If he had taken the trouble to go back to 1903, he would have found at page 12626 of ' Hansard ' where my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) outlined the policy of the government ownership of terminal elevators, argued for it. He would also find that the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Sehaffner) brought up the question of a reduction in the tariff, and dividel the House upon it. He would also find that the same hon. member (Mr. Sehaffner) moved a resolution which was supported by every member from the west on this side of the House, on the question of government ownership of terminal elevators. Again, he would have found that when the Manitoba Grain Act was being amended, the Conservative members from the west asked the government to take hold of the terminal elevators in the very manner that these delegates recommended. He wonld also have found that the cold storage system had been many times discussed in this House and that recently a resolution moved from this side of the House in connection with the matter was I regret to say voted down. Then, the Hudson Bay railway is an old story, and if the writer of the -article had taken the trouble he would have found that the Conservative members of 48
the House had supported the very policy that the farmers of the west are agitating for. He would have found further that I myself moved a resolution in this House stating that the vacancy on the railway board should be filled by a practical farmer, and although that resolution was supported by the western Conservative members it was not adopted by the government. We have every right to ask the person who wrote that article to retract it; nay more, Mr. Speaker, I think we might go as far as you went on one occasion in this House and ask for an apology.

Robert Laird Borden: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any further information to give to the House as to the negotiations with the government of the United States in regard to trade relations between the two countries, which are said to be now taking place at Washington, and whether, we are to have any information before the conclusion of these negotiations as to the basis upon which they are to proceed, and as to the principles upon which this government proposes to act, and finally, why is it that the right hon. gentleman has changed his mind as to going to Washington?	-


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend knows that at present there are _ commissioners of this government negotiating with commissioners appointed by the President of the United States with a view, if possible, to frame better trade relations between Canada and the United States; whether by treaty or otherwise will depend upon the negotiations. As to the basis upon which these negotiations are carried on, I do not know that I can add any information to that which the House is already in possession of. As to what will follow, the government will have to be judged by their action. Any treaty, or any policy which may be devised, if there be any, will be subject to the ratification of this parliament, my hon. friend included. As to my personal and oft repeated statement that we will have no further pilgrimages to Washington, I may say to my hon. friend that we have received an invitation which we acted upon, and we are prepared if possible to improve our trade relations with every nation, including our neighbours to the south.


THE SECRETARIAT IN LONDON.
George Eulas Foster: I will not put such a hard question to the Prime Minister as that put by the leader of the opposition. Last year I called for all the papers in connection with the Secretariat to be brought down, and I wish to know if the government has any further information to communicate?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not recollect just now if there has been further correspondence, but if so there will be no objection to bring it down.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY TRAINMENS' STRIKE.
Mr. BLAIN.: Have the men in connection with the recent Grand Trunk strike been all reinstated, and if not what has the Minister of Labour done during the recess to compel the Grand Trunk Railway Company to carry out the agreement they made?


Mr. KING.: The action of the government in this matter is shown by the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway Company has appointed Judge Barron, of Stratford, to investigate the cases of all the men who have not been reinstated, and has given Judge Barron an absolutely free hand in that matter.


Richard Blain: And I understand that Judge Barron stated there was nothing to investigate.


William Pugsley: That referred only to Montreal.


George Gerald King: I understand that Judge Barron is going ahead with the investigation.


Richard Blain: What has the Minister of Labour done to compel the Grand Trunk Railway to carry out the agreement?


George Gerald King: The Grand Trunk appointed Judge Barron as I have stated, and his appointment was the result of representations made to the Grand Trunk Railway Company through the government.


George Eulas Foster: Are we to understand that Judge Barron's investigation is being carried out entirely by the Grand Trunk Company, and that the government has had nothing to do with it?


George Gerald King: Had it not been for the representations made by the government I think it is doubtful that Judge Barron would have been asked by the Grand Trunk to make the investigation.


William Findlay Maclean: Some of the men have called on me and told me they had telegrams from the government assuring them they would be taken back when the strike was called off, and they still look to the government for their reinstatement.


George Gerald King: I would be obliged if the hon. member would give me a copy of that telegram.


William Findlay Maclean: The telegram I saw was signed by the Minister of Labour himself.


George Gerald King: I would still like to see the telegram, and will undertake to see that any promise it contains is carried out.


George Eulas Foster: 


William Findlay Maclean: I will try and find it.


WESTERN FARMERS' DELEGATION.
Mr. MEIGHEN.: I call the attention of the First Minister to an article in the 'Grain Growers' Guide ' which refers at length to the result of the recent deputation from the west and which refers also to certain further conferences between the executive of the delegation and the First Minister, when, according to the article in question, the First Minister unbosomed himself much more freely than he did before the organized farmers. I quote as follows:
The premier also asured the committee that the government, either through the Board of Railway Commissioners, or some other commissioners, was prepared to keep complete control not only of the freight charges on the land portion of the system, hut would also control the rates of any steamship companies that formed a part of the through export charges on grain from the prairie provinces to Liverpool, and that it was also contemplated by the government to provide the necessary elevator and terminal facilities at Liverpool or some other English port for the handling of Canadian grain exported via the Hudson bay route.
It is to the latter part of the assertion that I wish to draw the hon. minister's attention, and I wish to ask him whether the establishment of an elevator at Liverpool or at any other English port is under contemplation by the government?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend has had the advantage, which I have not yet had, of having read the article in the ' Farmer's Guide '; and before answering the question I would like to read the article.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the Prime Minister, after reading that article, could give the House some statement of what assurances, if any, he did give to the executive of the Grain Growers' Association which called upon him.


Wilfrid Laurier: My answer certainly will be guided by the statement contained in the paper. I cannot say more at present, as I w-ant to read the' statement before giving an answer.


THE ST. ANDREW'S DAM.
Mr. BRADBURY.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works whether it is his intention to place a sum in the estimates this year for the completion of the bridge at St. Andrew's dam. I understood the hon. gentleman to state distinctly last year that the work was to be proceeded with immediately ; but since then nothing has been done, the approaches have not been built, and the bridge is standing there useless, so far as the public on either side

of the river are concerned. It is a very-important matter to that part of the province of Manitoba.


William Pugsley: I would say to my hon. friend that the work at St. Andrew's rapids was not undertaken for the purpose of affording a bridge across the river, but for the purpose of improving the navigation by the building of a lock and a dam so as to increase the depth of the water between that point and the city of Winnipeg ; but it was found, as incidental to the construction of the dam and lock that, provision might be made for the erection of a highway bridge, which would add somewhat to the cost, although the cost would not be nearly so great as it would be if the bridge were undertaken by itself. The work has cost a good deal of money, and up to the present moment the government has not seen its way clear to ask parliament for a vote for the purpose of providing the approaches to what would be the highway bridge. I may say to my hon. friend that there has been no decision arrived at against doing this work. All I can say is that up to the present it has not been decided to ask parliament for an appropriation during the present session.


George Henry Bradbury: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman how he reconciles that statement with the statement which he made most distinctly on the floor of this House last year, that a sum was going to be placed in the estimates for the building of these approaches.


William Pugsley: I do not recall exactly what was said, but I am inclined to think that any statement which I made was simply an expression of my own opinion ; but, of course, in addition to any opinion I might have as to the desirability of going ahead with the work, would be the question of providing the money, a matter which would rest with my colleagues, and more especially the Minister of Finance.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not wish to debate this question, but it does seem to me-


William Pugsley: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: There can be only questions at this stage.


George Henry Bradbury: I desire to ask the hen. minister another question. In connection with that wmrk there has been a dam built across the Red river, which renders it impossible for fish to go up the river any farther than this dam. I called the attention of the House several times to this important question, and I think I had the assurance of the hon. Minister of Public Works that an investigation would be made, and that, if it were found necessary, a fishway would be placed in that dam. During the summer I received a letter from one of 48*
the officials of the Marine Department, stating that they had received information from the Public Works Department that no fishway was necessary. Now, I want to say that that statement is altogether erroneous. A fishway is absolutely necessary. The right hon. the Prime Minister was at the dam last summer, and I understand that his attention was drawn to the matter by the Agent General of the United States, and that he promised that a fishway would be placed in the dam; at least, he was so reported in the Winnipeg papers. The absence of a fishway is a great hardship to the people living above the dam, and I believe a violation of international law.


William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to state from whom he received the letter informing him that the Public Works Department did not consider that a fishway was necessary?


George Henry Bradbury: I think it was signed by Mr. Stanton.


William Pugsley: I would be glad if my hon. friend will send me the letter, because I never expressed such an opinion.


George Henry Bradbury: Will the hon. minister state what his intentions are now in regard to that matter?


William Pugsley: I have been conferring with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the subject, and it is now under consideration.


THE FARMERS' BANK.
Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I desire to ask the government whether their attention has been called to the failure of the Farmers' Bank, and whether it is their intention to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate it. This bank had many branches throughout the country, including one in my constituency, and the losses through its operations have been very great, many people losing their all. There are also rumours of irregularities in connection with the organization of the bank, and the preliminary steps taken to secure its charter, and I do not think the public mind will be satisfied unless there is a thorough investigation.


Wilfrid Laurier: In the absence of the Minister of Finance, I would not like to give an answer to this question one way or the other. But I will communicate it to him, and on his return he will probably give the answer himself.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Have there
been any petitions asking for a Royal Commission?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not to my
knowledge.


THE INTEREST ACT.
[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 6) to amend the Interest Act.-Mr. Miller.
[Stage Direction]
On section 1,
Mr. MILLEK.: This Bill has been thoroughly explained to the House, and also to the committee. The hon. leader of the opposition asked that it might be delayed until after the holidays, because he had sent copies of the Bill to some parties in Nova Scotia who desired to see it, and he wanted time to hear from them by the time the Bill again came up. If the hon. gentleman is present and does not object, I would like to proceed with the Bill.


Mr. LANCASTEK.: I understood that the hon. gentleman who promoted this Bill was going to recast the operative part of section 1. I think he quite appreciated, when the Bill was under discussion before, that the language was vague and hard to be understood, if the courts were called upon to apply or construe it.


Henry Horton Miller: I am not in any way wedded to the wording, but I showed the present wording to one of the most eminent lawyers in the House and he thought it was perfectly plain. If it will suit the member for Lincoln better I would suggest that lines 7, 8 and 9 be stricken out and the following substituted:
Whenever any principal money, interest, or other money secured by mortgage paid after the passing of this Act or by mortgage renewed by renewal extension agreement after the passing of this Act, is not paid at the time, &c.
I also submitted this form to the legal gentleman in question and he said that nothing could be plainer.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You are using the words ' extension agreement ' as if some special legal construction should be given to them. I do not think any lawyer can say what the courts will hold an extension agreement is. The term ' extension agreement ' has no express significance that I know of, and it would require an interpretation clause to explain it. The courts may hold that an extension agreement is not necessarily what we have in our minds, they will put the ordinary construction upon the language. Why does not the hon. gentleman say ' an agreement extending the time for payments '. i think we should define with more precision what an ' extension agreement ' is.


Henry Horton Miller: I am quite willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. gentleman. I used the words ' extension agreement ' because I think they can be easily understood. If it will please the hon. member better to say, an agreement to extend the time for payment, I will be quite satisfied.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not want the hon. gentleman to suggest that he is doing this to please me. He should not propose any legislation to please me or to please Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the Prime Minister or any body else. If it is sensible legislation it should be passed by the House whether it pleases me or not, but we should be careful to word it so that it will be interpreted by the courts to mean what we intend. His suggested amendment still contains the words ' by a new mortgage or an extension agreement '. Why would not the hon. gentleman say ' or any agreement extending the time for the payment of the principal or the balance thereof as originally invested,' or something of that kind? The hon. gentleman, who is not a lawyer, may not know that there are such things as tacking securities, a man having two or three mortgages made by the same party to himself, or perhaps assigned to him by some other person and these in most provinces can be attached together and become practically one security. If the hon. gentleman means an agreement extending the time for payment of part of the original money I see no objection to that.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. gentleman has taken up a good deal of time and has not allowed me to explain my position. I thought if I adopted that form of expression it would please my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and would of necessity be sensible legislation that would be satisfactory to every one.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is the first time the hon. gentleman said that. If he had said it ten minutes ago he would have saved time.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. gentleman did not give me an opportunity.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You wanted to becloud the matter.


Henry Horton Miller: With all respect to my hon. friend I do not think this language can be improved, I think there can be no other meaning to the expression ' extension agreement ' than an agreement to extend. In ordinary English it cannot mean anything else than an agreement to extend the time for payment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Of what?


Henry Horton Miller: Of the moneys secured by the mortgage? However, if the hon. gentleman does not like that form of language we may allow it to stand, and I shall submit to him a form of expression of which he will approve.


Mr. BUREAU.: I understand the promoter of this Bill (Mr. Miller) said some time ago that there was an absolutely similar law in Ontario except that the time there was longer than the time intended to be prescribed here, that it is there six months instead of three. When this Act comes before the courts which law will prevail, the Ontario law or this Bill? Furthermore, as far as the principle of the Bill

goes, I am not in sympathy -with it. It may be that our control over interest or usury gives us some authority, tout this is nothing more than a civil contract where there is a penal clause on the party not living up to the contract, and I think that such legislation ought not to be supported by any lawyer in this House, especi-, ally those from Quebec who understand the regulation of contracts between parties under our Civil Code. The matter is without the jurisdiction of this parliament. The title given to the Bill will not change its purport and consequence and therefore I for one shall not support it.


Mr. CLARKE (Essex).: This Bill seems to me to toe quite in harmony with an Act passed by this House some years ago in regard to mortgages for more than five years. It is quite true that in regard to these this House could not authorize the payment off of a mortgage which was not due until the expiry of ten years, but, as I recollect, the House passed an Act, by virtue of the jurisdiction which this House has over interest, providing that if the amount is paid at the end of five years, no further interest shall be paid. This House could not say that the debt should be discharged or that the mortgage should be discharged but by reason of its jurisdiction over interest it could say, as the judgment of the House was at that time, that thereafter no further interest should be paid. The present Bill seems to me entirely analogous. It simply says that in certain extents no interest shall be collected. My experience leads me to believe that this is in the interests of the general public. My experience has been mostly with borrowers and I have known many cases of hardship. Farmers are not so punctilious as business men, many of them are not awake to the fact that they have to pay a bonus of three months' interest before they are allowed to pay off their mortgage. It may be said that the paying off of a mortgage at any time may disarrange the business of the loan companies, but the inconvenience and disarrangement of their business is not great as they are constantly getting in and lending out money. Certainly the inconvenience to them is insignificant compared with the hardship on a poor farmer or man who mortgages his home in a town, who is struggling to pay off a mortgage and finds that he has to' pay interest for two or three months for which he receives no return.


Jacques Bureau: Is it a penal clause?


Alfred Henry Clarke: It is a penal clause if he does not pay the interest on the day it is due. Sometimes a mail goes astray, perhaps a man is arranging to get another loan and they take advantage of "that and he has to pay the additional interest. That is a great hardship and it seems to me should not be tolerated.
Whether or not the words ' extension agreement ' are the best words that could be used it seems to me it cannot make any practical difference and cannot cause any confusion because the only effect which that has is in regard to the time when the mortgage is given. If the mortgage is made after the passing of this Act the law applies. It does not seem to me there can be very much doubt about the meaning of the words and I should think the present wording is as good as could be chosen.


Mr. RIVET.: I agree with the' hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau). I do not believe that the Bill is one over which we have jurisdiction. According to the British North America Act, matters regarding civil rights are decided exclusively by the provincial legislatures. We in Quebec have _ no sympathy at all with this kind of legislation. I have discussed the proposition with several lawyers of the Montreal bar and every one of them has declared himself against it. Upon principle I should say that we should oppose this Bill. The hon. member has referred to legislation of a similar character which was passed by this parliament some years ago. Even if that was done I do not believe that is a good reason why we should do the same thing to-day. If I had been a member of the House at the time I should not only have voted against the Bill but should have opposed it to the fullest extent. We in Quebec, and in this, I think we are like the people of every other province, are jealous of our provincial rights, and this is a matter to be dealt with only toy the legislatures. I do not believe that it will affect us very much in our province. When a mortgage is due the debtor has a perfect right to pay at any time by paying tire interest which has been agreed upon in the deed, but of course under this Bill it is stated that after the mortgage is due the debtor will have no right to pay the mortgage, that he is bound to keep it upon his farm or his house for a longer period, that he is not at liberty to pay it off. In our province we are not confronted with that state of affairs.


Alfred Henry Clarke: What is the law in your province if the mortgage is not paid on the day it is due?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Unless there is a clause in the deed which must be construed, as the Solicitor General says, as a penal clause, the debtor is at perfect liberty to pay off the mortgage at any time by simply jjaying the accrued interest from the time the mortgage is due until the day he pays it off. Such being the case, I say there is no justification for this parliament to obtain an end by invalid means which cannot be obtained in a direct manner. I think every legal mind will agree that we have no right to interfere with private contracts, contracts

that are made between individuals. Now, if we do interfere therewith, even though m an indirect way, we do that which we have no right to do. Since the principle is admitted that this is a matter under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, T say we should not pass this kind of legislation. It is a bad principle, it is bad legislation, and we should leave the whole matter to be decided by the provincial legislatures. As a member of the bar of the province of Quebec, I should have to vote against that amendment.


Mr. CARVELL.: I am afraid the hon. member for Montreal has not read this amendment, perhaps, as carefully as he should have done. No hon. gentleman in this House will disagree with him when he states that questions of contract are within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures, and we have no right to interfere with them. But he forgets that by the British North America Act questions of interest are purely within the jurisdiction of this House. All that this Bill seeks to do is to provide that after a mortgage becomes due, if the mortgagee will not take his money, then the mortgagor can give him one month's notice, agreeing to pay one month's interest, and the mortgagee must accept- his money.


Jacques Bureau: After it is past due?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly. Now, I can tell my hon. friend that in the province of New Brunswick I have known case after case where a man failed to pay his mortgage after it was due, he has gone later on to the mortgagee with the money, and the mortgagee says: No, I wont accept it. I do not want to particularize, but I can tell him that a man who occupied a very high position in the judiciary of New Brunswick within the last five or six years, in a case in which I was personally interested, re- fused to accept the money because the money was not paid the day it -was due, and the parties were compelled to pay interest for seven or eight months on an amount of four or five thousand dollars, simply because they had no right to compel that man to take his money until the next year came round. That may seem a remarkable statement, but I am giving an actual fact that occurred in my own practice. It seems to me it is only reasonable that the mortgagor should have the right to go to the mortgagee and say: Here is a month's interest,* I want you to take your money. Now, we are not asking the mortgagee to discharge the mortgage; we admit that this House has no jurisdiction to say to the mortgagee that he should discharge the mortgage, because that is made as a civil contract. All this Bill says is: If you do not take your money, then you cannot get interest after one month. The British Mr. RIVET
North America Act has placed the question of interest within the jurisdiction of this parliament, and therefore I submit that we have a perfect right to pass this legislation, and say to a man: If you wont take your money when it is [DOT] due, along with one month's interest, you cannot claim any more interest. I am not saying that he must discharge the mortgage, as that is a matter within the jurisdiction of the local legislature. It seems to me that no argument can be advanced why this Bill should not become law.


Mr. CROTHERS.: There seems to be some doubt whether this House has jurisdiction to deal with this matter; but if it has, 1 quite agree with those hon. gentlemen who think that it ought to be exercised. The one fault that I have with this proposed amendment is that it does not go far enough. I do not see any ground, on principle, why a mortgagor should pay one month's interest. I think the matter should be simplified by giving him the right to pay whenever it becomes due, or at any time thereafter. Why should he pay interest for a month after he becomes prepared to repay the loan? I am quite satisfied that every lawyer in this House has in his practice met cases such as my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvel), has referred to. I do not think that in private mortgages there is so much difficulty; but in case of many mortgage corporations a long printed form is used, three large pages, the mortgagor often does not read his mortgage. He is told in nine cases out of ten: I won't take up the time to read these three pages of fine print, it is a formal matter, and the mortgagor signs his mortgage. It is provided in the mortgage that if he does not pay on the very day when it becomes due he should pay a bonus of three months' interest, but that provision has not been read to him at all, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he does not know it is there. He signs the mortgage, it is sent away, it is registered, final search is made, and he does net get his money perhaps for ten days after he has signed the mortgage. He knows that the mortgage has to run for five years, and he dates it in his mind from the day when he gets the money. He perhaps signs the mortgage on the first day of the month, but does not get his cheque for the loan until perhaps the tenth of the month. He has it in his mind that five years from that tenth of the month his mortgage will become due. On that tenth of the month five years hence he comes to pay his money, and he is told: Why, this money wras due on the first of the month. But I did not get the money until the tenth. I don't know anything about that, but here is a provision in the mortgage that you agreed to, that if it is not paid on the exact day when it becomes due, you will pay a bonus of three months' interest.

Then for the first time he discovers there is a provision of that kind in the mortgage. Now it may be said, as it has been said, that it is not wise to interfere with private contracts. But instances have been cited where that has been done, it seems to me that in the interest of the public we are quite justified in doing so in certain cases, and I believe this is one of those cases. Where is there any hardship upon the mortgagee in requiring him to take the money on the second day of January, or on the 5lh day of January, as well as on the 1st, so long as he gets interest on the money up to the date on which it is paid? There is no such provision in regard to any other securities. You give your promissory note for $1,000, payable, say, in one, or two, or three months. If it is not paid the exact day it becomes due, you have a right to pay it the next day, or ten days afterwards. You simply pay interest for the time you have the money. And where does the hardship come in upon the mortgagee in requiring him to take the money at any time after it becomes due? If he lvants it all upon the day it becomes due and has another investment for it, he should do as the manager of a bank does, notify his debtor that the money will be due on a certain day. If the mortgagee wants his money on the exact day, he can simply notify the mortgagor a week or ten days before, saying: That money is due on a certain day, and I want it on that day, because I have another investment in view. It seems to me that, instead of saying as this Bill does, that if he does not pay at the end of the month, he will have to pay the bonus provided for in the mortgage, the whole matter ought to be simplified by merely giving the mortgagor a right to pay the money at any time after it becomes due, notwithstanding any provision in the mortgage to the contrary. Although a man may agree to let his money stand on a certain mortgage for ten years, this House, in its_ wisdom, has already said that it is in the interest of the public that the mortgagor should have the right to pay it off at the expiration of five years. Of course, this is interfering with private contract. There are many cases where we have done that. It is a question [DOT]of expediency whether in actual life it is not in the interest of the public to say that a mortgagor should have the right to pay a mortgoge' after it comes due by giving one, two or three months' notice, or without any notice whatever. I intended to move an amendment to that .effect. I did not know the Bill was coming up to-day, but if my hon. friend will allow this matteT to stand, I will have an opportunity of giving notice of the amendment that I desire to move that the mortgagor shall have the right to pay at any time after it comes due.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no necessity of notice for that.


Mr. PARDEE.: Does my hon. friend think that under the provisions of the Bill as it stands now there is any hardship to the borrower in having to give a month's notice?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Is there any reason why he should give the notice or, if he does not pay the mortgage on the exact day that it falls due he should be deprived of the opportunity of paying it?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think there is. It is not on behalf of the loan companies that I take this position because loan companies are in a position to protect themselves. The money comes in and goes out almost as a matter of routine, but, to the small lender of money I think it would be only fair to say that he should at least- have a month's notice after the money or the mortgage becomes due and when he is required to look about for a reinvestment. It is often the case that some considerable time is lost in reinvesting money. It is not always easy to pick out investments. It appears to me that it is only fair to a small lender of money that, if a mortgage becomes overdue and the money is not paid, he should receive at least a month's notice, that the borrower, who has not lived up to his contract by paying when the money became due should, in justice to the lender, give him a month's notice so that he may reinvest his money. I do not think that involves any hardship to the borrower and I think it is only simple justice to the lender of the money.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: As to the desire of the mortgagor to make payment before the whole mortgage becomes due I admit there is a good deal in what the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) says. But this is not dealing with a matter of that kind. We all know that in mortgages there is often a provision that the mortgagor shall have the privilege of paying a certain portion of the principal sum or any part of it before the whole amount thereof becomes due. I could understand that if the mortgagee were not expecting the money to come in the case might be different, but he should expect it to come in when it is due at the end of the mortgage period, or at the end of the year, and if he wants it particularly at that time for some other investment it is no hardship on him to give notice to the mortgagor that he wants his money on a particular day. At the present time when the rate of interest has been going down-


William Findlay Maclean: (York) It has been going up.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: -my experience is that the mortgagee is very glad to have the mortgagor hold the money for six or twelve months because, although there may be a little difference at the present time, the tendency of the rate of interest is downward.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Not of late.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I say not of late.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) was pretty logical in the argument he made this afternoon, but I want to call his attention to a little different state of facts than that which he has in mind. If a mortgagor came in five or ten days after the mortgage was due and wanted to pay the money I think the mortgagee should accept it. But, let us suppose that it should go over for nine months, the mortgagee would not reasonably be expecting the mortgagor to come in and pay the money. Does my hon. friend not think that in a case like that the mortgagee should have at least cne month's time to enable him to reinvest? It looks to me as if the Bill drafted by my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) more fairly meets all the conditions that may arise in the lending of money than if you *were to undertake to say that he must take the money and discharge the mortgage so that the mortgagor cannot pay any interest from that time.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Does not my hon. friend think that if the mortgagee wants the money before the mortgagor comes in it is simply a matter of telling him so?


Henry Horton Miller: I think the Bill is perhaps a little more reasonable and fair to all parties as it stands now. It may be that a man has money borrowed from his neighbour and his mortgage will mature on the first February, 1911; that man may go to his neighbour and say: I will not have this money on the first February, but I will have it shortly afterwards and I will be glad if you will allow it to stand. In that case the mortgagee is allowing his money to remain out to accommodate the man to whom he has loaned money, and I think it is not unfair that the man who has loaned the money should have one month's notice in order to find a new investment. The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Crothers) expressed in the first words that lie uttered with respect to this Bill some little doubt as to our jurisdiction. The words he used were somewhat as follows,
' If this House has jurisdiction.' If there is any doubt in the mind of any hon. member as to the jurisdiction of this House to pass the Bill that doubt must be removed by looking at section 10 of the Interest Act, the same chapter that this Bill seeks to amend. That section 10 was introduced by the Hon. Edward Blake more than thirty years ago, and the Bill that I have before the committee now is a copy in as far as can be of section 10 introduced by Mr. Blake, and certainly if the House had jurisdiction in that case it has jurisdiction in this. Again, if we had the right to interfere with the I Mr. CROTHERS.
right of contract when section 10 was introduced we have the same right to-day and this Bill does no more to violate that right than does section 10. In many other cases and by a great deal of other legislation we have interfered with the right of contract. For instance, in our Ontario statutes we say that a mechanic who furnishes labour, or a man who furnishes material for work, notwithstanding that he may have signed an agreement not to place a mechanic's lien, cannot waive his right under any agreement which he may sign for the supplying of the material or- the doing of the labour. Not many weeks ago the House accepted the principle of this Bill by a very large vote and it seems to me that now is hardly the time or the place to undertake to argue against the principle of the Bill. One of the hon. members for the province of Quebec has argued against the Bill and he has said that the members of the bar in Quebec are opposed to the Bill. But, in his remarks he also says that this Bill will not very much affect the people of Quebec. Therefore, if it does not have any harm in it and he only thinks it is without any good, it is not a very good reason why it should not become law. Section 10, introduced by Mr. Blake, has been of very great benefit to borrowers in the Dominion of Canada ever since it became law.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I take very much the same view of this Bill as that held by my hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) regarding its legality.


Henry Horton Miller: While my hon. friend (Mr. Macdouell) proceeds to argue in that way, will he kindly say co the committee why he thinks this Bill to be illegal or beyond our jurisdiction if section 10 of the Interest Act is legal?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was section 10 of the Interest Act held to be legal by the courts?


Jacques Bureau: It was never decided before the courts.


Henry Horton Miller: Section 10 has been upon the statute-books for thirty years and if this statute was to the disadvantage of every loan company in Canada, and if these loan companies, with all their zeal to protect their rights have been injured and have had their rights curtailed, they have not seen fit to contest it or to argue that it is not legal.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I was going to observe that it occurs to me that the Bill is entirely one of civil rights. _ It is clearly a matter within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures and while not opposing the principle of the Bill I think the Bill should be dealt with, in and by the proper authority. I think it will be found upon analysis that the laws of the different provinces with regard to interest and mort-

gages and with regard to the matters treated of in this Bill are very much at variance. Each province has adopted laws best suited to itself. I understand that the law in the province of Ontario is quite the reverse of the law in the province of Quebec with regard to the right of the mortgagor to repay the mortgage money after the maturity of the security. That is a reason why the question should be dealt with as a local matter of civil rights coming within the purview of the province. My opinion is that this Bill, if passed, will not be an infra vires statute. Even if it is legal and if it is passed, I think the Bill will do more harm than good to the borrowers. The effect of this legislation would be that immediately the security matures the lender, whether he be a loan company or a private lender, will immediately insist upon getting his money, which might prove a great hardship to the borrower, or, he will at least insist on getting what is known as an extension agreement the cost of which will be from $10 to $15 according to the amount involved.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: These are city prices.


Mr. MACDONALD (Toronto).: No, I think there is a tariff which governs these matters throughout the province of Ontario.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They put a lot of expense on the borrower for revaluation.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Yes, they will put the borrower to the expense practically of a new loan. I do not believe that one-half of the loans are paid when they mature.


Alfred Henry Clarke: In practice do they not have renewals?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: No ; it is my experience, and I think the experience of most gentlemen who practise law in Ontario, that the borrower makes some kind of a verbal arrangement to pay the mortgage off in a year or six months, relying on the law as it stands regarding notice or the bonus that must be paid. If the borrower has the right to pay off at any time, the lender would say: I must know when my money is to come back, because I have to seek reinvestment, and in nine cases out of ten the borrower will be put to the expense of practically a new loan. In my opinion the Bill should not pass; first, because I do not think it is constitutional, and secondly, because I believe it will prove a hardship rather than a boon to those in whose interests it is supposed to be passed.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: When we passed the second reading of the Bill we adopted its principle and assumed responsibility for our jurisdiction. My legal experience leads me to believe that the Bill is admirably in the interest of the farming community, the small borrowers. We talk about not interfering with private contracts, but in these days of corporations and large aggregations of wealth there is no equality between the poor borrower and the wealthy loan company when they come to negotiate. Usually, the borrower swallows holus-bolus whatever is presented to him without reading the small print. I was surprised to hear the Solicitor General say that this law would not be applicable in the province of Quebec.


Jacques Bureau: I did not make any such statement.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Perhaps it was the member for Hochelaga who said that. I know a gentleman who desired_ to negotiate a loan in Montreal in connection with property he had there, and a week before the loan matured he secured the promise of the loan company that they would grant the loan if the title was satisfactory, but the opinion of the lawyers on the title (which proved in the end to be satisfactory) was delayed for some two or three weeks, and so the loan was not paid off when it became due and the mortgagor was under penalty. I repeat that I am strongly in favour of the Bill.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. gentleman from Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) said that a renewal agreement would cost from $10 to $15, but I know of one large Ontario company which makes a practice of granting these renewals or extension agreements without any charge at all, and while there is one firm of solicitors in Toronto which does charge $5 for an extension agreement, most of the solicitors only charge three dollars. If a lender will by verbal agreement extend the time for payment without asking for a revaluation, it is absurd to think that he will insist on a valuation when there is and because there is a written agreement. I may say that since the Bill was first introduced I have never found one man, outside the House of Commons, -who was not interested in some way in loan companies, who opposed the Bill, and I have found a large number of farmers and others who were strongly in favour of it. I have spoken to some gentlemen from the city of Toronto who were at the heads of large money-lending institutions and who have told me that the Bill as presented was very reasonable. Two very prominent and eminent gentlemen engaged in lending money have made this statement to me, but as there is a difference of opinion among those at the head of lending institutions in Toronto concerning the Bill, I do not think it would be fair to mention their names. However, I may say that Mr. Osier, one of the members for Toronto, said to me last session-and I do not think it is any breach of confidence for me to mention it-that he

thought the Bill was not in any way unreasonable and that it would not do any harm to any person. When we adopted the second reading of the Bill we agreed to its. principle and I do not think it is now reasonable to introduce the question of our jurisdiction.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think that the hon. gentleman should insist so much on our having adopted the principle of the Bill, when we gave it its second reading merely to save timie and with the understanding that we would discuss all its features in committee. It is not to be understood that we are swallowing the principle of the Bill; otherwise, there will be a great deal of time occupied every session by hon. gentlemen explaining their position before they take the responsibility of not dividing the House on every public Bill, whether it comes from the government side or the opposition side of the House. I think my hon. friend should not try to take advantage of that technicality, if it can be dignified by that term. When we pass this Bill into Committee of the Whole, we cannot tell what principle is involved in it until we see what it will look like when we get through with it. If the Dominion has jurisdiction in this matter, the provinces also have jurisdiction, and I am inclined to think that it would be better to leave it wholly to the provinces. I do not say that as a matter of law the Dominion has not the power to pass this legislation, but the arguments presented as to the propriety or impropriety of passing it indicate to me that it is a local matter-that what might be fair in one province might be exceedingly unfair in another. Is the rate of interest to-day the same in Nova Scotia as in British Columbia, or the same in Alberta as in Ontario? It seems to me, in view of all these differences, that this matter had better be legislated upon By the provinces. My hon. friend from West Elgin, for whose opinion I have great respect, thinks the borrower should not be obliged to give any notice at all, and I think there is as much to be said in favour of that as in favour of a month's notice. That shows that there is a difference of opinion even in Ontario. Then, the lenders of money are not always corporations. Many farmers who have amassed a little money lend it to other farmers. Even if we have technically the power to pass this legislation, the provinces certainly have the power, and I would suggest that my hon. friend get the provincial government of Ontario to consider what he is doing. No one on either side of this House will say that the government of Sir James Whitney is not always ready to look after the interests of the ordinary people of the prov-


Henry Horton Miller: ince. Then, hon. gentlemen from Quebec have given very good reasons why this legislation would not meet the approval of the people of - that province. It seems to me that the evil, if it does exist, is trivial, or at all events is such that any provincial government can take hold of and cure it for its own province. For all these reasons, I am inclined to think that the best interest of the country would be to leave the provincial legislatures to deal with the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: Did not my hon. friend vote for the Bill on the second reading?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There was no division called on that question.


Henry Horton Miller: Yes, there was, and my hon. friend voted for it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If I did vote for the Bill it was not on the question of provincial jurisdiction, and my not remembering whether I did vote on the Bill or not proves what I say, that nobody thought that in voting yes or ,no on the Bill at all. It was that I thought that it should be dealt with in committee. I want it to be understood that if, after it is discussed in the committee, I change my mind in the interests of the country, I am man enough to say that 1 was wrong before. Will the Prime Minister always do that? I do not admit that I made a mistake. In voting for the Bill, I think that I wasi doing my hon. friend and the House a good turn by voting that the matter might be discussed in committee. If after the discussion I have come to a different idea from what I had on the second reading of the Bill, I am not ashamed to say that I have changed my opinion in what I regard as the best interest of the country.
On sub-section 2-Rights of repayment-


Alfred Henry Clarke: With regard to this section, my hon. friend from Grey is of opinion that the obligation of paying off the mortgage on the payment of three months' interest depends upon contract. My impression is that that is not a matter of contract at all, but a term of redemption by common law or the law of the province. If so, that would be entirely inconsistent with this provision. In the province of Quebec I understand that the law is that borrowers do not have to pay a bonus at all, I hope the effect of this will not be to require them to give a month's notice.


Jacques Bureau: We say that the federal law ought not to interfere with civil contracts between the parties which are regulated by the Civil Code of the province of Quebec.


William Pugsley: Might, not subsection 2 be amended so as to read:-

Nothing in this section shall restrict the right which any person, would, but for the passing of this Act, have to repay any overdue principal or interest or other money secured by the mortgage.
Where, in any province a person now has the right to pay, this Act will not affect it.


Henry Horton Miller: I will accept that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And then we are in the ridiculous position of saying that if he has not the right to pay this Act says he can't.


William Pugsley: He can on giving one month's notice.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where are your provincial Tights in this matter? If you pass ' that we are simply putting our sanction upon provincial legislation, which does not require our sanction. The more this matter is discussed the more it seems to me we are interfering with provincial rights.


William Pugsley: I had in mind what the courts had decided rather than what provincial legislatures have done. In England, without any legislation at all, the mortgagor must give six months' notice.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is custom.


William Pugsley: That is what the courts have determined as arising out of the conduct of the parties. In New Brunswick the law has been veTy doubtful, but it has been understood amongst the legal profession that three months' notice was necessary, and if there is any provincial statute on the subject it is of recent date. My idea was that whatever the rights of the parties may now he under the law this legislation shall not restrict these rights, and I think that would meet the case of the province of Quebec, or any other province where they now have the right to pay without notice.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We must remember that what may be one man's Tight may be another man's injuTy. The Minister of Public Works is careful to guard that the right a man has to pay in any province shall not be interfered with, and yet by this legislation -we may possibly perpetrate an- injury on the lender. I am not anxious to help the lender to get any greater rate of interest than he ought to have, but I do not see the wisdom of interfering against the lender by Dominion legislation. It does not at all follow that the borrower i_s going to get any benefit out of this legislation if we do pass it, because if the law is ipade hard on the lender he will necessarily ask for a higher rate of interest because he has to take these risks.


Henry Horton Miller: As suggested by the Alin-ister of Public Works, I move the following he substituted for subsection 2:-
Nothing in this section shall be deemed to restrict the right which any person would, but for the passing of this Act, have to repay any overdue principal or interest or other secured by mortgage.
Section as amended agreed to.
On subsection 3 : Mortgagor giving notice and failing to make payment.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I think that section ought io be stiuck out. The object of the section is that if -a mortgagor gives a month's notice that he will pay off his mortgage and then should fail to comply with his notice, he will lose the whole benefit of this Act and will have to pay the three months' interest as it now is in Ontario. I do not think that is right; I think he should at any time after it is due have a right to pay off his mortgage on a month's notice.
Suibclause 3 struck out.
On section 2 : Application of ss. 6 to 10.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What will be the effect of that?


Henry Horton Miller: Section 11 makes the provisions of the five preceding sections, as to fines, &c., apply only to moneys so secured by mortgage executed after the first day of July, 1880, We are inserting this Bill as section 10-A, a new section after section 10, and if we leave section 11 as it i3, we will make it apply to this new section 10-A which was never intended; but with the changes we make it will apply to the five sections to which it was intended to apply.
Bill reported.


INSPECTION AND SALES ACT AA1END-A1ENT-STANDARD BARREL FOR POTATOES.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 9 to amend the Inspection and Sales Act.-Mr. Carvell.
On section 1, standard barrel for potatoes.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As I explained on the first and second readings this Bill provides simply that if potatoes are sold and handled by the barrel the standard shall be 160 pounds. There is no standard barrel today. There is a standard for a bushel and in Quebec a standard for a bag, but in the maritime provinces potatoes are sold nearly altogether by the barrel and the absence of a standard leads to a great grievance. In some localities farmers are asked to furnish 160 pounds, in others 165 pounds and in western New Brunswick 180 pounds, to the barrel. To-day the farmer is being compelled by custom to deliver 180 pounds of potatoes to the merchant and the merchant turns around and sells the same potatoes to

the United States or Cuba where many Canadian potatoes go at 160 pounds to the barrel. This is felt to be a great injustice and undoubtedly there should be a standard barrel.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does that distinction as to weight between the United States and Canada apply to many articles of commerce?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I could not say as I have not read the Act closely. In this amendment, I am following almost the exact wording of section 338 of the Inspection and Sales Act which provides for a standard bag in Quebec.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


HOURS OF LABOUR ON PUBLIC WORKS.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 3) respecting Hours of Labour on Public Works. -Mr. Verville.
Mr. VERVILLE.: The Bill now before the House is the amended Bill, it is the Bill as reprinted.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: As this is the first day of the resumed session, and a great many members have not yet returned, I would suggest to the hon. member that the Bill stand. A great many members are interested in this Bill, and we desire to discuss it fully. The Bill has been reprinted, and I think a number of us have not got a copy of the reprinted Bill, it is not on my file. I presume the mover of the Bill has a copy, but a good many of us have not familiarized ourselves with the drastic amendments proposed. I do not want to delay the Bill unreasonably, but we want to discuss it with knowledge of its contents.


Alphonse Verville: If the Bill has not been distributed to every member, I am not responsible. I know it has been printed for quite a while. I do not think it is fair to ask me to delay the Bill because some members say they have not seen the reprinted Bill. I have been caught twice that way before, and then I am asked: Why didn't you go on with your Bill? I have also been accused, I am sorry to say by gentlemen on the other side of the House, of a disinclination to proceed with the Bill. I do not suppose that the whole thing will be put through to-day, but I think we should give the members who are present an opportunity of discussing it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to know what the hon. gentleman means by saying that he has been accused of something by hon. gentlemen ' on the other side of the House.' Which side of the House does he mean? I understand that he belongs to the cross benches.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 


Alphonse Verville: While I am sitting on this side of the House, and when I refer to members on the other side of the House I refer to hon. gentleman sitting opposite.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not a copy of the reprinted Bill, and as one of the members of this House, I would like to have it read in detail.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 2 is before the committee:
This Act shall not apply-
(a)	to purchases made by the government of Canada;
(b)	to work upon public, military or naval works or defences in time of war, or if war is apprehended;
(c)	to purchases made by the contractor, sub-contractor or other persons referred to in section 3 of this Act;
(d)	to contract for the transmission of intelligence;
(e)	to contracts for transportation by land or water;
(f)	to agricultural work.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Has the hon. member any other amendments that he proposes to offer to this Bill, and have the amendments of which he has given notice, been submitted to the Trades and Labour Council of Canada, and are those amendments acceptable to them?


Alphonse Verville: I have not submitted this Bill to the Trades and Labour Council of Canada. On the last occasion when the Bill was in committee we were supposed to be considering the reprinted Bill, because the leader of the opposition asked whether the Bill would be reprinted. It has been reprinted with the proposed amendments. So far as the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada is concerned, they were not consulted with regard to this Bill, and I took full responsibility for it myself. I do not desire to throw any responsibility for it on any member or officer of the Trades and Labour Congress. There may be cases in the east where some men have asked for this Bill, and in some other parts of the country they may not want it. In some places men may say: We have got that already, but we want more. In other places they may say: We have not got anything, and we would like to have that.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Have you any other amendments?


Alphonse Verville: No, the amendments are all in the reprinted Bill.
On section 3-Eight-hour day,


Mr. BEST.: I wish to say a few words on this section. I am very much opposed to this Bill, not that it makes any difference to me what the hours of labour may be on a government work. But there is, and has been in the past a tendency among young men to leave the farms and Xlrift to the

towns and cities, and the usual excuse they make is that in towns and cities men only work eight or ten hours a day, while they have to work much longer on the farm. This Bill is an indirect injury to the farmers, because it will have the effect of making" young men on the farms more dissatisfied, and will increase their desire to go away to the towns and cities where they think they will have to work shorter hours.
I think that the law of demand and supply should be allowed to work freely, and we should not provide for legislation that certain men shall only work certain hours. I believe that any man who is willing to work ten hours and take his pay for ten hours, should have the right to do so. We have no right to say in this House that a man shall only work eight hours a day and draw pay for that time. I feel satisfied that any large contractor, in this city or anywhere else, if he knows that men can get work at eight hours a day, he will be willing to employ them eight hours, and pay them accordingly. He has a certain contract to do and he must have the work done. This Bill, if passed, as far as I can see, would be taking away the rights of any man who wants to work eleven or twelve hours. I do not think that is right. I believe that every man who has a family to support has the right to work as many hours as he wishes. I feel it is indirectly a great injury to the farmers and I will oppose it. I claim that this question should be left over until there are more members in the House. There are only half of them here to-day and they should have a chance to express their opinions upon this measuie.


Mr FOSTER.: I would like to understand why it is that this Act shall be made to apply to work undertaken by the government by day labour and not to other kind of work. That is a matter which affects the government, and it will affect the government very materially. There must be some reason-I have not heard it advanced yetr-as to why the day labourer working for the government shall be restricted to eight hours' work whilst the labourer working equally as hard and in the same grades of labour in any other work shall be at liberty to work nine, ten, twelve, or any hours that are conditioned by the contract. I have not heard a reason given why this should be so. Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us what reason there is.


Alphonse Verville: My object in putting that in is that the government are sometimes carrying out public _ works by day labour. If that were not in the Bill the men who are working for the government would be probably working nine or ten hours, while men working on contract would not if this Bill passes. If it is fair to ask parliament to pass a law providing that contractors shall be compelled to work
their men only eight hours a day, or forty-eight hours a week, or over time paid for at a certain rate, it is also fair for the government to do the same thing when they are doing work on public buildings by day labour. That is the reason. I do not see why the government, who are supposed to be model employers, from whom other employers should copy, should be exempt. The object is to put on exactly the same footing work under the day labour system and work under contractors.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Is clause 3 going to remain in the Bill?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I read clause 3 as it appears in the Bill before me, but I understand that it is proposed to strike that out and to introduce another section comprising two subsections. It is moved that clause 3 of the original be struck out and replaced by the following clause:-
3. Every contract hereafter made for the erection, re-modelling, construction or repair of any public building to which the government of Canada is a party, which may involve the employment of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor, sub-contractor or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be required, except in case of extraordinary emergency, to work upon or in connection with the work contracted for, more than forty-eight hours in any one w7eek or, where employment is for a less time than one week, eight hours in any one calendar day. Additional hours, if worked, shall be classified as overtime and paid for at the rate of not less than time and a quarter.
2. The provisions of this section shall, as respects the hours of labour, apply to work undertaken by the government by day labour.


William Sora Middlebro: As the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) gave us a very good reason a few moments ago why clause 3 should stand, perhaps he will tell us now why it should be struck out?


Alphonse Verville: You will find in subsection 2 of the new Bill, with the side head ' day labour,' the same thing that I stated a moment ago.


William Sora Middlebro: What subsection?


Alphonse Verville: Subsection 2 is as follows :-
The provisions of this section shall, as respects the hours of labour, apply to work undertaken by the government by day labour.
That exactly answers the question which was asked by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) a few minutes ago.


William Sora Middlebro: Section 3 of the old Bill has been struck out, has it not?


Alphonse Verville: Sections 4 and 5 of the old Bill were struck out; section 6 was amended, and it becomes section 3 now.


Mr. LALOR.: Does that apply only to mechanics working on public works, or does it apply to men that the government employ in very large numbers throughout Canada working on canals and other public works of that kind?


Alphonse Verville: My interpretation of the clause is that it applies wherever the government employ any men by day labour on public works. Suppose the government did any work on any public work or public building, of course, it would apply, because it would be by day labour.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think that if it does not apply it should be made clear that it should apply. There is no reason why men working on public works other than public buildings should not have the same advantage with respect to an eight-hour day as mechanics, and that class of men working on public buildings. If we are going to have an eight-hour day Bill make it apply to the men who are of the poorer class very largely and who work for less wages on other government works. I am opposed to the Bill because I believe it is not in the interests of the farmers that we should have an eight-hour day law passed. The farmers at the present time find it hard enough to get men to work on the farm without passing a law giving an eight-hour day, which will make the labourer working on the farm even more dissatisfied than he is at the present time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to point out, with regard to what my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) has very properly mentioned, that apparently the promoter of this Bill does not realize quite what this Bill will do and what it will not do. There is a class of employees of the government-lock tenders and so on on the canals-'and I think they are working eleven and twelve hours a day. If I am not mistaken it is eleven or twelve hours, and I am pretty sure it is twelve hours. At all events, it is more than ten. Has the hon. gentleman no sympathy for these men? They are working for the government; they are not hired by the day, but they are hired, by the month. A man who happens to be hired by the day and at a much higher rate of wages has only to work eight hours a day. Is it these few preferred individuals who are to be worked only eight hours a day and receive the big wages of the mechanic, and is the poorer man, who works for the same government, to go on striving for twelve hours a day, because he is paid by the month instead of by the day? That is the effect of the Bill as it stands. Not being employed by the day, they will have Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
to keep on working as long as the government demands.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I rightly apprehend the tenor of the discussion upon this Bill to-day and on the previous occasion, the idea which underlies the Bill is not universally popular. A good many objections to the Bill have been stated. There is much to be said in favour of the view that, if the Bill comes into force, it should apply to all kinds of labour employed by the government. But, on the other hand, even hon. gentlemen who say that logically this Bill, if passed, should be made to apply thus extensively would not be prepared to vote for such legislation if it were offered to them. This legislation is tentative as I understand it. It is not, I believe, the result of long-settled conviction, but it has been urged upon the government again and again by workingmen's associations. It has been represented to us, and it is perfectly true, that in other countries legislation has been adopted of a character identical with this. The labour organizations have done a great deal during the last century, and especially during the last sixty years, for the advancement of the labouring classes. The time has passed when the labouring classes were treated as-slaves; they' are acknowledged now to be citizens. By a long series of Acts passed by different parliaments they have brought themselves to the proud position they occupy at this moment. Every one who has followed the labour movement throughout the world knows that in this and other countries there is a strong movement in favour of an eight hour day. In different countries, and, as I understand it, in Great Britain, a law exists at the present time which limits the day of labour to eight hours not for all classes of labour, not even for all classes of labour employed by the government, but for certain classes, and especially for what we may call contractual labour. The workingmen's associations, after due consideration, have urged the introduction of this legislation. It does not cover the whole field, far from it; it simply covers one part of the field, and it is intended to see how it would work, how it will affect men who work for the government, As an abstract proposition, if you say that one class of labourers should be compelled to work not more than eight hours a day, it is not easy to understand by what process of reasoning it is decided that the same law should not be applied to other classes of labour. But the answer is that there are some classes of labour in which it is impossible to limit the number of hours that a man may work. There are men in this House. I know, who work more than eight hours a day. There are many classes of men who work, ten, twelve, fourteen, sixteen hours a day, not every day,

perhaps, but most of the days of the year. It has been stated that the farmers work more than eight hours a day. True, we know that there are seasons when the farmer works fourteen to sixteen hours a day. But, on the other hand, there are seasons when they do not have to work even eight hours a day. For this class of labour, this Bill does not undertake to provide at all. This Bill provides only for that class of labour which I call contractual labour, labour for the government on public buildings carried on under contract or, in the absence of a contract, done by day labour. The Bill does not go beyond that, and, as I have just stated, it is tentative. I do not think that any one will say that this law will work with entire satisfaction, but it is a step, I believe, in the right direction. I understand that there are cities in Canada to-day, including Toronto and Montreal, where that which it is proposed to establish under this Bill already exists not only for government work, but for private work, that in these cities masons, carpenters, joiners and other workers have the benefit of the eight-hour day. That is done voluntarily, as a matter of contract and agreement between the employers and employees. The object of the Bill is to make this compulsory in the class of government labour to which it refers.. For my part, I would not propose to give the law a greater extension at this time, but I think it is well that we should, to this extent, yield to the request of the labour organizations which have repeatedly pressed this upon parliament. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) put a question a moment ago, but I think it was well answered by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Ver-ville). But I would observe that we have a law to-day under which a provision is inserted in every contract with the government that the contractor shall pay fair wages-the contractor must not squeeze his men, paying them only as little as their circumstances compel them to accept, but must pay a fair wage according to the locality in which the work is carried on. This Bill is in accordance with that principle. The labourer upon a government work will not be compelled to work more than eight hours a day, but, as I understand it, he will get eight hours' pay. If he works more, the law provides that he shall have extra remuneration.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: There seems to be a difference upon questions of fact as between the introducer of the Bill and the Prime Minister, and it seems to me that now is the proper time to have a fair understanding of what the Bill means. The hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill says that, in his oninion. the Bill applies to all classes of labour emoloyed by the government. The Prime Minister, if I understand him correctly, is of opinion that it applies only
to certain classes of mechanics working upon public buildings. In view of this difference of opinion, I think we should have it clearly understood what the Bill really does mean. For my part, I think that if we pass a measure of this kind it should apply equally to the labourer on the canals and other public works who are working for the government as well as to the high-priced mechanics working upon public buildings. If it applies to the mechanic who earns perhaps fifty cents an hour, it certainly should apply to the man working on the canals at small remuneration.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lalor) will see that the man who works on the canal has steady employment and is willing to take, perhaps, a lower wage on that account. There are seasons of the year when men on the canals have to work ten or twelve hours a day and are glad to do so. But this steadiness of employment does not apply to the labour referred to in this Bill, which is only contractual labour.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: In my own constituency, where a branch of the Welland canal is located, the men employed on that work are not the class of men the Prime Minister has in view. They are men in continuous employment, working by the month. I *am speaking of the labouring man who is employed by the government from day to day on the public works of the country. I do not see why he should be overlooked or placed at a disadvantage as compared with other employees of the government.


George Gerald King: The hon. member knows that the hon. member who has introduced this Bill is proposing the adoption of a new principle by legislation, and he wisely proposes to limit its application at the outset in order to demonstrate how this new principle will operate. He believes that had he made the application of the Bill very much wider, it would have had verv little chance of passing through this parliament. If after the Bill is on the statute-book for some time, and hon. gentlemen opposite are willing to take the view they are now expressing, it will be quite possible to widen its scope. But to do that at the outset would be to ensure the defeat of the measure.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to see on what principle the Bill is founded. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister tried to make a distinction between casual labour and permanent labour; but is he consistent in that? Men employed on a public building are obliged to work only eight hours a day, while men employed for instance. on a bridge across the street, have not the same privilege. On what principle will the Prime Minister justify the govern-

ment in protecting the one set of m<Tn and not the other? Both are engaged in temporary employment, the one not more hazardous nor calling for more exertion than the other. What is the result of this discrimination? It immediately causes disquiet, unrest, a sense of injustice, and consequently agitation. This will not be a good thing for this country. But it goes still further than that. 1 think that we as members ought to discuss Uiis question whether we are in the sight of the labour organizations or not. What are we here for? We are here to do our best, in this legislation as in other, for- the country's interest. I know that men are asked by labour unions to support this legislation. I know that they are asked not to support it, in other interests. It is not for members to say, I will not put my views of this matter before the House because I might offend the one or the other. I think it is for us to see that this matter, if it is justified at all, is justified on principle. By what right shall the government, which exacts certain labour from a man for good pay, steady pay and sure pay, make his position easier than that of the man who works for another paymaster, may be not so good in any particular, and who does just as hard work? By this measure you not only cause a grievance to the man engaged in a certain employment as against another man working for the same paymaster, but the thing goes far wider than that. Alongside of the men working for the government, for good pay and sure pay, and working only eight hours a day, you have to consider the farmers of the country and the labouring men who work with them, who work often sixteen or eighteen hours a day, and whose average for the whole year will be far more than eight hours a day, for less or no greater pay.
Do you suppose that this does not raise discontent? Carpenters who are working on a government building only work eight hours a day ; carpenters who are not working for the government have to work longer ; there is a disability on the one as compared with the other and it must produce widespread discontent. So far as is possible no man should labour unduly, but every man has to earn his bread by the sweat of his ibrow and there are few working men who do not put in' more than eight hours per day. True, their wages are not more than they ought to get and in many cases they are not as much as they ought to get. There are some kinds of labour with regard to which the law should step in and make-the hours shorter because the labour is of such a nature that it wears out the physical or the mental life of the men who labour in these occupations. I need not mention the kind of work in which short lives are the absolute lot of Mr. FOSTER.
the men who engage in them, iat all events if they work many hours per day. In such cases, after broad inquiry and full information parliament should say that in the interests of the health of these citizens the hours per day during which they labour ought to^ be limited. But there is nothing of this kind in the government's plan, and I take it that it is the government's plan because the leader of the government is supporting the Bill. I am anxious to find out how far this Bill goes. It says :
Every contract hereafter made for the erection, remodelling, construction or repair of any building, to which the government of Canada is a party, which may involve the employment of labourers, workmen, or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no labourer, workman, or mechanic in the employ of the contractor, sub-contractor, or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any pant of the work contemplated by the contract, &c.
Does not that go off from the building itself and does it not go out into the private factory and discriminate 'against the man who as a subcontractor is making a boiler for your public building, or a gas pipe, or electric fittings, or anything at all that goes into that building? How will it work out in a man's factory when he is engaged in general work of that kind, paying his men so much under contract. Here is a law which says that no man who is engaged in that work shall work more than eight hours a day. If that be so then you introduce disorder and confusion into the industries which are making what is contributory to the contractor's work.


George Gerald King: Has the attention of the hon. gentleman ibeen called to subsection
(c)	of section 2 which says that the Act shall not apply to the purchases made by the contractor ; sub-contractors or other persons referred to in section 3 of the Act. I take it that the meaning of that subsection is to exclude the class of work which the hon. gentleman has reference to.


Robert Laird Borden: It would not exclude it with regard to the plumbing which would be done by subcontract.


George Gerald King: It would refer to everything in the nature of the purchase of supplies that goes into the building.


Robert Laird Borden: Any contract made 'by the contractor with a. sub-contractor for plumbing would be within the section.


George Gerald King: Tiie plumber actually doing the work would be on the eight-hour basis but not necessarily those who manufacture the material and supplies which he would use.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) suggested that the contractor would have to see that the material purchased by him had been produced by eight-hour a day labour.


George Gerald King: That is what the hon. member said.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The language ol the section does not refer to the goods that are purchased but to the ' purchases.' Would not that be just exactly as the hon. member for Toronto suggested?


George Gerald King: If the contractor had to purchase a boiler or plumbing apparatus and those other things wnicli the hon. member (Mr. Foster) referred to, then, the law would not apply if they were included in what is referred to in subsection (c).


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then, the wording is very defective because you use the word ' purchases ' instead of saying that the provision shall not apply to the making of the goods which are to be purchased.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think my words would convey the impression that I meant to go as far as the Minister of Labour thought I did when he corrected me. I think that the wording of section 3, goes far enough to cause this same confusion and disorganization of whien 1 have spoken in the carrying out of public work. I would ask the mover of the Bill or the Minister of Labour or the Prime Minister on what principle they justify the exclusion of all -but workers upon a public building what just ground there is for doing that that will not cause discontent and show disparity?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) stated in a very substantial way the Objection which exists to all such legislation. The answer is obvious, and my hon. friend has given it himself. He has said he would not object to legislation which would regulate certain kinds of labour, that there are certain kinds of labour that are dangerous in themselves, injurious to health, such as work in mines, and he said that he could conceive in such circumstances that the law might step in and regulate that kind of labour. In some countries it has been done, to some extent in this country. For instance, in England and most other countries there is legislation prohibiting labour by children or women. This only goes to show that it is not at all a thing absolute. It is quite convenient, nay it is legitimate that legislation should step in to regulate labour. Here legislation is stepping in to regulate labour. My hon. friend asks properly what is the principle on which you regulate this class of labour, and not any other class of labour. Labour has been organized for not more than 60 years at most in order to vindicate the rights of those who were labour-49
ers, and who prior to that time had been limited only by the will of their masters. Labour has been organized and labour organizations have constantly pursued for the last 50 or 60 years the betterment of the working classes. My hon. friend knows that one of the objects of labour organizations in all countries is to limit the hours of labour which simply concern these labour organizations. My hon. friend has said that farmers are not limited by any law and that they sometimes work from 14 to 18 hours a day. That is true, but every one knows that by custom, if not by legislation there is a great difference between the man who works as a plumber or a mason, and the man who works for a farmer. When the farmer hires help it is expected by both employer and employed that the employee will be called on to work longer at certain seasons than at others, but it is also known that by custom if not by law, all these classes of labour spoken of, the carpenter, the mason, the joiner, are expected to work only during a certain number of hours. That number varies, it is sometimes eight hours, or nine hours, or ten hours. From time immemorial my hon. friend has only to recall his own experience when he was a child and I was a child to recognize that work on buildings has been carried on from certain hours to certain 'hours, and this by the custom of the country. An attempt has been made by this Bill to limit the number of hours upon government contracts. My hon. friend says why on government contracts alone? The reason has been given by the mover of the Bill when he introduced the Bill and also on the second reading. He expected that this was a principle which would be favoured by legislators and by the people at large but was difficult of realization, and he expected that those who favoured the principle would follow it up, but that it should be commenced by government contracts. That is the only reason I can give to my hon. friend at present. This law is limited to government contracts alone, simply upon the principle that it is expected that the government in this respect will give an example which will be followed by the craft generally. My hon. friend said : Are you not going to create an invidious comparison; do you think you will create a good effect when you have one clas3 of men working for the government who will be compelled to work only eight hours and the others may have to work more than that? I have answered, and I think the mover of the Bill (Mr. Yerville) can confirm me, that in certain cities this very thing is 'already done not by law but by the custom of the trade and that men in cities to-day, in Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere work only for a certain number of hours a day. It may be possible that it would create invidious comparisons but I think it is only a step



in the right direction and that this class of labourers should not be compelled to work more than eight hours a day. We take the first step in this direction and the principle on which it is based is that the working associations themselves have asked it to be limited to that class of labour and to that class alone. That is the only principle of the Bill as I understand it.


George Eulas Foster: My right hon. friend says that we have limited this to government contracts. My hon. friend has not read the Bill or if he has he has not grasped its sense. He is not now supporting a piece of legislation which stands un the principle that on all government contracts the eight-hour day shall be the rule, but that is the argument that my right hon. friend used. He said that in this we make a commencement. And where do we make a commencement? On government contracts? But my right hon. friend does not make a commencement on government contracts, he picks out one kind of work and one kind of work alone, government contracts on public buildings, and excludes every other. On what principle does my right hon. friend exclude every other? Not on the principle of different classes of work which he was trying to bring to the notice of the House, not at all. Here you have a carpenter at work on a bridge and another carpenter at work on a public building, exactly the same class of work.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not consider that the expression a public ^building would apply in the sense indicated by my hon. friend. A bridge would be a public building.


George Eulas Foster: Then where is the interpretation clause? I do not think that any one would say that a canal was a public building, that a bridge over a canal was a public building, or anything of that kind. It is limited to public buildings, and we quite well know what a public building is. Here is your carpenter, he works on a public building, and he has the eight-hour day. There is the same class of man, the carpenter who works upon another kind of government contract, but he is not protected by the eight-hour principle. Now, does my right hon, friend argue that this is going to apply to all kinds of government work, no matter what, or does he argue that a public building means a public bridge?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will take the restricted sense of my hon. friend and say that it applies only to a public building, to a house such as this. Very well. If the men are satisfied for whose benefit this legislation is proposed, then for my part I am satisfied also.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty is that they are not satisfied, as I know.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have had a great many communications from labouring men and-trades unions all over the country, declaring that they are in favour of the Bill as originally introduced by the member for Maisonneuve, but they are_ not at all in favour of the amendment which is now proposed. There has been some difference of opinion as to what we are now considering, as to tne respects in which, this Bill differs from the Bill originally introduced, and it might be desirable for a moment to examine the two. The Bill as now proposed is restricted to any contract-
Hereafter made for the erection, remodelling, construction or repair of any public building to which the government of Canada is a party.
As my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has said, it is confined entirely to contracts of the character mentioned, public buildings. It is true that subsection 2 of section 3 of the amended Bill contains this provision:-
The provisions of this section shall, as respects the hours of labour, apply to work undertaken by the government by day labour.
Now, what did the original Bill propose? The original Bill proposed that it should apply, not only to public buildings, but to all the structures enumerated by section 4 of the proposed Act, and these are as follows :-
Public works, such as post offices, custom houses, armouries, Intercolonial stations, freight sheds or locomotive equipment, wharfs, piers, breakwaters, railroads, canals, dredges, navy yards, arsenals, public buildings and vessels for the use of the government.
(b)	contracts for dredging.
(c)	contracts for uniforms, salary, &c., for the militia or permanent or volunteer forces or Royal Northwest Mounted Police, ordnance, rifles, ammunition, mail bags, paper for government printing offices, and also contracts for printing;
(d)	contracts for clothing required for employees of any department of the government, such as letter carriers, navy, prison guards, &c..
(e)	all contracts which contemplate the performance of labour after their execution;
(f)	all work done on construction premises, whether the property in the thing contracted for is vested originally in the government or passes to it on acceptance as fulfilling specifications laid down in the contract.
So hon. members will see that only a trifling portion of the Bill as originally proposed has been retained in the amendment now put forward by the hen. member fer Maisonneuve, with the assent of the Minister of Labour. But that is not the most important difference after all, because the Bill as originally introduced in section 6 contained this provision:-
Every contract to which the government of Canada is a party, which may involve the

employment of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor, sub-contractor or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be required or permitted to work upon or in connection with the work contracted for, more than eight hours in any one calendar day except in case of extraordinary emergency.
How is that principle dealt with in the amendment now proposed? The very important elause. ' or permitted,' is left out altogether, and the Bill at present simply provides this:-
Every contract hereafter made for the erection, remodelling, construction or repair of any public building to which the government of Canada is a party, which may involve the employment of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of a contractor, sub-contractor or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be required, except in case of extraordinary emergency, to work upon Sr in connection with the work contracted for, more than forty-eight hours in any one week or, where employment is for a less time than one week, eight hours in any one calendar day. Additional hours, if worked, shall be classified as overtime and paid for at a rate of not less than time and a quarter.
So the Bill as now proposed is absolutely a different Bill from that which was introduced in the first instance. The whole sphere of its application has been practically reduced to a minimum. Then, instead of the stipulation that no one would be required or permitted to work more than eight hours a day, we have simply a stipulation that no working man shall be required to work more than eight hours a day, leaving it absolutely open as a matter of contract between the employer and the labouring man. He may work ten, twelve or fifteen hours a day as circumstances may render it expedient or necessary. I am not going to argue that point, I merely endeavour to make it clear to the members of this committee that this is an absolutely different proposition from that which was before the committee when the Bill was originally proposed.
Now I would like to say to the Minister of Labour, and to the right hon. gentleman who has spoken upon the subject, that the considerations that were put forth with great force,, and cogency, and eloquence by the Minister of Labour when we were in committee before, do not seem to justify any such divergence from the original scope of the Bill. What did the Minister of Labour say on the first occasion?
If we stop to consider what is the life of the average workingman, we will see how allimportant it is that every one who has at 49i	.
heqrt the welfare of humanity should use what little influence he may have, whether in connection with the government or out of it, to help bring about a condition of affairs which, in the course of time, will bring to every man, whether working on a farm or in a workshop, a condition that will permit him to do eight hours' work, and have part of the balance of the day for enjoyment, and for the necessary development of his faculties, one way or another.
Well, if that be a good principle, and one to which my hon. friend the. Minister of. Labour was willing to commit himself, why does he desire to deny an opportunity for the_ reasonable exercise of his faculties, their reasonable development, and a reasonable enjoyment, to the man who is working upon a wharf, or pier, or breakwater, or railroad, or canal, or dredge, or navy yard, or arsenal? Why should he restrict it entirely to men employed on public buildings? Then he went on further:
Take the case of a workingman working eight or ten hours a day. Supposing he starts work at seven o'clock in the morning, he must rise at five, for workingmen have to start their own fires, to afcist their wives to prepare their own breakfasts, so that five o'clock is as late as any man who is going to work at seven can afford to rise.
Why are not all these considerations so eloquently put forward by the Minister of Labour, applicable to the man who is working upon wharfs, or piers, or breakwaters, or railways or canals, or dredges, or navy yards, or arsenals? That is the problem that presents itself to my mind at the moment, and it is one as to which I hope we may have an answer from the Minister of Labour. He continues as follows:
He leaves his home before seven o'clock, having seen nothing of his children.
Why is not the man who is working upon a pier entitled to see his children before he leaves his home? Is the man who happens to be engaged upon a breakwater to be denied all access to his family while the man who works upon an ordinary public building is to have some such opportunity? Then he went on further:
He works from 7 until 12, which is 5 hours He goes back to his home, he has one hour for rest in the middle of the day, part of which is lost going to and from his work. Sometimes he does not even get that. Sometimes he is obliged to take his dinner can and eat his cold meal at the workshop, and can see nothing of his home during that hour.
Why are not all these considerations cogent with respect to the man who works upon a pier or breakwater? Why should they be . simply taken into consideration in connection with the man who works upon an ordinary public building?
Then he is obliged to work again from one to six o'clock; and if he is to have eight

hours' sleep, which is the least he requires after a hard day's labour, that leaves him only from six to nine to enjoy the comforts of his home. It was never intended by the Creator that the great mass of men should live in that way.
Yet my hon. friend is perfectly willing that a man who works upon a pier or a railway or canal or a wharf or a breakwater should live in that way although he is in the employ of the government, while apparently he has some consideration for the feelings and interests of the man who works upon an ordinary public building. The hon. minister continues :
It was intended that every man should do his share of work and have opportunity to partake of legitimate enjoyment and develop the latent powers and talents with which he is endowed by nature. The working classes have as much love for their families, as great regard for domestic happiness as the rich. They also require a little enjoyment now and then.
I would respectfully point out to my hon. friend the Minister of Labour that the man who works upon pier or breakwater, a railroad, navy yard or arsenal, has feelings and desires with respect to all these matters just the same as a man who works upon an ordinary public building. But, it does seem to me that some reason should be given for restricting the scope of this Bill other than that which has been advanced by the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr.- Verville) or even by the right hon. Prime Minister. The Bill as originally introduced had at least some principle behind it. The amended Bill that is presented to us to-day has behind it or in it absolutely no shred or scintilla of any principle whatever.


William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman, I would have liked myself if my hon. friend (Mr. Borden (Halifax), had told us whether he is in favour of the eight hour principle or whether he is opposed to it.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: Are you?


William Pugsley: Yes,' I am.


Morley Currie: We will put dredges in it.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that^ if my hon. friend will pardon me for saying so it has been rather unfortunate, with respect to a most important measure in which a large section of the people have a very deep interest, that my hon. friend should attempt to make party capital out of the Bill which is now before the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: I am serious in that and my hon. friend will see on reflection that he has not given to this committee the slightest intimation as to whether he is in
"Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
favour of an eight hour Bill, which would involve all the different contracts which the government might make or whether he is opposed to it. I, myself, would have liked very much to have had my hon. friend's view with regard to the general question. Now, I may say, that I am in favour of the principle that is involved in what is known as the eight hour Bill, but, in considering as to what legislation should be enacted, we must have some regard to the conditions in the country and we must have regard to what may be the general opinion of the people of the country. It is quite true, as my hon. friend has said, that in the Bill as it was originally introduced it did apply to some other things, to-
Contracts for the erection, remodelling, construction or repair of all public works, such as post offices, custom houses, armouries, Intercolonial stations, freight sheds or locomotive equipment, wharfs, piers, breakwaters, railroads, canals, dredges, navy yards, arsenals, public buildings and vessels for the use of the government.
Also to
Contracts for dredging.
And many other things. The Bill, as proposed to he 'amended iby the motion 01 the hon. member who has introduced it, does apply to all public buildings. Therefore, it will include post offices, custom houses, armouries, Intercolonial stations, freight sheds and all public buildings with respect to the building of which the government is a party. It is going a very considerable distance in the direction which the labour organizations of the country desire. They are not getting all they want at the present time, but if this Bill passes it will be the recognition by parliament of a most important principle. It will be the recognition by parliament of the fact that it is desirable to establish an eight-hour day for the labourers engaged upon public works. In that respect I think a very great advance will be made and a very great point will be gained in the interest of the labouring people of the country. If it is found that the application of this principle to public buildings works well, then, at a later session of parliament, we can very well extend the principle to other public works and parliament might very well consider Whether it might not be desirable to make additional provisions such -as were contained in the Bill that the hon. member first introduced. My hon. friend Mr. Borden (Halifax) asks why the Bill does not a/pply to work upon wharfs and 'breakwaters. I can see a difference between work upon breakwaters and wharfs and work upon public buildings. The most important public buildings, indeed, I think all of them, which are erected by the government are in cities or towns. We do not erect public buildings in country districts

and therefore in the great majority of eases we are employing work in localities where, in some eases at all events, the eight hour principle prevails by custom or by arrangement between the contractors and the labouring people.


Robert Laird Borden: It is really an unnecessary provision.


William Pugsley: In some cases it is unnecessary because in a great many cities contracts now provide only for an eight-hour day. But, with respect to wharfs, it is different. Many wharfs are erected in country districts. In many cases the contractor takes his crew of men, goes from place to place where he has contracts for wharfs, camps out, his men live in tents and he carries on his work of constructing the wharfs.


Morley Currie: The minister says that wharfs are built in country places. I understand that they are built in the water.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend has never seen water in a country place then I pity him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman forgets that they build them down in Quebec where there is no water.


William Pugsley: I am not aware of that. I am aware that in Quebec when the Conservative government was in power they built a wharf that is now used for a bridge. But, I am not aware that in recent years any wharf has been built where there is no water and where there is no navigation.


Richard Blain: What about the Disraeli wharf?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has frequently spoken of the Disraeli wharf, but I have assured myself that my hon. friend is simply imagining things in regard to the Disraeli wharf.


Richard Blain: How many vessels come in there?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is diverging from the Bill which is before the committee.


George Henry Bradbury: Does my hon. friend realize when he is speaking of building wharfs in country districts that all the labour as a rule is drawn from the city districts?


William Pugsley: No, that is not the case.


George Henry Bradbury: I beg your pardon; it is the case.


William Pugsley: That is not the case in my own experience. When wharfs are built in the country the labour is drawn from the country districts. The work on the
wharf goes on in the long days of the summer, and unless the men get to work pretty early in the morning and work pretty late hours in the evening they are idle. In many cases they have no opportunity of being with their families.


George Henry Bradbury: Away from the cities; away from their families.


William Pugsley: That is one reason why it may not be desirable to legislate with respect to work upon wharfs at the present time at all events, or until we have had some experience in the working of the Bill. Then, with regard to contracts for dredging;
I gave the matter consideration when the Bill was originally introduced, and I have in my mind places where at the present time men upon government dredges work nine hours per day. Upon the contract dredges they work in many cases eleven hours a day. The dredge goes out upon Monday morning after it has taken in its coal and water and does not return to the town near its work until Saturday night. If the hours of the men upon the dredge were limited to eight per day the result would be that early in the morning, and in the evening also, the men would have nothing to do, and they could not be with their families, there would not be the same argument with respect to them as to men engaged on public buildings, and therefore I think it would not be desirable at present to make this Bill applicable to men engaged upon either government dredges or contract dredges. If my hon. friends were to take up other public works they will see that there will be some distinction, perhaps not a wide distinction, but some distinction drawn between work of that character and work upon public buildings. At all events, it does seem to me that it is far better for the labouring people to have this Bill, amended as it is, than to have no Bill at all. I can see how there might be very serious objection on the part of many people to such a broad measure as that first introduced. If this Bill passes it will apply to many of the most important works in which the government is engaged, and with respect to these the government will have adopted the eight-hour principle. That will be a great point gained, and later on if this wins public approval the principle of the measure can be extended to other government works.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Will you extend it to dredging later on?


William Pugsley: That will be a fair matter for consideration later on. The hon. gentleman from Toronto is of course aware that this parliament would possibly not have the power to interfere as between private contractors and the men they employ, but at all events we are moving in a safe direction now because

we are limiting it solely to public works. It seems to me we are favouring the adoption of a most important principle which will prove of great benefit to the labouring people of Canada. In all probability it will meet with public approval, and it will not be many years before the eight hour principle will be adopted throughout the Dominion not' only with regard to government contracts but to private contracts as well.


George Gerald King: The hon. the leader of the opposition has devoted a good deal of time to showing the difference between the Bill as introduced and the present Bill, but I fear that unwittingly he hardly did full justice to the new Bill. He pointed out that the original Bill stipulated that no labourer or mechanic or workman on these public works should be required ' or permitted ' to work on them more than eight hours a day, and the hon. gentleman said that the dropping of the words ' or permitted ' would leave it open to a contractor to have his men work ten or fifteen hours a day as conditions might require. If the new Bill did anything of the kind it would be open to criticism, but the hon. gentleman will see that there is a provision that if additional hours are worked the additional hours shall be classified as overtime and paid for at the rate of not less than time and a quarter.


Robert Laird Borden: I read it that-


George Gerald King: I am prepared to admit that, but he did not emphasize that difference when he was pointing out the difference as between the. two clauses. He spoke only of a man working 10 hours or 15 hours but did not say that in that connection it would have to be at the option of the man himself and that if he did work overtime he would get extra pay for the additional hours of work.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is that all the Bill means, that the man gets quarter time extra?


George Gerald King: The Bill in this particular follows the custom which labour organizations themselves have adopted. As possibly some members know a good many of these unions have contracts with contractors in which an eight-hour day is fixed. Where such a day has been established there is usually a provision that if longer time is worked it shall be paid for as overtime at an extra rate. Nowhere in the constitution of any trades union that I know of in this country are the words ' or permitted ' used. The unions say that the men shall not be required to work overtime but they make a stipulation whereby if a man works over eight hours he gets payment for overtime. They do not go so far as to say he shall not be permitted to work over eight hours.


William Pugsley: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This Bill said that when first introduced.


George Gerald King: Exactly and that feature has been omitted evidently because it was not thought wise to go further in endeavouring to regulate a contract between the government and those who were working for it than working men themselves had sought to go in the arrangements they had made as trade unions with their employers. In other words what the hon. member (Mr. Verville) has attempted to do in this clause is to follow the principles which the trades unions themselves have laid down and to endeavour to bring about in regard to government work a condition similar to what some of the larger unions have already succeeded in bringing about in regard to the establishment of this eight hours a day and of payment for overtime at an extra rate when more than that time is worked.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Is the minister aware that overtime is generally paid for at the rate of time and a half and not at time and a quarter.


George Gerald King: Yes, I am fully aware of that fact and the probability is that the trades unions themselves will see to it that whenever they can enforce it they will get time and a half or sometimes time and three-quarters.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Why not put it in the Bill?


George Gerald King: For the simple reason which has governed all through, that this being a new principle, and that the hon. member being anxious to make sure of its adoption, has carefully refrained from going any length to which an exception can be rightly taken. The hon. gentleman says why not put this in the Bill. The hon. the leader of the opposition says:	Why not include
dredging, printing contracts, arsenals, etc., etc.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg pardon, I simply said you included these in the first instance and then dropped them and gave no reason.


George Gerald King: I am glad to know from the hon. member that he was not suggesting that they should be included because his words were calculated to give that impression to the public.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not suggesting that they should or should not be included at the moment, but I say they have been omitted from the Bill as originally suggested, which did have some principle behind it and up to the present time no reason has been given for omitting them.


George Gerald King: The reason is simply that
the inclusion of all these different kinds of

labour in a Bill of this kind would lead to the defeat of the measure in the House.


George Eulas Foster: Why?


George Gerald King: For the simple reason that one member after the other would bring up small exceptions with particular features and point out the many possible ramifications of so broad a measure and show that the hon. member in endeavouring to introduce a reform had tried to garb everything at once instead of being content with introducing a principle having one thing done for certain and leaving it to time to show whether that would work out advantageously and if so, add other features as time goes on. The policy which gentleman opposite are adopting in trying to make out that the hon. member, by limiting his Bill in certain directions, is not going far enough is simply embarrassing him in the matter of getting through something which would serve as a beginning if they are sincere about the larger measure, they should be willing to support the hon. member to the extent to which he is prepared to go.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. minister mean to say that if they are sincere they must be inconsistent? That is what his argument amounts to.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there one single line or syllable of this Bill that could not be enforced by order in council? Not one. The government can do this tomorrow without any statute whatever; by order in council, they can enforce every thing in this Bill.


William Pugsley: What about the $200 penalty?


Robert Laird Borden: Then this Bill is introduced for the sake of the 4th section -the penalty? Now we have the true explanation of it. The government, on every public work in Canada, not only those enumerated in this Bill, but those enumerated in it as first introduced, can by order in council put this principle into effect without coming to parliament at all, and therefore, if they are sincere in their desire for an eight-hour day they have it in their power to give an eight-hour day to every man in Canada employed by the government.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Is that the reason my hon. friend is opposed to the Bill?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not opposing the Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is not supporting it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am support, ing the principle of the Bill as originally introduced, but not this * Bill, which has
absolutely no shadow of principle behind it The Prime Minister knows that, and so does the Minister of Public Works.


William Sora Middlebro: In the old Bill, clause 8 provided that the man working eight hours should get the per diem wages, that is, the wages for ten hours' work. _ I think that is the intention of the Bill, From the present Bill that clause has been eliminated, so that if a man goes to a contractor to get work, the contractor will say to him: 'You do not have to work more than eight hours a day unless you like; you may if you choose work 10 hours; I am paying three dollars a day to those who work 10 hours.' If the man does not choose to work 10 hours a day, he gets no work on that contract. I want to know from the minister what follows. Suppose $3 is the regular 10 hr. current wages. If a man works only eight hours a day, the contractor has a right to pay the man only $2.40 a day, or a deduction of 2 hours. There is nothing in this Bill to make him pay more, unless the provision at the end of the Bill for one-fourth more than regular pay for overtime. It is intended to make the working man believe that this measure is in his favour, but it is not so unless it is distinctly provided that if he works eight hours he will get 10 hours' pay.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: We shall take up all the Bills with the exception of the Banking Act and the Bill with regard to the Waterways Treaty.


Morley Currie: Under the rule, Thursdays are assigned to private members. This year the first Thursday was assumed by a function and another was a religious holiday, so that only two Thursdays were left to private members. I think the intention is that four Thursdays shall be given to private members. The Prime Minister must realize that there are a great many Bills and other matters on the paper that we must dispose of, and it is hardly fair that private members should be limited to two Thursdays, as is the case this year.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know how that is. The rule is that for the first four weeks Thursday shall be private members' day. I think everty- Bill on the Order Paper has been called twice.
House adjourned at six o'clock.



Thursday, January 12, 1911.