1911-02-24

BAGGAGE SMASHING.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEWIS moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 129) respecting Baggage Smashing. He said: This Bill deals with a grievance affecting a great number of people in Canada. I find by statistics in the library, that the number of passengers carried in the year 1910 by the railways, was 35,894,575; and that the freight carried during that time was 74,000,000 tons. According to the computation I have made, there would be about 5,000,000 tons of baggage carried. I wish to state, and I believe it is a fact, that there is more damage done by the railways in. carrying that 5,000,000 tons of baggage, than is done in carrying that 74,000,000 tons of freight. A number of cases have happened in my own experience and others have been related to me. where people prefer to pay freight on their valuable trunks and baggage, and to send them as freight, instead of risking the damage that would happen to them in transit as baggage. The cause of the trouble i3 either the carelessness of the employees in handling the baggage or want of sufficient men. Since the Canadian people have attained to such a degree of comfort and affluence, they delight in their personal belongings, and they carry many valuable articles in their baggage; but very few will allow a small piece of baggage, a valise or suit case, to be taken into the baggage car. Consequently, people who travel, are under the discomfort of tumbling over trunks and valises in the car. If a person has a valuable trunk worth $50, the chances are that in travelling from Ottawa to Toronto, he may suffer damages to that trunk to the extent of $25. The object of my Bill is not to- impose penalties, it is more as a detriment. I will read the Bill:
1 This Act may be cited as The Baggage Smashing Act.
2. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction before a magistrate, stipendiary magistrate or any one justice of the peace having the power to do alone
[Stage Direction]
such acts as are usually required to he done by two or more justices, to a penalty not exceeding fifty dollars over and above the value of the baggage destroyed or damaged or to one month's imprisonment with or without hard labour, or to both, who wilfully or through negligence destroys or damages any trunk, valise, satchel, box or other baggage when handling such baggage for transportation by railway, vessel, vehicle or any other means of conveyance used by common carriers.
3.	When the person found guilty of a violation of the provisions of section 2 of this Act is an employee of any corporation or company, the magistrate, stipendiary magistrate or justice, may convict such corporation or company of the offence and find it liable for the actual damages caused; the employee, in such case, being held liable only for the penalty.
4 This Act shall come into force by proclamation of the Governor in Council.
Now it is a well, known fact that those who have travelled in the old land are aware that no such trouble occurs, the baggage is handled properly. This baggage smashing, which is the term now used in this country, may be of some benefit to the large manufacturing concerns, who make the trunks, and may help ito make more millionaires in Canada. But I stand here on behalf of the plain people who travel, and who want this thing to be put a stop to. I ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), to look into this-matter, and if this Bill does not cover the point, I hope he will himself, take hold of the difficulty, and see that baggage smashing is put an end to, at present the only remedy is by civil action, ordinary citizens cannot afford law suits with corporations.
Mr. REID (Grenville).: I would ask the Minister of Railways, if there is not a law on the Railway Act that covers this 'very thing.


Mr. GRAHAM.: The Railway Act makes the railway company liable for damage to baggage to any amount they carry. My hon. friend speaks of handling baggage in the old land. As a matter of fact, most of that is carried in the railway compartment, because when they send it as baggage, they have to pay for it, while in Canada, a certain amount is carried free. Some of us have noticed that when Englishmen are travelling in. Canada, they have a habit of carrying nearly all their baggage in the trains with them. I am afraid if we were to follow their example, instead of having fewer valises in the aisles of the cars, we would have more. However, I have no objection to the first reading of the Bill. As the members of the House are now not allowed any more trunks, those of us who travel hereafter, will probably carry handbags.


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



LEASE OF RAILWAY IN NEW BRUNSWICK.

George Perry Graham: I move that on Tuesday next the House do go into Committee of the Whole, for consideration of the following resolution, which stands in my name. I may add that His Excellency has been apprised of the subject matter of this resolution, and has given his assent thereto:
Resolved, that, whereas by legislation enacted at the session thereof held in the year A.D. 1910, the legislature of the province of New Brunswick authorized and empowered the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the said province to guarantee the principal and interest of the bonds of any railway company which would build a line of railway from a point on the line of the National Transcontinental railway at Grand Falls in the county of Victoria, to the city of St. John, in the said province of New Brunswick, a distance of about two hundred and twenty miles, to the extent of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per mile, upon certain conditions therein set forth, one of such conditions being that no such agreement should be entered into with any company or corporation for the construction of the said line of railway or for the guaranteeing of the said bonds unless and until the parliament of Canada should enact legislation authorizing the entering by the government of Canada into an agreement with such company or with the government of the province of New Brunswick, for the leasing of the said line of railway when completed, with its appurtenances and rolling stock, and for the operation, maintenance, upkeep and repair by the said government of Canada, as a part of the government railway system of Canada for a period of ninety-nine years and for the payment by the government of Canada to the said province of New Brunswick, or the government thereof, each year during the said term of ninety-nine years of forty per centum per annum of the gross earnings of the said railway, as or in the nature of rental therefor ; the amount of such rental to be applied in payment of the interest of the bonds so to he guaranteed and the surplus, if any, to he paid to the said company;
Now, therefore, it is expedient that His Excellency the Governor in Council he authorized to enter into a contract with any such railroad company and the government of the province of New Brunswick as aforesaid, for the leasing of the said line of railway with its appurtenances and rolling stock, when completed and equipped with rolling stock, and for the operation, maintenance, upkeep and repair by the said government of Canada, as a part of the government railway system of Canada, for a period of ninety-nine years, and for the payment by the government of Canada to the said province of New Brunswick, or the said company, each jear during the said term of ninety-nine years, of the forty per centum per annum of the gross earnings of the said railway, as or in the nature of rental therefor;
Provided, however, that the said contract shall he entered into only upon the condition that the said railway he constructed upon plans and specifications to he approved of

by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and shall be up to the general standard of the said National Transcontinental railway through the said province;
Provided, further, that His Excellency the Governor in Council shall be authorized to enter into a contract as aforesaid, for the operation of the said road in sections, when completed, and equipped as follows:
1 From Fredericton to Woodstock.
2. From Fredericton south a distance of fifty miles.	.
3	Each twenty-five miles thereafter, until the line be completed and equipped from Grand Falls to St. John.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. BRODEUR.: I move that on Tuesday next the House do go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution. His Excellency has been apprised of the subject matter of this resolution, and has given his assent to it.
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Fisheries Act, chapter 45 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, be amended by enacting that in the province of British Columbia no one shall engage in the manufacture of oil or other commercial products from sea lions, hair seals, sharks or dogfish, nor operate a salmon cannery or sallmon curing establishment, except under license from the minister; that the site of reduction works must be approved by the minister; that operations must proceed within one year from issue of the license for which annual fees shall be required; that the annual fee for a lobster fishing license be increased and based on the total number of pounds of canned lobsters; that the annual returns to the minister by the owner or manager of a lobster factory, through the inspector of fisheries of the district, shall furnish more details and be submitted not later than the 31st day of May, each year, and penalties for failure to make such returns shall be imposed; and that licenses must be obtained for maintaining lobster pounds, with an annual fee for the same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Two Mountains).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I rise to a question of privilege which is of concern to myself as a member of this House, but which is also, I believe, of concern to the House as a whole.
For over eight years I have had the honour of being chairman of the Committee on Private Bills. On the 23rd February instant, my action as chairman of that committee was made the occasion of some unfair, misleading and uncalled for criticisms. Reference was made to the stand taken by me at a meeting of the said committee,
on April 22, 1909, and remarks purporting
to have been made by me were quoted and put in print. I wish to contradict these statements, and am anxious to apprise the House of their utter lack of foundation.
The statements to which I take exception were made in a manner which I might term incongruous and unworthy of the position occupied by the person who uttered them. I i-efer to Senator Kirehhoffer, chairman of the Divorce Committee of the Senate, who has thought fit to make the following public statement:
The Divorce Committee of the Senate has been often accused by a member of the House of Commons, named Ethier, who is, or used to be the chairman of the Private Bills Committee in that House, of granting divorces on evidence

If I wished to give him a Roland for his Oliver, I might refer to the honourable senator as ' the man named Kirehhoffer,' but I prefer acting in a more courteous and proper way. Then he continues:
-on evidence you would not hang a cat upon. I think that is the favourite expression used ... Of course, the reporter is anxious to announce that Mr. Ethier, in the Commons, and the Hon. Mr. Cloran, in the Senate, make the above remarks-I mean those original remarks about the hanging of a cat on the evidence; but you are entirely mistaken, because you will find thousands of people believe anything they see in the paper, no matter how thick the head or slimy the tongue that gives utterance to it.
There can be no mistake as to whom he is aiming at, for a little further on, he says:
I shall allude to him as the member for Two Mountains.
And again;
Mr. Ethier made use of the very remark which he quoted. I have no doubt he originated it. I think he is deserving of a great deal of censure.
I humbly submit, Mr. Speaker, that this statement, as I have already stated, is false, uncalled for and without foundation. I never uttered such words neither in 1909 or any other time, and I may quote, for the information of the honourable senator, who may judge for himself, the report which the organ of his own party, the Ottawa ' Citizen,' published of what I said in reference to those relief Bills which are sent down to the Committee on Private Bills after going through the Senate. That paper published the following on April 23rd, 1909:
The matter in which the Senate has been granting divorces this session caused some very pointed remarks by Chairman Ethier in the Private Bills Committee of Commons yesterday morning. The Bill called was that divorcing Mildred G. Wendolyn Patterson, now of Toronto, from Charles Colebrooke Patterson, of Ottawa. ' We have 21 of these

relief Bills from tlie Senate this session, said Mr. Ethier ;	* I think the situation is
most serious, most unusual. For six years I have presided over this committee and for thirteen years been a member of it, and while we are accustomed to have half a dozen each session, the limit is reached this time. I think it amounts to an abuse. I do not want to criticise the action of the Senate, but I cannot escape from the idea that this is going too far. In the different provinces we have laws regarding, separation and even in them the judges are very careful. In these cases we have asked to authorize absolute divorce. Those of us who are fathers of families, should think of the great social evil that is involved and not do in this country as they do in the States. The committee should assert its right to see if the proof given in the Senate is proper. I have looked over the evidence in several cases and do not hesitate to say that it does not justify the report save as to separation. The Senate is granting divorces in cases where a court would not give separation. If you prove a man is a drunkard or a gambler, it is not sufficient to justify divorce. I am not speaking as a Catholic, but on the general principles involved in these cases.'
As will be observed, that was far from asserting that the Senate granted relief on evidence insufficient to hang a cat upon.
Let the hon. senator read the article and he will be satisfied, through the testimony of his own organ, that the charge he made against me with the object of inducing the Senate to censure me, is false and that his statements regarding me on that occasion were without foundation; that he showed undue haste and spoke before securing the requisite information. The ' Citizen's ' report, which I have just quoted, is a truthful account of what I said on April 22nd, 1909.
In vesterday's number of that same paper, I notice an account of what that hon. gentleman stated in his report to the House; it is as follows:
On moving the adoption of the committee report in the Eobertson divorce case, Senator Kirchhofier sketched the history of divorce in Canada. He said the committee has been criticised by Senator Cloran and Mr. Ethier, M.P., and it has been declared that divorces were granted on evidence insufficient to ' bang a cat.'
That is another erroneous statement emanating from the hon. senator. Instead of attempting to induce the Senate to censure a member of the House of Commons, who is unable to vindicate himself on the floor of the Senate, why does he not, if he thinks I should be censured, read the words uttered by the hon. leader hf the opposition when a Bill was introduced for the relief of John Denison Smith, on May 10th, 1909, page 6070, volume 4, of ' Hansard? '


Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.: The Chairman of the Committee on Private Bills, I believe, called attention in connection with one of these Mr. ETHIER.
Bills, to a tendency towards acting on evidence of a more or less loose character in considering these Bills for divorce. I have already taken occasion of informing him privately that I entirely concur with the view he expressed.
So the hon. senator should in all fairness
censure the leader of the opposition who held views similar to those given expression by me before the Committee on Private Bills. The hon. leader of the opposition goes on:
Every one who is familiar with the proceedings in courts with regard to such matters is aware that there are some precautions observed in court which do not seem to have received very much attention in the proceedings of the Senate.
At the same sitting of the House, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) stated in answer to the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean):
I have had some experience in connection with divorce courts in the province of New Brunswick and have read the reports of the Divorce Committee in the Senate. In the latter it seems to me divorces have been granted on evidence which would he laughed at in any ordinary court.
*******
I have read the reports and have seen oases in which the question was never even asked as to whether there was any collusion between the parties, and divorces have been granted in eases which were the absolute result of collusion. That would he impossible in proceedings before an ordinary court such as we have in our province.
Here is another hon. member which that hon. senator should get the Senate to censure. I may mention another one.


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: The hon. member when rising to a question of privilege may refer only to what concerns himself and not to any matter in connection with other hon. members.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I was about to close, Mr. Speaker, but before resuming my seat I was anxious to quote the opinion of the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller). However, I shall abide by your decision.
In conclusion, I submit to the House that no senator should be allowed to cast aspersions, in the way Senator Kirchhofier has done, on a member of the House of Commons whose work is carried on in conjunction with that of the Senate, and I think the language he used should be condemned. I repudiate all he said. I repudiate the uncalled for statements which he made to the effect that I had censured the Senate; never have I done so, as he stated at the sitting of February 23rd instant.



QUEBEC BEIDGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called :
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of

Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) whether or not the contract for the construction of the Quebec bridge has been let and, if not, how soon is it expect.ed that will be accomplished. I would like to ask whether there is any truth in the rumour that the chairman of the Quebec Bridge Commission has resigned, and, if so, what is the cause of his resignation?


George Perry Graham: The contract for the Quebec bridge has not yet been let. The chief engineer has resigned. For a year or more he has intimated to me that he intended to resign not later than when the contract was let. He gave several reasons. He has been for the past three months, or for several weeks, at least, quite ill, and he has been pressing upon me more strongly than ever that he must resign. Finally, he, a few days ago, formally handed in his resignation. I regretted very much to accept his resignation. I had been endeavouring for months at different times to prevail upon him to remain on the board and take charge of the worrc until it was completed. I expect in a very short time to have the contract for the Quebec bridge superstructure signed. When that is done I will be pleased to bring down all the correspondence with reference to it as well as the correspondence concerning the resignation of the chief engineer.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY AND GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY ARBITRATION.

Mr. FOSTER.: I want to trouble the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) a little. On the 16th February, last, the minister answered a question which I had put with reference to the commission appointed to settle the differences between the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk railway, but I am sorry to say I did not get much information from that. I asked amongst other things, what were the matters in dispute. And then :
2.	What were the points to be determined?
3.	What have so far been settled and how?
Answer No. 2 reads in this way :
2. Questions arising under agreement of the 1st February, 1898, confirmed by statutes of 1899, chapter 5, and brought into force on September 26, 1899, in the matter of issue of bills of lading, routeing of freight, diversion of traffic, disputed accounts. The several matters we_re submitted for arbitration under the provisions of the said agreement, either at the initiation of the Crown or of the company and disposed of by the arbitrators, some in favour of the Crown and others adversely and were practically questions of interpretation of the provisions of said agreement as applying to matters from time to time arising in connection with the operation of the respective railways, subject to the agreement. Other questions submitted were not 133
disposed of by the board of arbitrators, owing to the death of the then chairman, the late [DOT]fudge Killam, and are now for the consideration of the board of arbitrators as at present constituted.
My question asking how they were settled, the minister states, is answered by No. 2. In answer to the fourth question he says that :
Amount paid by Intercolonial railway to date is $49,737.97.
That is not what I wanted to get at. I would like to get, if it is possible without too much trouble, just a statement of what were the questions in dispute, and ac to how each one of these has been settled. I think there was some money question, or some question involving payments to on* side or the other, according to the disposition made by the commissioners, and I would like to know how these have been settled, what amounts have been paid to us or what we have had to pay to them? We seem to have incurred a cost of $49,737.97. That is a pretty good sized item- what did we get for all that? Is it possible for the minister to have a full statement prepared which will show what I want to know without giving him too much trouble?


George Perry Graham: It is a harder thing to do than the question would seem to indicate.


George Eulas Foster: That may be.


George Perry Graham: The agreement made, I think, in 1897, in the first place if I remember rightly-


George Eulas Foster: 1898.


George Perry Graham: I think there were sup plementals afterwards. The main agreement was made


George Eulas Foster: 1st February, 1898.


George Perry Graham: I think the main agrne-ment was before that, and then there were two supplementary agreements. These dealt mostly with such questions as this : How much traffic should be handed over? There is a money consideration but it is difficult to tell just what it is because traffic is given under a certain decision that without the decision we would not have got. It is not a question altogether of dollars and cents as it is a question as to whether the Grand Trunk should hand to us certain traffic at certain places-St. Rosalie, Chau-difere Junction and Montreal. There was some dispute as to the traffic to be handed over at one or the other of these points. According as the judgment was in favour of the government road or against it, it would mean traffic for us or not. I had my traffic manager here, and I asked him to get something more in detail for the hon. member for North Toronto. He seems



unable to get it down to detail, and he says that it is just a general decision giving us the right to have traffic handed to us at certain points. It is very hard to bring it down to dollars and cents. I will make further inquiry and see whether I can possibly get it into more concrete shape because it is something more general in its nature than concrete.


George Eulas Foster: I judge from that that the minister does not see any way by which he can satisfy my thirst for information.


George Perry Graham: I will take ' Hansard ' of what my hon. friend has said to-day, wire it to my traffic manager, and see whether I can get something more definite. Some of these things are open yet, and we cannot tell just what they will amount to.



CONFERENCE AT WASHINGTON- FISHERIES REGULATION'S.

George Eulas Foster: I want to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) a question with reference to the conference at Washington about the fisheries, the old regulations, and the new regulations, the information in regard to which he will remember he laid on the table of the House at my requegt, and which was to have been printed. The House passed an order, and I would like to know if it has yet been printed. I thought that the papers would have been printed, and distributed to the members of the House, but all I have seen is this paper which I hold in my hand, and that is not much.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The return should have been printed before to-day. We passed an order some weeks ago to the effect that all these papers should be printed. I took occasion to give a list to the clerk of the House including all the papers which we wanted to have printed, and I shall make inquiries and let my hon. friend know.



MANITOBA FISHERIES COMMISSION.

Mr. BRADBURY.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) when we may expect the report of the commission appointed to inquire into the question of the Manitoba fisheries?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Professor Prince showed me the report a few days ago. It was to be sent west to be signed by the members of the commission, I suppose he has sent it, and we must expect it in a few days.


George Henry Bradbury: Will it be laid on the table?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, as soon as it is printed.
Mr. GRAHAM



FISHERIES PROTECTION SERVICE.

Mr. JAMESON.: Mr. Speaker, I drew the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fsheries (Mr. Brodeur) yesterday to a report which stated that the cruiser ' Rainbow ' had seized a vessel fishing within the three-mile limit, and I asked if he would be able to give us some information with regard to it. He was not able to do so then, and I would like to ask if he is able to state now whether this reported seizure has actually taken place, what is the nationality of the vessel and what action the department has taken?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I intended to give my hon. friend the information, but yesterday when the question was put to me I was not in possession of the official information which I could convey to the House. The ' Rainbow ' proceeding along Cape Scott found the ' Edric/ which I presume is an American vessel, because it comes from Seattle, within the three-mile limit.


Mr. HUGHES.: Did she catch it?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: She caught it, yes.


Samuel Hughes: Good.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The commander was instructed to hand over the seized vessel to the inspector of fisheries in the New Westminster district. This has been done as is shown by the following telegram which reached the department yesterday afternoon:
Have delivered fishing boat to proper authorities. Instructions are requested as to future programme of movements.
The ' Rainbow ' has been ordered to continue her cruise and proceedings will immediately be taken under the law to deal with the ship which has been seized.


Robert Laird Borden: Did the ' Rainbow ' overtake the other vessel while the latter was at anchor?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: She was engaged in fishing operation.



MARKEY FISHING LEASE.

Mr. CAMPBELL.: Has what is called the Markey lease on the Nelson river, which runs out of Lake Winnipeg, been cancelled?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is in the hands of the Department of Justice.


Glenlyon Campbell: How long has it been in charge of that department?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think proceedings are being taken before the courts to have the lease cancelled, and I suppose the case is contested.


Glenlyon Campbell: At whose instance are proceedings being taken with regard to the ' cancellation of the lease?


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: No proceedings have as yet been instituted in any court. The matter has been one* Qf careful consideration, because it presents features of a very unusual character, and I have not only consulted with Mt. Shepley of Toronto as an advising counsel in the matter, but have put the whole case into his hands for consideration and advice as to the course which ought to be taken. About three months ago Mr. Shepley wTas suddenly' seized with very serious illness, from which he has not yet recovered altogether, and which has made it entirely impossible for him to give any attention to business matters during that time and in consequence no further steps have been taken in regard to this mat-'ter. I have thought that if there was any prospect that within any reasonable time Mr. Shepley would be able to give his personal attention to the case it would be more in the public interest that it should remain in its present situation than that anything should be undertaken with regard to it without the advantage of his counsel in the matter.



NORTH ATLANTIC COLLIERIES BOARD.

Mr. MADDIN.: Has the Minister of Labour received a protest on behalf of the employees of the North Atlantic Collieries Company in Cape Breton county in regard to the nominee of the company to a proposed board of conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act. I gather from a newspaper report that such a protest was entered on the ground that Mr. C. O. McDonald, who was nominated by the company, is one of the directors of the company. I would like to know if such a protest has been received by the minister and what course he intends to pursue?


Mr. KING.: Such a protest was received. I took immediate steps to ascertain whether the facts as represented were correct. I found they were and we asked the company under the circumstances to kindly nominate another man as I could not accept the recommendation they had made. They did not care to do so, so I named another man, the present Mayor of Sydney Mines.



VENTILATION OF THE CHAMBER.

Samuel Hughes: I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the ventilation of this chamber. I notice that on some days the members on both sides are alert and bright, while on other days nearly everybody is yawning. To-day happens to be one of the yawning days. I think there must be something wrong with the atmosphere of this chamber. Does the minister keep the exhaust fans as well as 133J	'
the supply fans going at full speed all the time?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: It might enlighten the House if the hon. gentleman stated where he spent last evening.


Samuel Hughes: That is a very serious reflection on the minister himself, and in fact on almost every one on the front benches, because four out of the six of them were asleep before I spoke a short time ago. I happen to be one of those who were all right last night.


William Pugsley: With these preliminary remarks, I will say to my hon. friend that the rule is, and I think it is strictly observed, to have all the fans going continuously for two and a half hours before the daily sittings of the House and during the sittings.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee of Ways and Means and adopted a resolution granting $180,000 out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the public servieejor the financial year ending the 31st March, 1911.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 128) for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1911.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Samuel Hughes: Some time ago I noticed by press reports that the proposition now before the United States Congress to dam the St. Lawrence river had been defeated in the House of Representatives. I noticed subsequently that it had been reintroduced into the Senate and there are rumours to the effect that it is about to be forced through in the hurried work at the close of this session when everything is going through Congress very rapidly. Has the First Minister any information bearing on the matter and have any steps been taken by this government to induce the American Congress not to pass that legislation?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I have received no information at all upon the subject. We have taken certain action with respect to this matter which will be brought down to the House as soon as the correspondence-is completed.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish to have any state secrets from the First Min-

ister, but there has been a feeling throughout the Dominion that this is a very important matter. The Prime Minister has never yet intimated whether there has been a protest by the Canadian government on behalf of the Canadian people concerning this matter. The public undoubtedly believe that this is violating the Ashburton Treaty. I am surprised that the Prime Minister will not give the public information as to whether a formal protest has ever been made. It is all well enough to let the matter drift through Congress, but if the First Minister will inform the public that he has entered a formal protest to Washington that this Bill is violating the Ashburton Treaty, then if Congress pass it they are doing it in direct opposition to the protest made by the Prime Minister of Canada on behalf of Canada. In every reply made by the Prime Minister there has been hesitation as to expressing that fact. I cannot see for the life of me why there should be any hesitation. It is quite plain in the Ashburton treaty


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. genstleiman, cannot discuss the question on the orders of the day.


John Dowsley Reid: I simplv wish to ask whether the Prime Minister has definitely protested to the President of the . United States through Ambassador Bryce, against that Bill going through in violation of the Ashburton Treaty.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have nothing to add to the information which I have given already. We have made representations to Mr. Bryce to convey to the American government. We have no intention of withdrawing what we have done, the report has been prepared and will be laid on the table of the House at a very early date, perhaps on Monday.


Samuel Hughes: There is an understanding in some minds that article 7 of the Ashburton Treaty has been overridden by the legislation in connection with the Waterways Commission. Is the government in a position to give us any information in that regard?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


John Dowsley Reid: I want to draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that Congress will sit only for a few days longer, and one day next week is a holiday. The Prime Minister tells us that he will bring the papers down on Monday, perhaps. That does not mean that we are going to have them on Monday, and we have only a couple of days next week to consider the matter before Congress adjourns. There is no doubt that there never was a more important Bill brought before Congress in so far as the relations between Canada and the United States are concerned, and I cannot understand why the right hon. the Mr. REID (Grenville).
Prime Minister should not tell us what instructions he really gave the British ambassador, Mr. Bryce. No doubt these instructions are in the report, and it is only a question of bringing down the report and laying it on the table. If we had the information that the right hon. gentleman had instructed Mr. Bryce to notify the President that the passage of such a measure would be a violation of the Ashburton Treaty, that would be quite satisfactory, but we certainly should have information on that point. This is not the first time that the United States have not lived up to their treaty obligations towards Canada, and we therefore have reason to doubt that they might possibly fail to carry out the reciprocity arrangements now before this House, according to its spirit, if that arrangement should be adopted. If instances were wanting to prove my assertion that the United States government have not always kept faith with Canada, I could easily supply them.
Let me give one or two to show that the United States government have not kept faith with this country, although we have always kept faith with them. Some years ago a treaty was made providing for a reciprocal use of the canals by the two countries. Canada has lived up to that, treaty. For instance, a vessel can load at New York, go through the Erie canal and down through the Welland and thence to Ottawa, going through all our canals, and no one questions its right. But I have yet to learn that a Canadian vessel, laden in a Canadian port, has ever been allowed to go through to New York through the Erie canal. I challenge the right hon. the Prime Minister to point to one instance of a Canadian vessel laden in Canada being allowed to go through an American canal. I am informed by marine men that when a Canadian vessel gets to the dividing line, she must unload and transfer her cargo to an American bottom. The reason given by the American government for this breach of faith is that the American canals are owned by separate states. A Canadian vessel is not allowed to go' from St. John's to New York through the Erie canal because that canal belongs to the state of New7 York. Thus by simply, transferring their canals to the several states, the United States evade the provisions of a treaty made with Canada. Let me give another instance. According to treaty, no war vessels of either country are to be allowed on the Great Lakes. But what do we find? When the United States government applied for permission for war vessels to go through our canals, they told ug that if we did not give that permission they would abrogate the treaty; and rather than have the treaty abrogated, our gov-' ernment allowed these vessels the use of our canals, although of course without

guns. Let me cite still another instance. When the Canadian government said to the United States:	You are violating
treaty obligations by putting your war vessels on the lakes and thus giving you an advantage over us in case of war, the reply sent by Washington was this. They said: It is not we who are doing this, it is being done by the state of New York; these are training ships which we have given to the states of New York and Minnesota simply to be used for training purposes, and if you do not allow these vessels through your canals, each state will build its own training ships. Thus they fall back on state rights, which are equivalent to our provincial rights. In this way our American cousins evade their treaty obligations, and I could cite other instances. I might refer to the fisheries, but I am not going into any more detail. All I wish to point out is that while Canada has kept faith, the United States have not.
As respects the particular case which ] have brought to the attention of the House, it is as plain as possible that a similar evasion is sought to be practised. The Ashburton Treaty shows exactly what was agreed to between the two countries. In that connection a question has been raised about the dam built at Sheik island. Well, I have seen the maps and plans, and that_ part where Sheik island dam was built is not in the international arrangement at all. In fact the Ashburton Treaty was made after that dam was built, and, therefore, does not applv to it. The very fact that the President'of the United States would allow Congress to pass a Bill which is in direct violation of the treaty, would show bad faith on the part of the United States. We are now about to make an arrangement on this reciprocity question. I remember years ago when the United States put up barriers to prevent the carrying out of the arrangement then in force for letting our farm products go in free. By establishing United States consuls at the different points, to whom our people had to pay heavy consul fees, they managed to evade the agreement.
I cannot for one moment believe that when the Bill for the construction of this dam came before Congress, the right hon. the Prime Minister did not immediately wire Ambassador Bryce to notify the President of the United States that such a measure was a violation of the Ashburton Treaty. If the right hon. gentleman did that, he was doing his duty and his people would_ be satisfied. But if he did it, what objection has he to letting us know? He Hesitates, however, and will not give a direct answer, and that causes me to suspect that there is something concealed, something behind, which he does not wish to divulge. We know that some of the
strongest friends of the Prime Minister, some of his strongest supporters, are shoving this Bill through at Washington and here.


Samuel Hughes: Any doubt about that?


John Dowsley Reid: Not the slightest, the Prime Minister knows it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, he knows that the chief solicitor of this company is. Mr. Leighton McCarthy, who sat in parliament here at one time, who is one of: the right hon. gentleman's supporters, and helped to keep him in office.


Wilfrid Laurier: As a lawyer, he does it.


John Dowsley Reid: He is doing it as a lawyer, and he has got thousands and thousands out of it already. He is here doing his best to shove this through the House, and as he is doing it as a lawyer, no one can blame him for doing it in that way. I am not finding fault with him for performing that duty, because that is a part of his profession as a lawyer. I do not wish to reflect upon him. At the same time, there is no doubt that he is putting pressure upon the minister and his supporters to try to get this Bill through. So, I would like the Prime Minister to give us this information without hesitation. There is no reason why he should hesitate. Should this matter turn out in the way I hope it will not turn out, and should it be found that the Prime Minister has hesitated to defend Canada's rights, even to the extent of asking the President of the United States to see to it that that treaty is carried out, we on this side, a.nd I believe many hon. members on the other side as well, will feel very sorry that that should be the position.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have only to repeat what I said. The government have made representations to Mr. Bryce to be conveyed to the American authorities.
I have no hesitation in bringing down the papers. I said they would be brought down. In fact, I may inform the hon. gentleman that I hope to bring them down on Monday. The clerk of the Privy Council handed them to me, and I have them in my desk, but on looking through them I find that some lateT despatches are not among them. I hope to have these papers added, and to bring the whole down on Monday. And I hope that I shall not lose the goodly opinion of my hon. friend (Mr. Reid, Grenville) when he has had an opportunity to read the papers.


Samuel Hughes: I have a word to say to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). He is one of the ministers who blushed-


George Eulas Foster: What, what?


Samuel Hughes: Yes, I reaffirm it- blushed-when the non. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) was stating {hat certain gentlemen on this side of the boundary and supporters of the Prime Minister were interested in pushing this thing through. Some strange things develop sometimes-


George Perry Graham: < So we see.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know whether the evidence brought out before the committees at Washington might tend to throw light on this subject or not, but I think the First Minister might properly interest himself in studying some of the evidence which has been brought out before those committees on this very matter. It would prove very interesting reading to the public of Canada. There is a powerful organization behind this concern. Money has been spent, not in thousands or tens of thousands, but in hundreds of thousands-


John Dowsley Reid: Millions.


George Perry Graham: Make it billions.


Samuel Hughes: I do not say that all this has come to this side of the line, but a good deal of it has.


Mr. CARVELL.: Who got it?


Samuel Hughes: Read the evidence as far as it has gone. It will all be produced.


George Perry Graham: Did you say ' Read ' the evidence?


Samuel Hughes: The point I wish to impress on the First Minister is that there is no use locking the stable door after the horse is stolen. An ounce of prevention is woTth a nound of cure. Before that Bill passes the American Congress is the time for this parliament to take action. The government has been notified that legislation has been going on there, promoted by a private company, to interfere with waterways of Canada, in which we have a vital interest. The excuse is made, as I understand it, that the Ashburton Treaty gives them the right to do this. And the instance is cited of the little dam between Sheik island and the Canadian shore. But who * will pretend that this is on a par with a [DOT] dam 'between Long Sault island or Barn-Vnart island and the American shore? The 'iVshburton Treaty distinctly states that the channels on each side of Long Sault island and on each side of Barnhart island are *inviolable, but it never mentions, directly [DOT]or indirectly, the little channel between 'Sheik island and the Canadian shore. These important channels mentioned in the treaty are being interfered with by this proposition at Ottawa. The proposition is to dam the channel between Long Sault island and the American shore, to dam the channel between Barnhart island and Long Sault island, and then to dam the Mr. FOSTER.
channel between Barnhart island and the Canadian shore. (Yes, as a friend near me suggests, it is a doubly damned institution.) Under this proposition 95 per centres, 97 per cent, I am told-of the electric power will be on the American side. It is mere child's play for any minister of the Crown to tell us that if this legislation is passed at Washington and if these dams are made they will see to it that half the power is reserved for the Canadian side. If power is wanted there is any amount of power available where it will not interfere with navigation. Let them go down to the Coteau, the Cedars, or the Cascades. If they want power, and if you want to make a deal with them let them take the power where there is no navigation, but let them not interfere with the Long Sault channel. I saw by the press the other day that it was reported that, already the ice at Cornwall has raised the waters to the extent of 14 feet. If this proposed dam were built the ice floating down from the rapids above would accumulate, and there i's no saying what harm might be done. We know what these ice jams and bursts have caused in other parts of the world, - and there is no reason to doubt that the disaster caused at this point might be tremendous. But aside from that, there is the interference with the navigation of the river. This is an international channel, and should be preserved as it is. I am surprised that any minister of the Crown of the Dominion of Canada, any responsible person under the British flag, can be found dickering, or even for an instant considering, the question of closing that waterway. This is an important 'matter, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister-I suppose it would come within his department-to take the matter up. and not only protest against this action going further, but also get copies of the evidence before the committee in Washington and look into the matter. My faith in him is such that 1 believe that if he had that evidence before him now he would put his foot down and settle the question. Now is the time to stop it. In the United States such Bills as this are slipped through sometimes, just as they are here, without much attention being paid to them. However, so far as we are concerned, vie are on our guard. We have had the warning of a certain Bill which was passed through this House. But we are on our guard, and I think that, for the next few years at all events, until suspicion is lulled, there will be pretty close watch kept on the legislation affecting matters along the border. Knowing the danger, it is certainly the duty of this government to protest and to protest in most emphatic language, against the reiritroduction of this Bill before the Congress at Washington.


George Perry Graham: I presume that when the correspondence is brought down my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) will see that even his visit to Washington was not necessary to protect the rights of Canada. He let slip one word very significant to me, that there were other water-powers available in that vicinity. I know there are, and we in eastern Ontario hope to get power from some source even if the Sault is never developed. So far as his reference to me is concerned, I am not alarmed about that. But I rose mainly to say a word in answer to my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid). I think that he is in error as to the United States not giving us reciprocal treatment in the use of their canals. The hon. member for ATgenteuil (Mr. Perley), I think it was, brought this matter up, discussing correspondence he had had with the State Department, if I remember correctly. At his suggestion, I wrote to the head of the canal department of the state of New York. Speaking from memory, that authority assured me that the canals were free and open to the vessels of Canada, if they desired to use them, as much as to their own vessels, and that the authorities never charged any canal dues on Canadian vessels. I want to make that statement, because I believe it is fair to the United States and to the state of New York.


John Dowsley Reid: Do I understand now, that a Canadian vessel can load at a Canadian port and go directly to New York with a cargo of freight P I suppose these little fishing yachts are allowed to go through, I do not refeT to them. Am I right in understanding now that there is no doubt that a vessel can load at Ottawa, for instance, go through the Welland canal, on down through the Erie canal to New York, without breaking cargo, so long as the cargo is consigned from Ottawa direct to New York ? I ask that question, because one of the largest marine men told me that their vessels were compelled to unload. If that is not the case, then I will inform1 this marine man, who told me, that he is entirely in error, and I will give the reply of the Minister of Railways 'and Canals.


George Perry Graham: The information, as 1 remember it, which I received last year from the head of the canal department of the state of New York, is that Canadian vessels have the same free access to their canals as their own vessels.


Samuel Hughes: They have under federal law, but not under state law.


ICE ON LAKE WINNIPEG.
George Henry Bradbury: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), to a matter of very serious importance to the navigation of Lake Winnipeg. Last year, owing to an early frost,
all the vessels, except one, were frozen in on Lake Winnipeg. This was a very serious matter, and has entailed great loss to owners of steamboats, and endangered the lives of a great many men employed on these boats. The remedy would be-for the government to have a boat sufficiently strong at Selkirk, or at the mouth of the river, to keep the river open. I have a resolution here from the Board of Trade at Selkirk, which I wish to place on record. I understand it has already been placed in the hands of the Minister of Public Works:
IN hereas all vessels of draught operating upon the waters of Lake Winnipeg require to and do frequently enter the mouth and travel upon the waters of the Red river in order to reach the town of Selkirk, which is the chief harbour and port of entry for Lake Winnipeg, and where all the vessels of the lake have their winter berth and repair station; and
Whereas, owing to the geographical configuration of this portion of the American continent, the Red river of the north will always continue to be the navigable highway and avenue of approach to and exit from Lake Winnipeg for vessels of draught; and
Whereas the navigation of Lake Winnipeg, and the shipping industry of the lake are vast enterprises, having invested therein great sums of money and giving employment to many hundreds of people; and that this industry, and its relative importance to Canada is undoubtedly to greatly increase in the future; and
Whereas the government of the Dominion of Canada has in its wisdom recognized the importance of the navigation of trade and commerce on this lake and its connecting river, and through its Department of Public Works has appropriated and expended great sums of money, and has employed pronounced engineering skill upon the task of maintaining, improving and extending and rendering less hazardous the navigation of this body of water, and does now maintain at Selkirk an important depot of the Department of Public Works for such purpose; and
Whereas all vessels engaged in the fishing industry or in providing for the wants and necessities of those engaged in that industry are compelled, by the very nature of their calling, to ply the lake as late as possible in the fall; this necessity applying especially to the men and vessel or vessels engaged in the collection of spawn for the charging of the fish hatcheries maintained by the government for the perpetuity of the species; and
Whereas the Red river freezes and bocomes closed to navigation some time before the waters of the lake freezes and becomes closed, and that by this circumstance the vessels plying upon the lake are, some years, and especially this year, prevented by ice from entering the Red river, and are compelled to make shift as best they can for the winter upon the open lake, thereby causing great delay, inconvenience and hazard and direct loss; and
Whereas the situation at present upon the lake is that vessels of steam draught, including the government tug, 'Lady of the Lake.' and including all the steam vessels engaged


William Pugsley: The question of building wharfs on Lake Winnipeg has been referred to the Committee of Supply. I should think that my hon. friend would be out of order in discussing this matter now.


George Henry Bradbury: Well, I was just referring to this in connection with the other matter. Of course, if I am out of order-


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will have ample opportunity when we come to those items.


George Henry Bradbury: I would like to urge the minister


William Pugsley: I presume he will have an opportunity again in Supply.


George Henry Bradbury: I presume I will if I am in the House, but I would like to urge upon the minister the necessity of making provision for these urgent improvements, and if he is not in a position to make a definite statement to the House to-day 1 trust he will do so when the time comes to discuss the estimates. I thought 1 had his pledge last year, but it was not carried out.


William Pugsley: Some time ago the petition of which my hon. friend has read a copy, was sent to me from the Board of Trade of Selkirk, and I also received a request from the secretary of the Board of Trade of Winnipeg urging that an icebreaker should be provided for the purpose of breaking the ice at the mouth of the Red river and also at Lake Winnipeg. As the matter of employing tugs for ice-breaking purposes in other sections of Canada had been attended to by the Department of Marine and Fisheries and not by the Department of Public Works I referred the petition to my colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) and advised the Selkirk Board of Trade and also the secretary of the Board of Trade of Winnipeg that the matter was one which did not appertain, in my opinion, to my department but appertained to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The tug ' Whelan/ which is employed for breaking the ice in the harbour of Port Arthur and Fort William and perhaps at other points on Lake Superior, is employed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries and not by the Department of Public Works, and so it is with regard to ice-breaking upon the St Lawrence. The matter rests entirely with the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I have referred the matter to my colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; he is not in his place at the present moment, but I have no doubt the question will receive his very careful consideration. I shall take occasion to call his attention to the remarks which my hon. friend has made and which will appear in ' Hansard ' where he will have an opportunity of seeing them. I think that on his behalf I can say to my hon. friend that the matter will receive very careful consideration. We all recognize the great importance of the Red river between the city of Winnipeg and its mouth and also the great importance of Lake Winnipeg and also the importance of doing what we reasonably can to assist The navigation of the lake and the Red river and of making navigation as safe as possible. Therefore. I am sure my hon. friend can rely upon the request of" the Selkirk people receiving very careful consideration.


George Henry Bradbury: I notice the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) in his place now. I was just drawing the attention of the House to the Matter of providing a boat for keeping the Red river

open. I understand that the chief engineer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries was sent up to investigate and the word that I got from Selkirk was that he stated that it was a matter for the Public Works Department. That is why I referred my remarks to the Minister of Public Works to-day. There is a very urgent request and resolution and I would like to know if the minister can give me any encouragement that that boat will be provided for that important work.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No report has yet been made to me with regard to this ice breaker When the question was brought to my attention some time ago I gave immediate instructions to have a report made. That report has not yet reached me. As soon as I get it I shall communicate it to my hon. friend.


WESTERN ONTARIO DAIRYMEN AND RECIPROCITY.
Mr. LALOR.: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a letter which I received yesterday, and which reads:	,
Cambro, Ont., Feb. 21. 1911. Mr. F. R. Lalor, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Lalor,-When I wrote you yesterday I had not read the report of the debate-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I do not think the
hon. gentleman can refer to that now because we are going into Supply, while the subject to which the letter refers has been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. I think it would be irregular now to read the letter.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It is a correction about a statement made in the House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: As a correction of a statement I presume it would be admissible.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The letter reads:
When I wrote you yesterday I had not read the report of the debate in the House regarding reciprocity, and I notice on page 3826 that the hon. Mr. Paterson replying to Mr. Arm-stiong states 'that the Dairy Association of Eastern and Western Ontario unanimously desired that this treaty should go into affect.'
This statement is absolutely incorrect in so far as the Dairymens' Association of Western Ontario is concerned. I am a director of that association land hake been for over twenty years. I was present in Stratford when this question w-as introduced. The facts are as follows:	After the convention was
opened a couple of farmers came to myself and one or two others, asking that we put this question on our programme to be discussed during the convention, before deciding in regard to the advisability of doing so. We consulted every director and officer of the association and we unanimously agreed not to permit the question to go on the programme of the convention for discussion. As there Mr. BRADBURY.
was not one man on the board who believed the measure would be in the best interest of the dairy industry of this province, we told these men that if they wished to discuss this question they would have to do so altogether independent of the association. They then asked permission to bring this question up at the close of the afternoon session of the first day of the convention, this was granted and after the session of the convention was closed, a gentleman on the floor of the convention hall moved and another seconded his resolution, that Mr. Scott our president act *as chairman while those present would discuss the question of reciprocity. Mr. Scott was accordingly elected chairman of the meeting, when these two iren, Mr. Behn of Oxford county and Mr. Rice of Norfolk county, introduced a resolution that they believed it would be in the best interests of the dairy industry of this country, to have reciprocity between the United States and Canada. In the discussion of this question there was not one word spoken by any officer of the Dairymens' Association of Western Ontario in favour of it, and there was not one who voted for the resolution, in fact there was less than twenty in the entire audience who voted for the resolution.
I thought I would give you these facts, so that if the opportunity presented itself you cc-uld put the Minister of Customs right in regard to the attitude of the Dairymens' Association of Western Ontario.
Sincerely yours,
J.	N. PAGET.


INTERPROVINCIAL BRIDGE AT HAWKESBURY.
Mr. PERLEY.: On the 7th of December last, I asked a question with regard to the proposed highway bridge between Hawkes-bury, Ontario, and Grenville, Quebec. In repiy the minister said:
With reference to the bridge across the Ottawa river at Hawkesbury, Ont., the delay in this matter has been on account of the approach to the bridge on the Ontario side.
He went, on to say that this was the natural place for the crossing to be made and afterwards said:
Although I do not think there is anything in writing, it has been understood all along, or at least expected, that the town of Hawkesbury would arrange with the Hawkesbury Lumber Company for a right of way through their property giving an approcah to the bridge and, I may say, it is the custom for municipalities to do this.
The minister explained there was some trouble between the town of Hawkesbury and the Hawkesbury Lumber Company in regard to their assessment, and that was probably the reason why nothing had been done. There is a special and peculiar need for a bridge across the Ottawa at this particular point. There is no highway bridge across Die Ottawa river below the city of Ottawa and the consequence is that the people up and down the Ottawa river on both sides would use this bridge if it were built. In the summer they get along very well

with ferries, and in the middle of winter by using the ice, but between seasons, in the fall and spring, there is always a longer or shorter period when it is impossible for any one to cross the Ottawa with safety. The consequence is that there have been a great many accidents in the fall and spring and people have lost their lives in attempting to cross the river. This matter was all laid before the minister I think twice and all these reasons given, and the minister stated he believed it was in the public iinterest that this bridge should be built. I submit that the reason given by the minister in this answer for not going on. with the building of the bridge is a poor one. He states that it is the custom for the municipalities to arrange for the right of way for such bridges.


William Pugsley: No, for the highway to the bridge, the approach to the bridge.


George Halsey Perley: For the right of way to the bridge.


William Pugsley: That is to connect with the main highway.	*


George Halsey Perley: For the right of way to the bridge. I doubt very much whether there is any such custom, and I do not think the minister can show that there is in cases of this kind. If it is in the public interest that the bridge should be built the authorities who are to build the bridge must surely provide the approaches to the bridge as well as the bridge itself. I am surprised at the minister giving a reason of that kind, when I remember what he has stated in this House several times with reference to the public buildings which he is putting up in this country. Not long ago when a public building was being discussed the minister stated with great emphasis that he would never think of asking a municipality to provide a site for the building, and surely there is more reason why the government should provide the approaches to a bridge which is evidently in the public interest.


Mr. SPROULE.: Why not build one like the Disraeli bridge?


George Halsey Perley: I leave that to the min-:ister.


William Pugsley: It is hardly courageous to do that. Why does not the hon. gentleman reply to the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule)?


George Halsey Perley: The minister is well able to take care of himself, and the kind of bridge provided at Disraeli did not throw any credit on the minister's department.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for East Grey is trying to throw ridicule on this bridge and the member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) should resent that.


George Halsey Perley: Not at all, the hon. member for East Grey is bringing to the attention of the minister the fact that he built a bridge for a municipality and called it a wharf, he showed himself willing to do ' that in Disraeli even although it did not come within his proper scope.


William Pugsley: The minister did not happen to do that.


George Halsey Perley: If the land belonging to the Hawkesbury Lumber Company should be expropriated for this bridge, it seems to me the minister should go on and take the necessary proceedings to expropriate. If, on the contrary, it is considered best that the bridge should be put somewhere else under the circumstances, to serve the people of these two counties, I have a map of that section of the river and there are other places where a bridge could be built. I think something should be done about that. The bridge is a great necessity, it is not a matter of politics at all, it has been taken up by all sections of the people, and has been agreed to by the minister. I want to urge on the minister to take steps to get this bridge built as soon as possible and I will ask him if he will not do so.


William Pugsley: It is quite true that this bridge has been decided upon. It is to be built at the joint expense of the governments of Quebec, Ontario and the Dominion, the Dominion contributing the lion's share. When this matter was urged upon me, as it was very strongly, by the hon. gentleman who represents the constituency on the Quebec side with the hon. member for the county of Prescott, I w>as led to understand that the municipality would be likely to provide the highway, giving the approach to the bridge. I rather inferred also that the Hawkesbury Lumber company were likely to give a right of way through their property, either free or at a low cost, Since that time, some difficulty has arisen between the Hawkesbury Lumber company and the town of Hawkesbury. I believe the assessment of the company's property has been considerably raised, and they have not towards the town council, the same good feeling which they had when this bridge was originally proposed. My own view is, that it is not at all unreasonable, when the three governments are undertaking, at a large expense, to build a bridge for the accommodation of the people of the locality that the municipality should provide a highway that would give the approach to the bridge from the main highway. That has been done in other cases. However, I am not without hope that the previously friendly relations between the company and the town may be restored, and that the arrangement, as originally proposed, may be carried out. If in the coming spring that appears unlikely to take place, then it will be my duty to consider the question of obtaining another

location for the bridge. I hesitate about expropriating a right of way through the company's property without its consent. This might involve the Crown in an expense away beyond what we bad anticipated the bridge would cost us. I intend to take the matter up in the spring or early summer, in the hope that a satisfactory arrangement may be arrived at.


George Halsey Perley: I may say that I was at two meetings, and I never noticed that there was any arrangement, express or implied, by which the Hawkesbury Lumber company would give , a free right of way or a right of way at a low cost. Is the minister quite sure that there was such an understanding ?


William Pugsley: Perhaps the hon. member for Prescott, who is familiar with the details of the matter, can give some information with regard to it.


Mr. PROTJLX.: I understand that the Hawkesbury Lumber company have never promised a right of way, but we bad hoped that the town council would arrange with the company to get a right of way. Last year the town had a lawsuit with the company about the assessment, and the company were not disposed to grant the right of way. They told the Hawkesbury Bridge Committee that if they wanted the right of way, they would have to expropriate. I think it is still their intention that the government or the town will have to expropriate the right of way.


George Halsey Perley: Then the Hawkesbury Lumber company's refusal .to grant the right of way had nothing to do with the dispute between them and the town regarding taxes ?


Isidore Proulx: No. The assessment of the company was increased before there was a request made to it by the town.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

George Henry Bradbury: I notice in the Ottawa ' Free Press,' of this date, the following reference to myself:
In the House of Commons yesterday, Dr. Clark secured from Mr. Bradbury, the Conservative member for Selkirk, an admission that he was opposed to reciprocity and a declaration that the men who hail organized the grain growers' deputation in December last were members of a ' political machine.'
I want to say that this is a misconstruction of what I said. What I did say was, that the Grain Growers' organization'was the. political end of the grain growers' of Manitoba. The article goes on to say:
Now, human memory is often erratic, but it comes to our mind that when the great grain growers' delegation was nearing Ottawa to demand reciprocity, a deputation of western Conservative M.P.'s went 'up the line' to meet Mr. PUGSLEY.
them, and to extend the hand of co-operation against ' the tariff tyranny of the Liberal government's tariff. There were eight of them and they may have included George Bradbury. They certainly included the other leaders of Conservative opinion west of the lakes, and as there are only a dozen of them all told, it is a fair presumption that George Bradbury was one of the contingent. He was certainly active enough when the delegates were down here in endeavouring to impress upon them the opinion that he was heart and soul in sympathy with their demands.
Now, I just want to say that when the delegation were here, their demand was not for reciprocity, but for a reduction of duties, and I was in hearty sympathy with that demand.
What has happened since to change his views? Has the word come from the twin bosses of Manitoba, Rogers and Roblin, that the grain growers are to he thrown to the wolves and are to be represented as a body of disloyal annexationists?
I want to say just a word regarding my attitude when the delegation was here. I was in hearty sympathy with the demand of the Grain Growers' Association when they were asking this government for a reduction of the duty on farm implements, which is something that every man from Manitoba on this side of the House supports. The question of reciprocity is another question. I did not say that I was opposed to reciprocity. I stated that I was opposed to reciprocity, as proposed by the present government. I am absolutely opposed to it, and I want my constituents to know it. I want my constituents to know it, for I am not going behind doors. My opposition is open and above board.


William Pugsley: What kind of reciprocity?


George Henry Bradbury: I will tell you when the time comes. What I want to do is to set the ' Free Press ' right, which I am sure has no intention of misrepresenting me or putting a false construction on my attitude. There is no man from the west, Manitoba or the territories, who has stood out more firmly for the rights of the farmers than I have. When a resolution was before the Chair asking for what the farmers require more than reciprocity, namely, government-owned and operated terminal elevators, the Conservative members were found standing by my hon friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) and endeavouring to induce the government to adopt the resolution moved by him. They have also been found standing by the farmers in other matters, which are more important to the agriculturists of Manitoba and the west than this question of reciprocity as proposed by this government. I have no hesitation in saying that this proposition

of the government is simply a gold brick offered the farmers of the northwest, and it will not be my fault if they do not find it out before it is too late.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Conciliation and labour, including publication, printing, binding and distribution of the ' Labour Gazette,' aud allowance to correspondents, $27,300.
["I have the honour to inform the House that when this House did attend His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the Royal assent to the following Bill:\nAn Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1911."]
Mr. GOODEVE.: I would ask the Minister of Labour if he has had any communication asking for certain amendments to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I received yesterday from one of the hon. members of this House a communication transmitting some proposed amendment. That is the only one I have received this session to that effect.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I have received a communication from the Moyie Miners' Union No. 71 with regard to clause 56 of the Act. They suggest that this clause should be amended to read as follows:
Provided, that it shall be unlawful for any employer, incorporated company or corporation to close down their industries and than resume operations under changed conditions of employment, without first giving prominent notice in the local newspaper at least thirty days prior to the resumption of operations.
The object of this is to prevent an evasion of the Act. Under clause 56 it is unlawful to have a lockout, but the same thing has been brought about in another way. An employer may, for instance, close down his works, without giving any particular reason or possibly for some reason entirely outside the matter in dispute, and then, when it suits him, reopen it under changed conditions. Has the attention of the minister been called to that particular weakness in the Act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The same proposition came in the communication I received from the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell). I shall certainly consider it very carefully. My impression at the moment is that if action of that kind were taken the company would be liable, undeT the Act as it stands. If my contention be right there is no need to amend the Act, but that is a matter on which I should like to have the opinion of the Justice Department.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I agree that the object of the Act is to prevent any such violation, but evidently the labour organizations have not found it altogether effective. Possibly the minister, after considering the wording
of the Act. may deem it necessary to amend it in the way suggested. I am very glad that he is taking the question up with the Justice Department, and trust that if he finds what is pointed out is really the case he will make the necessary amendment. [DOT]


Mr. DANIEL.: How many copies of the ' Labour Gazette ' are printed, and to whom are they sent? How many correspondents are there, and how are they paid? Where is the ' Labour Gazette ' printed and bound and what does the printing and binding cost?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the .vicinity of 16,000 copies are published every month. There is a paid subscription list of pearly 10,000. A distribution is made to members of both Houses, copies are sent out occasionally for the purpose of getting other subscriptions, free copies are also sent to departments of government in other countries ai'd to newspapers m exchange for their publications; also to the public libraries educational institutions, labour organizations and Boards of Trade.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are they sent to every newspaper in the country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The number of correspondents is 52, and they are paid $100 each per year. They are occasionally called upon to make special reports. For example, the department may be collecting information as to prices and the cost of living. This is in the nature of additional work to their regular duties, and, in such cases, an extra allowance is made to these correspondents of $25 for the work done in that connection through the year. I do not recollect if there were any other questions-


John Waterhouse Daniel: What revenue does the government receive from those who subscribe to the ' Labour Gazette? '


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last year, the revenue from this source was $1,547.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is the subscription price $1 a year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, 20 cents a year.


Mr. SOHAFFNER.: I understood there were 16,000 copies issued. The figures would indicate tiiat about 10,009 copies were paid for, leaving 6,0uu tree.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I hardly think the explanation the minister has given would account for these 6,000 copies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. gentleman (Mr. iSchaffner) understands that there are copies kept in the department for purposes of binding and to meet future demands. There are also some 1,800 labour organizations in the country, and many newspapers. There is also a large exchange.

list. I might say the ' Labour Gazette ' is sent to the different statistical bureaus of European countries, and other countries throughout the world.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I suppose the minister could state the numbers used in these ways?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have the figures here. Last year the exchange list of departments of government, including federal, provincial and British and foreign governments num-. bered 509; trade papers and labour journals 167 ; public libraries and libraries of educational institutions 125 ; members of the House of Commons, 221 ; members of the Senate, 87 ; boards of trade, 276 ; newspapers, 1,075 ; labour organizations-Nova Scotia, 160 ; Prince Edward Island, 11 ; New Brunswick, 83, Quebec (copies sent both in English and in French) 610 ; Ontario, 770 ; Manitoba, 106 ; Saskatchewan.. 14 ; Alberta, 131 ; British Columbia, 222; a total of labour organizations, 2,174. This is a larger number than I thought.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I would like the minister to give the House some information as to the object of this * Labour Gazette.' What is its purpose?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Before the minister goes on with that, I would like him to finish answering the questions I asked. I asked where the ' Labour Gazette ' was printed, and whether the work was done by tender or not, how many copies were printed, and the cost of printing?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That question, I am afraid I would have to refer to the Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy). The department of labour makes its contract with the government Printing Bureau for the printing of the; ' Labour Gazette.' Accounts are sent by the Printing Bureau to the Labour Department, and paid by the department. I understand that the ' Labour Gazette ' is printed at the ' Free Press ' printing office in this city, but that is by arrangement which the King's Printer has made in accordane with rules made at the Bureau.
The sitting of the committee was suspended.



James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have the honour to' inform the House that I have received from the secretary of His Excellency the Governor General the following communication :
Ottawa, February 24, 1911.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you *.hat the right hon. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick acting as deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber this afternoon at five o'clock, for the purpose of giving assent to certain Bills which Mr. KING.
have passed the Senate and the House of Commons during the present session.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,


C. J. JONES,
[Stage Direction]
Assistant Governor General's Secretary. The Hono ur able,
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
A message was received from His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General by the gentleman usher of the Black Rod as follows :
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of your honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House, went up to the Senate chamber.
The House having returned,
James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have the honour to inform the House that when this House did attend His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the Royal assent to the following Bill:
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1911.



[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
["That is a provision often put in other ' Bills. No doubt the purchasers of debentures will inquire into their value before buying them.\nProgress reported."]
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have here the figures oi the cost of printing the ' Labour Gazette ' for the last fiscal year. The ' Labour Gazette ' is printed in both English and French. The printing of the English edition cost $11,544.80, of the French edition $5,704.16. In addition to printing the ' Gazette,' at the end of each year the ' Gazette ' is bound, and an index is prepared for the use of subscribers, and this costs $190.07. That cost includes the paper.


John Waterhouse Daniel: So the cost per volume of these twelve copies for the year is $1.20 for printing, and as the minister gives it to subscribers for 20 cents a year, subscribers get off pretty cheap under those circumstances. Perhaps it is the intention that the ' Labour Gazette ' should not be self-supporting?


Mr KING.: I may say that in some countries similar publications are distributed free of charge. The purpose in fixing any amount is not to bring in a revenue at all; it is simply to insure the fact that whoever gsks for the ' Gazette ' is likely to have some Teal desire for it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Who makes terms with the ' Free Press,' or whatever concern prints it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand the King's Printer fixes the terms in accordance with

a rule lie adopts at the Government Printing Bureau. There is a rule governing all printing which is done outside, and the King's Printer follows this rule with regard to the ' Labour Gazette.'


Mr. HENDERSON.: I must congratulate the Minister of Labour on his extreme liberality. I wish some other departments would take this leaf out of his book. I had occasion a few days ago to ask the Minister of Agriculture for a copy of the bulletin with respect to seeds in Canada, and 1 received from him a very courteous reply -I do not complain of it at all-telling me that I had had three copies before, and if I would send a dollar down to the King's Printer I could get another copy. I asked it for a friend, perhaps that was the reason wdiy he suggested that I should pay a dollar for it. If I had not mentioned that probably he might have given it. But I wanted it for a student at the Guelph Agricultural College, who desired to make use of it in preparing for his examination. I put it that way to the Minister of Agriculture, thinking, perhaps, I would appeal to his generosity. But he appears to have no respect for students at agricultural colleges, at any rate he does not treat them in the same way that the Minister of Labour treats his friends. I merely make mention of this in the House to give it all the publicity I can, because I think it was a very small matter on the part of the Minister of Agriculture.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Would the Minister of Labour please tell us some of the purposes that this ' Labour Gazette ' is intended to subserve?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The main purpose is to gather information in regard to the industrial and labour conditions of the Dominion, and in respect to all matters likely to be of concern to employers and employees. This information is gathered by means of correspondents, who send in monthly reports. These 'correspondents are located in different cities of the Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The trade journals and the press are carefully reviewed, and any items that appear to have a bearing upon labour conditions are carefully classified and compiled in the department. Statistics are also collected by special investigation, these are made up in the form of tabular statements. For example, each month the ' Labour Gazette ' contains a review of the industrial and labour conditions of the particular industries, agriculture, mining, lumbering and the like. Then it takes up the conditions in different trades, and this information is prepared in accordance with general form, beginning at the Atlantic and running across the continent. Then there is information of a special
nature; for example, industrial accidents, statistics gathered and classified, and at the end of the year a statement is made up showing the total number of these accidents and the causes in each case. A similar method is followed in regard to strikes and lockouts. Also, changes in rates of wages and changes in hours of labour, formation of employers labour organizations, so far as is possible to get them, are mentioned and classified and compiled, also, legal decisions affecting labour, &c. All data of this kind is so shaped at the outset that at the end of the year it may be possible to make statistical tables that will show the trend of industrial development for that year. Then, over a period of years the intention is to classify still further, in some cases in the form of charts, and these charts are printed in the annual report, or in special publications. I have m my hand the bound volume of the * Labour Gazette ' from July, 1909, to 1910. It is a volume of 1,500 pages with a carefully prepared index. To show the- scope of the work, I might read some of the subjects in the index :	Industrial accidents, adulteration of foods, arbitration, annuities, meetings of labour associations, building trades, accidents, changes in wages, hours of labour, &c. That is the nature of the information. The department has in mind, in gathering and compiling this information, to furnish the country with what would serve as a basis of an industrial history of the Dominion. There is no attempt to express opinions in the ' Gazette '; it is simply a compilation of data, which can be used by persons who desire it for reference.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I understand that the reports are sent in by agents all over the country, and these are edited in the department, and the department sends out what they see fit, and suppresses what they see fit. I think any one who reads the ' Labour Gazette ' must come to the conclusion that one of the chief objects of its existence is to advertise the department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no intention to advertise the department. There is a desire to have the department's work known to the country. It would be of very little service to the community if the community knew nothing about it. To that extent, I suppose, the department follows the practice of any other organization.


Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: I would like to ask the minister what principle is followed in the selection of the places to be served by correspondents ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The department has tried to follow a general rule and confine the appointment of correspondents to localities that are either incorporated cities, or that have a population of 10,000 or more, and in some cases, where it has appeared that there are large industrial interests that could not be covered in that way, a district has been mapped out and a correspondent has been appointed for that particular district.


James Davis Taylor: Would the minister say whether he has a correspondent at Prince Rupert, and if not, whether he thinks a correspondent there would give useful service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The department has no correspondent at the present time at Prince Rupert, but I think the suggestion that my hon. friend makes, if he intends it as a suggestion, is one worthy of careful consideration. Prince Rupert promises to be an important centre, and I think I might say to my hon. friend that if he cares to Tecommend the appointment of a correspondent there, I would be prepared to appoint one.


James Davis Taylor: As Prince Rupert is in the district represented by the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman), it might come with rather bad grace on my part to make any recommendation


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would be prepared to accept it.
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster)

but certainly it is a point where, I think, there should be a correspondent of the ' Labour Gazette,' because there are a great many problems connected with labour constantly demanding attention and, although an officer of the labour department went to Prince Rupert during last year and made a very interesting report on conditions there, I think it would be well to supplement that report with regular monthly reports from a correspondent, because at Prince Rupert conditions are in a formative state, and they are not so well regulated as they are in older communities. It seems to me that this is one point Mr. SCHAFFNER.
where the services of a correspondent ought to be more valuable than at general points.


Mr. CROSBY.: I notice that the ' Labour Gazette ' bears the union label.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is it printed in a union shop ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say offhand whether the shop that prints it is a union shop or not, as I have not inquired into the question.


Adam Brown Crosby: What authority would you have to put the union label on, if it were not printed in a union shop P


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that the conditions that prevail at the bureau are conditions that the union regard as satisfactory, or as coming up the standard.


Adam Brown Crosby: The Minister of Labour certainly understands what I mean by asking if this is a union shop. I want to know if every man who works in this shop, is a union man and whether this label is rightly put on the ' Gazette ' or whether it is put on in some irregular way, to indicate that it comes from a union shop when, as a matter of fact, it may not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand, the union label is controlled by the Allied Printing Trades, and they allow its use by shops that comply with the conditions. I presume the shop that prints the ' Labour Gazette ' must comply with those conditions, or those who control the label would not have permitted it to be used by that shop.


Adam Brown Crosby: Then they would have the consent of the Allied Printing Trades ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: This item also refers to the conciliation of labour, and I would like to ask a few questions with reference to that. I think it has already been stated in connection with some of the strikes in Nova Scotia that the only difficulty about their settlement is, that the companys have decided that they will not hire men who happen to be members of a certain organization and that -they will not employ them unless they belong to some other organization that they may designate. To make my meaning plain, I understand that the United Mine Workers' Association is the association which prevails in Springhill, Nova Scotia, and that a large number of men in the county of Cape Breton also belong to that organization. I understand that the management of the Springhill company have decided that they will not employ men who are members of the United Mine Workers' Association.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Crosby) is mistaken in that view of it. At least I have been informed by Mr. Butler, who is the present manager of the Springhill mines, that he has no objection to the men belonging to whatever organization they please. They may belong to the United Mine Workers' Association if they wish to do so, but he is not prepared to deal with them as union men. He allows them the privilege of belonging to the union if they wish to do so, but he refuses to enter into an agreement with, the union as a union. That is the posi-1 tion as Mr. Butler stated it to me only a few weeks ago.


Adam Brown Crosby: That being the case, has Mr. Butler, or Mr. Anybody Else, any right to dictate to the workingmen as to what organization they may belong to so long as the organization does not conflict with the interests of, or become a nuisance to, the employers of labour? Would they be acceptable to him if they belonged to the Provincial Workingmen's Association?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand it, Mr. Butler does not raise the .question, in taking a man into his employ, whether he belongs to the Provincial Workingmen's Association or the United Mine Workers' Association. He stated that it was a matter of indifference to him whether the men were members of a Provincial Workingman's Association or of the United Mine Workers' Association; the contract he would make with them would be a contract irrespective of the organization to which they belonged. He would allow every workingman to join whatever organization he pleased, but he did not propose to confine his own liberty in the matter of taking men into employment to taking men belonging to any particular organization, and refusing to take men who might belong to another organization.


Adam Brown Crosby: It is evident from the information I have received from the minister that the whole thing hinges on this small, miserable Question of whether a man belongs to this organization or to another organization, and that Mr. Butler, at the head of the Springhill mines will not treat with some men because they belong to a workingman's association headed by some letters instead of an organization headed by some other letters. I appeal to the Minister of Labour to exercise some influence with these men. It must be remembered that the coal mined by the Springhill company is owned by the people of the province of Neva Scotia, and is worked by that company under lease for a certain time under certain conditions. It is true that these conditions are made by our local legislature, but it must be remembered that 134
we have in the Dominion government a Department of Labour whose duty it is to deal with matters affecting the interests of labour. I was very pleased when that department was established and a spec'ai minister with full cabinet rank, placed at its head. The more you can do to improve the conditions of labour and of labouring men, the better it is for the country in which those men reside. It seems to me very petty for a company receiving a charter and a lease under which it mines this coal, to declare what is practically a lockout on the question of what labour union or organization the men shall belong to. Since the amalgamation of the Dominion Coal Company with the Springhill Company it is necessary for the men to combine together in such a way that they may be able to off set that great combination of capital. It has been said by Mr. Butler, the new manager, for whom I have a great respect, that he considers this question of whether the men do or do not belong to the United Mine Workers, a childish one. If it is childish why should this great financial combination say so and say to the men:	Go to work. Then we will have
the men at work instead of being locked out with a constant continuation of strife existing in one of the most prosperous districts of Nova Scotia. The late manager, Mr. Cowan, stated when the strike was brought on that the company was quite pleased to have it as they were not making money and were glad to have the mines closed, but that apparently was not altogether correct because the company concluded they must get the mine going and they commenced to get labour and carry on the work. I appeal to the minister to get this thing settled. I have personal knowledge that the only question in the way is this one of the men belonging to the United Mine Workers' Association, and it is a mere quibble to say that that is sufficient to justify the continuation of the strike. We have really had more trouble since the inauguration of the Labour Department than before. I am sorry to have to say that, but it is true and I do hope that the minister of Labour will make very strenuous efforts to bring about a settlement. There have been a number of boards of conciliation on this strike, but apparently it has not been possible to act on or enforce the report of any one of these boards. If that is the case, then the boards were simply a means of spending money. The men would have as much right to object to the amalgamation of the two coal companies as the coal companies have to say to what labour organization the men should belong.


Mr. McCRANEY.: Would it not be perfectly proper for the employee to say that because these two companies have amalgamated he would not work for either of them.


Adam Brown Crosby: The workingmen are not saying that. My statement is that the coal being mined by these companies belongs to the province of Nova Scotia, that under the terms of their lease they are to carry on mining under certain conditions; therefore it is more or less like a public franchise, and 1 say that the miner or workingman would have as much right to say that there should be no combination cl companies, as the companies have a right to say to these men, because you have formed yourselves into an organization for the protection of yourselves, your homes and your families, we will not treat with you as an organization, and you must disband and separate yourselves from it before we will treat with you at all. To my mind that is a miserable quibble which ho self-respecting company should use; but if the companies say that, it is up to the government of the province of Nova Scotia and the government of the Dominion of Canada to see to it that the people who are assisting these companies to make the money which pays the dividends on many millions of watered stock, shall get their rights; and the only way they can get their rights as workingmen is to be returned to their work in the mines. It is only a quibble to object to their organization being headed by the letters United Mine Workers or Provincial Workingmen's Association or any other letters, so long as the organization is open to the public. I have every hope that before many days are over the Minister of Labour will be able to tell us that the men have returned to wprk, or give us some reason why they have not, because after all the boards that have sat on this question there should be some decision by this time. If the Minister of Labour finds that it is essential for him to communicate with the government of the province of Nova Scotia on this matter, I hope that within a very short! time the influence of the two governments will result in our people being put back to work. If it does, it will be an advantage not only to the province of Nova Scotia, but to the Dominion of Canada at large.
At six o'clock. House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 105) to incorporate the All Red Steamship Company.-Mr. McKenzie.
On section 9, as amended, expropriation powers.
John Dowsley Reid: In cases of expropriation under this Act, how will values Mr. McCRANEY.
be arrived at? I suppose that the company can expropriate only private property and not government property?


George Perry Graham: The Railway Act provides the machinery. They file expropriation plans, and values are fixed by arbitration. This is a pretty wide power of expropriation given to this company.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is the first time I have seen the Bill. This seems to be merely a shipping company, and I think the expropriation powers here proposed are unusually wide-the company may expropriate docks, wharfs, piers, elevators.


George Perry Graham: Only in case they are ' required in connection with the construction of its docks, piers, wharfs and other works.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am not aware of any other similar company having been given such powers. I do not see the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) who has charge of the Bill in his place. For my part, I would rather have the consideration of the Bill deferred.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur). I do not wish to do anything to prevent the Bill going through. But my reason for calling attention to the matter was that it seemed to me these powers were very wide. I do not see any objection to the company taking necessary land by expropriation, but these powers to expropriate wharfs, piers, elevators and so on may involve hardships to others. The company might cause great trouble in Montreal, for instance. I do not know whether, even under this clause, they could expropriate the government elevator, or even the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Canadian Pacific Railway elevators. But, apparently, in the case of a private individual or company operating an elevator or other work of that kind, this company could step in and take it over under expropriation powers with the value fixed under arbitration. As the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill is not present, I would move that the committee rise and-report progress.


George Perry Graham: We might put through the other clauses, and then let the Bill stand. That would save time.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, the minister (Mr. Graham), I suppose, will take up this expropriation question with the promoter of the Bill and try to gex that clause in better shape.


George Perry Graham: This Bill came before the Private Bills Committee, not the Railway Committee. And in committee they have inserted these words relating to elevators and so on, these not being in the

original Bill. Perhaps the promoter of the Bill could give the reasons for these changes if he were here. I hardly think the Bill means what has been suggested by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid). It refers to property in connection with the construction of its docks, piers and other works. Better let that clause stand and go on with the others.
On section 11,


John Dowsley Reid: This section provides that the company may issue debentures on their land not exceeding the cost of the properties mortgaged. No money at all, therefore, might be put in by the company in so far as the stock is concerned. It seems to me that the company itself should put some money into the concern, as otherwise it might give a fictitious value to its property in order to get the full amount of capital in the issue of bonds.


Mr. NESBITT.: That is a provision often put in other ' Bills. No doubt the purchasers of debentures will inquire into their value before buying them.
Progress reported.


THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 43) respecting a patent of Conduits Companv.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 119) respecting the Ontario Northern and Timagami Railway Company. -^Mr. Proulx.
Bill (No. 120) respecting the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company -Mr Carvell.
Bill (No. 123) to incorporate La Banque du Canada.-Mr. Bickerdike.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
James Davis Taylor: When the committee rose we had under consideration the matter of the action or inaction of the Board of Conciliation in connection with the Springhill strike. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) was laying down a principle as to which, I think we ought to hear from the Minister of Labour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The subject of the Spring-hill strike was brought up me other day. when we were in committee, and has already been discussed three times.


James Davis Taylor: At Springhill, as I understand it, the matter at issue was the recognition of a union and the question raised by the hon. member for Halifax was whether or not this department had made any endeavour to secure recognition of the union by the proprietors of the mine where the trouble occurred or 1341
whether the department took the opposite
view and stood behind the mine owxiers in declining to treat with the men ; on that basis 1 think we ought to hear from the minister with regard to that point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no hesitation in stating that the recognition or non-recognition of a union is something to be entirely left to the parties themselves. The department would not be justified in asking the employers to recognize the union any mora than in asking the employees to take any particular stand against the employers who failed to recognize the union. That is a matter to be left to the parties themselves. I said once before that I did not know anything short of -a law which would make it illegal for men to strike because of the non-recognition of a union, or for employers to lock out because of men joining a union that could meet such a situation. I do not think the House would enact such a law.


James Davis Taylor: I did not suggest the enactment of the law. What I asked was merely the principle upon which the department proceeds, because if the department is really wedded to the idea that employers should not recognize unions, then its services would be of no value at all to the men in disputes such as have been referred to. If, on the other hand, the department were of the opinion that a recognition of the unions is in the interest of the workingmen, and would give friendly advice in a general way to the corporations brought before the Board of Conciliation, it might be of great service indeed to the mass of the people, and I take it that this department has been organized for the special protection of the mass of the people against more powerful influences that do not need the services of any department to protect them. I would ask the minister whether he accepts it as part of his duty to endeavour to influence corporations generally to recognize the unions, or whether he stands for the nonrecognition of unions on the part of corporations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Every case depends on the circumstances surrounding it. In some cases it might be advisable to try to persuade a corporation to recognize the union as a means of helping to settle industrial disputes ; in other cases it might not be expedient. It is not a matter upon which one can generalize.


James Davis Taylor: Then it is safe to say that as a general rule the minister does not lend his influence to secure the recognition of unions by employers. Am I correct?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that the hon. gentleman can draw that inference ; my remarks I think do not necessarily imply that.	.	'


James Davis Taylor: I think when we are voting large sums of money for the purpose of conciliation, we should know from the minister upon what principle we proceed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Everything depends on the 'Circumstances of each case.


James Davis Taylor: There is nothing to be ashamed of. There are many very worthy citizens adverse to the recognition of the unions, and on the other hand there is a large body of people who think that it is the proper principle to follow. But I think we are entitled to'some expression of opinion from the Department of Labour. The hon. gentleman ought to be an expert on this subject.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly I might make my views still clearer if I were to say that when I have actively intervened in the settlement of strikes, in some cases I have tried to get the employers to see the wisdom of recognizing the union. But everything depends on the circumstances of the case'; it is not possible to lay down a general rule.


James Davis Taylor: I have in mind a case in which the minister might set an excellent example to employers generally, that is, to use his influence on the government of which he is a member to recognize the union whenever circumstances of employment offered by that government makes it possible. This afternoon, for instance, an hon. member asked about the union label, and why it appeared upon the ' Labour Gazette.' The answer, as I understand it, was that the minister did not know how it came to appear, but he thought it appeared, there because conditions in the government Printing Bureau were satisfactory to the labour unions. It seems to me, under the circumstances, that there is another reason, and that is that the ' Gazette ' is not printed at the government Bureau at all, but is, as the minister stated before recess, sent outside to an office which is a union office, which does recognize the union, and is, therefore, entitled to use the union label which appears there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The ' Labour Gazette,' I understand, was at the outset printed in the Printing Bureau, then the Bureau became too 'crowded with work, and decided to have it printed outside. But the ' Gazette ' used the union label from the outset.


James Davis Taylor: Now that we learn from the minister that this union label was attached to the ' Labour Gazette ' when it was printed at the Printing Bureau, I might ask if it is not permissible to put the union label on all government work? If it is not permissible Mr. KING.
for instance, to put it on this volume of estimates, and upon all government work? Now, it occurs to me that if the minister would follow out his idea already stated in this House, that the government should be a model employer of labour, here is an excellent chance to set a good example, and to show to employers generally that this model employer of labour, the government, recognizes the work of the labour unions, far as I can see, in acknowledging the in the interest of workingmen generally, and that in token of that recognition, the department desires the union label to be placed upon all printing emanating from the government printing office. We have already been told that conditions there are entirely satisfactory to the union, so there can be no great difficulty involved, as far as I can see, in acknowledging the union, since the conditions have been made entirely satisfactory to them. I would ask the minister whether it would not have a great effect upon other employers, and be an encouragement to them to concede this point to their men, and if the minister will use his influence with the government of which he is a member to have the printers' union acknowledged in connection with the government printing, and put the union label on all works issued from the government Bureau. I would like to ask the minister whether he has ever taken that up with his colleagues, and whether or not he thinks the government should have the union label represented on all government printing?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I recognize that there are a good many views in the country as to the propriety of using the union label. It might be that to use the union label on the ' Labour Gazette ' would be about as far as we'can go at present, in view of the differences of opinion prevailing on that subject.


John Dowsley Reid: That is not answering the question.


James Davis Taylor: I think it is answering the question so far as the minister cares to go on record. But it is unsatisfactory to those who believe in the recognition of the unions. I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that he takes a great responsibility in the course he is pursuing, because he stands directly behind the employer who refuses to recognize the union, and therefore makes it impossible to have the conciliation which the department is organized to secure.


John Dowsley Reid: It looks to me as though the Minister of Laboui is working for the employer instead of Ihe men. That has been instanced in cases before this. In those strikes down east, as far as I can judge from the newspapers, the minister stood by the employer to the

injury of the man. The men always seemed to come out second best. The same thing applies to the Grand Trunk strike. In that case the minister wanted to show the employees of the Grand Trunk what a great thing he was doing for them, and the impression that went all through the country was that the interest of the men had been served by the minister, that they were all to be reinstated, that everything was to be lovely, and that the Grand Trunk had been brought to time. But you see from the reports afterwards that it turns out the very opposite; the men are the ones that are turned down. As I understood, the Department of Labour was formed for the protection of tire men. It was always understood that the employers could look after themselves, but it was the men that this Department of Labour was being organized for. In all these great strikes that have occurred for some years the whole difficulty, as I understood it from hon. gentlemen in this House, and from ministers when they wanted to organize this great Labour Department, was that the men had not any protection, and that if we had a Minister of Labour there would be no trouble at all because he could always force the employer to come to terms. I was certainly led to believe that, and if I had not been so led to believe it I would not have agreed to this large expenditure each year. It was only going to be $7,000 or $8,000 when it started, but I venture to say that in a year or two it will be rolled up, like that of the Department of Militia, while the Department of Agriculture will be allowed to remain as it is. The Minister of Labour cannot prove to this House one instance where he has helped the men out, the very thing that he was expected to do when he was put in that position. In every case he has gone to the employer, made a deal with him, and the men have always come out second best. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour what he considers to be the duty of the department in cases of this kind. Is the department therefor the purpose of assisting the men, working particularly in the interests of the men to prevent strikes, and get them reinstated in case of a strike, or is the department there for the sole purpose of taking the side of the employer to the detriment of the men?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think it the duty of the Department of Labour to champion the case of either side. The position of the Department of Labour is the same as that of any other department of the government, the duty being to consider the general good of the community, and to see that justice is done in every way possible as between employers and employees. I think that is all the working classes expect of any one acting on their behalf expect. They do not want coddling or protecting. All
they are asking is that the government
shall see that there is fair nlay and that is what the Department of Labour has endeavoured to secure.


John Dowsley Reid: That is what I think the Department of Labour should be for. At the same time the weak side is that of the men because the employers have capital and can stop the fight. The men have no capital and the minute a strike takes place they have no protection. They must have something to keep their families and they are the weak side. If any help is to be given, the men should get help from the department. Why I mention this is that in so far as I can see in any strikes that I have read about as being settled, the whole trouble is that the employer has got the better of the men. For instance, take the Grand Trunk strike; if you travel by the Grand Trunk to-day you will find that the men are not all put back, and the minister certainly will not deny this statement. He assured the public that every man was to be taken back, and that within three months. If there is any doubt about that I would like the minister to say so now. Was not that the understanding? He was trying to let the men understand that he had done them a great service, but the result is that the men were not taken back as he led them to believe they would be, and they are not back today. Whenever the Department of Labour, over which he presides, do take any part, they certainly should see to it that whatever arrangement they make is carried out. They did not in that ease and they did not in the case of the strikes down in Nova Scotia. In those cases they did not act properly in so far as the men were concerned. I would like the minister now to give me one case where the men were all taken back, put in their positions just as they were before, perfectly satisfied, and that the minister has done what was right in so far as they were concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like, in answering my hon. friend, to let the statements of the workingmen speak for themselves rather than that I should speak on behalf of the department. I read to the House the otheT evening the expressions of opinion given by the leaders of the Grand Trunk strike as to the service that had been rendered by the Department of Labour, and if my hon. friend would like to hear these opinions again I should be very glad to repeat them.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to hear who the leaders are.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was a communication from Mr. A. B. Garretson, president of the Brotherhood of Railway Conductors, one of the organizations involved in the strike. On the 10th August I received the following letter.


John Dowsley Reid: August when?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1910. The strike was settled on the 2nd of August.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, that is right.


Mr. KING. (Reading):: Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
August 10,1910.


Hon.   W@: Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-I take this opportunity of expressing to you on behalf of not only myself and my associate officers, but of the organization at large and the more especially the Canadian membership thereof, the profound obligation under which we lie for the services of yourself and your associate minister in connection with the settlement of the strike upon the Grand Trunk and the Central Vermont railways. The ready recognition by you of the justification for the claims of the men on those properties and the exercise of personal and governmental influence toward securing a termination of the strike on those properties will not be forgotten by our membership and I sincerely trust that those most directly affected, namely, our Canadian citizens, will, in the future, make that appreciation thoroughly apparent.
In conclusion, kindly accept my expressions of highest personal regard, and believe me, Sincerely and gratefully yours, (Signed) A. B. GARRETSON, President.


John Dowsley Reid: Did you ever hear from him again?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I have had other communications from him. Then, there have been other communications in magazines published by these organizations much of the same nature. I have here a pamphlet issued by Mr. W. G. Lee, president of the Railroad Trainmen, the other organization involved in this strike. At page 10 of this pamphlet, wljich is issued to the members of the organization, Mr. Lee states:
The ministers of the Crown and particularly the hou. W. L. Mackenzie King, Minister of Labour, and Sir Frederick Borden, Minister of Militia, were largely instrumental in bringing about a settlement of the strike. They kept in close touch with the strike, throughout its duration and made the most of every opportunity to bring the two parties together. They are due high praise for their interest in the welfare of the striking employees and of those affected hy the interruption of the company's traffic. Their efforts on behalf of the men are appreciated hy both organizations and by officers and individual n embers of the brotherhood.
There have been several other communications of a like kind, received from members of both organizations, and the men themselves, I may say, have taken strong exception to the endeavour on the part of Mr. KING.
some, to hold the government responsible for any delinquency on the part of the Grand Trunk company in carrying out in all particulars, as they understand, the terms of the agreement. The position of the parties in regard to that strike was this. The government intervened with a view of helping to terminate the strike, the strike was terminated through government intervention, by an agreement signed by each of the two parties. That agreement was brought about through the good offices Of the government. The carrying out of the terms of that agreement is a matter of contract between the parties, and if the agreement has not been carried out in the manner which some would like to have seen it, it is in no way the fault of the government, but rather a delinquency on the part of one of the parties in carrying out the obligation which they have signed. That is the view taken by the men themselves.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I shall not speak at length as this matter will come before the House in another form, but I desire to make two or three further statements to complement what the minister has stated. Without in the slightest, contradicting the minister's statement that he received some communication of a eulogistic nature about the 10th of August. He was not so good however, as to read some later communication from the same gentlemen or from equally high leaders of the workmen, that if something was not done and done speedily, they would put the men back in the same position as before the 10th of August, and the men claim they were betrayed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. King).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I challenge the hon. gentleman to point out where any workingman has charged that he was betrayed by the Minister of Labour.


William Barton Northrup: I am talking of leaders of the strike.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I challenge him to produce any communication to that effect.


William Barton Northrup: I shall be very happy at the stage to which I have referred to bring down the letters. If the minister looks through his correspondence, he will find a letter from one of these leaders, written months after the 10th of August, in which that leader finding fault with the way in which the agreement was carried out, says they would put the men back where they weTe before the 10th of August. I will undertake to produce such a letter. The minister spoke of the desire of the government to see justice done. That is what the men complain, that the government were so anxious to sit by and see justice done, that they did nothing to compel it to be done. The minister says that there

was an agreement between the men and the Grand Trunk by which the strike was settled. Is that statement the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ? Does he -not know that when the agreement was made, the men objected to having such indefinite words in it, as that they would be taken back ' as soon as possible '; they refused -to accept the agreement with these indefinite terms, because the expression might mean the day of judgment. The men left the conference, -and subsequently the minister of labour notified the men tha/t the Grand Trunk company had given as an interpretation of the words ' as soon as possible,' at the outside, 90 days. On the strength of that notification that agreement read that they would be put back within 90 days and the strike was called off. I would ask the minister if, fr-om the day he notified -the men that they would be put back in 90 days, he did a single thing to see that that agreement was carried out ? He read a letter to the House in w'hich Mr. Hays repudiated the agreement, and said there was no undertaking to put the men back in 90 days, that the Grand Trunk must be the sole judges of who were proper men to be in their employ. The Grand Trunk wilfully violated the agreement. These men appealed to the Minister of Labour and if ever there was a time when a powerful minister, with a desire to do justice to labour, had the opportunity to do so, that was the time. Surely all the minister had to do with the Grand Trunk, which is so intertwined with the affairs of this country, was to say: I was a party to that agreement, Sir Frederick Borden and I were present when the agreement was made, the men were not there at all, but you made a promise, and I, acting in good faith von your promise, had the strike called off; now we insist on the Grand Trunk standing by the agreement. If the minister for once had ventured to address the corporation, which many people consider the master of the government, in those terms, there is not the slightest doubt in the world that the unfortunate men, who, evidently wrongfully, since many of them have since been reinstated, were deprived of their positions, would have been put back within 90 days. Therefore, the minister can hardly claim th-at he was acting impartially between the two parties to that agreement. The agreement was wilfully violated by the president of the Grand Trunk, it was not a case of conflict of evidence; the minister has the agreement and the letter, both signed by Charles M. Hays, as diametrically contradictory as any two statements could be. It would not have been hard for the minister to say to Mr. Hays:	You may say one thing at one
time, and another at another time to some people, but so far -as this government is
concerned, when you make a bargain with us, you have to keep it. Instead of that; the minister did not say a single word for the men, but he wrote to them, saying that he was no party to the agreement, only a witness thereto, and the best advice he could give them was, that Mr. Hays had the power in his hand, and perhaps the best thing they could do, was to -accept the situation as it was. Surely in the fact of that, the minister can hardly claim that he did all he could to do justice to the labouring men.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not desire to go into a discussion of the Grand Trunk strike. The contract was signed between the parties. It is quite true, as my hon. friend has said, the Grand Trunk Company stated that by ' as soon as possible ' would be meant not more than 90 days. That was not put in writing at the time, as one of the parties to the contract did not wish to have anything stated on that point one way or the other, and the other party, by way of compromise, gave it as their view that they would be satisfied if an assurance were given in a form which could be vouched for, and on that consideration they would not insist on it going into the contract. The assurance was given that by ' as soon as possible ' was meant 90 days. That part has never been disputed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, as I understand. If it had been I would have stated here that that was the assurance and I have always stood prepared to say that it was. The difficulty that has arisen, as I understand, is over the interpretation which the company has put upon the words ' found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct.' The company claim that the men who have not been taken back have been guilty of disorderly conduct. If some men have not been reinstated who should have been, the responsibility is on the company for the manner in which they have interpreted that part of the contract. Personally, I think the company has taken a very narrow view of its obligations under this contract, and I have not hesitated to say so very frankly to the company. As the hon. gentleman knows, Judge Barron is at the present time inquiring into the cases of the men who were not taken back. He is doing that at the instance of the Grand Trunk as a result of the pressure brought to bear on the company by the government for that purpose, and if any of these men have been reinstated since who were not taken back at the end of the ninety days, it is the result of that pressure. The government has all along insisted that the company should interpret this clause in as generous a way as it is possible to do.


William Barton Northrup: The minister has just stated in as many words that in as much


as Judge Barron is adjudicating on these cases under the pay of the Grand Trunk company, so far as that is concerned, he sits, not as a judge of any Canadian court, but as a Grand Trunk employee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think Judge Barron's own letter in reply to the request of the Grand Trunk Company to investigate these cases is, perhaps, the best answer that can be given to my bon. friend. Judge Barron said that he w'ould not accept the position unless he were allowed an absolutely free hand to decide the cases on their merits, and I am told by the leaders of some of the men who appeared before Judge Barron that they feel perfectly satisfied with the manner in which he is conducting the investigation, and will have full confidence in the justice of his findings. If I understand my hon. friend rightly, he is endeavouring to hold the government responsible for the non-reinstatement of some of these employees.


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly. The government acted for them, and did not get them back.


Mr KING.: I would point out to my hon. friend that these men do not take the position of my hon. friend with regard to the carrying out oi this obligation, but take the only position which any one looking at the matter with absolute impartiality will take, namely, that if there has been any failure in carrying out the terms of the contract, the party who is responsible for that failure is the delinquent. I have a letter from Mr. Murdock, vicepresident of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, addressed to myself, and inclosing a copy of an answer which was sent to my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). I am sorry he is not in his seat at the moment, because I rather hesitate to read a communication which introduces his name in his absence. But the letter sent to me is a formal letter, and after receiving it I took care to inquire whether it was a public communication, and was informed that it was, and, as it answers my hon. friend, I will venture to read it to the committee. The hon. member for South Simcoe asked me in the House the other day some questions which I answered categorically. It appears that my hon. friend had communicated with both the representative of the trainmen and the representative of the conductors, submitting the same questions to them, and asking for their views in reply. When he did so these gentlemen communicated with me, as they have done all through, informing me of their action and of the communications which they have received. The . letter to * me is as follows:


William Barton Northrup: 
John Dowsley Reid: I do not think the minister has proved that he has succeeded yet in making any settlement which has been in the interests of the men. Of course, Mr. Murdock knows well that it would never do to quarrel with the Minister of Labour, because he is the only one who could help the men out, and for that reason the men called him in. The Minister went down and made that settlement on behalf of the men, and the minister knows that if he had not given his word, and if the men had not felt that they had the government at their back, they never would have had agreed to that settlement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What then would have happened?


John Dowsley Reid: The men would have stayed out a week or two longer and the Grand Trunk railway would have had to come to time. There can be no question about that. The people along the line would not stand it. My hon. friend knows that if he had not got a settlement made, there were important men on his own side of the House who could have brought such a pressure on him that he would have been forced to make a settlement. The whole country was in an uproar over this strike, and the Grand Trunk railway would

have been forced to settle it within a week or two, in any event, and so they got the Minister of Labour to come to their rescue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. gentleman cannot show that from the correspondence.


John Dowsley Reid: I have read what was in the newspapers at the time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid my hon. friend has been reading the wrong papers. If he will take the facts as they are, he will see that a telegram was sent to me at Ottawa by Mr. Murdock asking me to go to Montreal to intervene. In that telegram it was distinctly stated that Mr. Garretson and Mr. Lee had been endeavouring to get an interview with Mr. Hays but found it impossible, and they asked me to come down and do my best to obtain a settlement. In this connection I would like to correct what I said the other evening. I then said that Mr. Murdock and Mr. Berry had tried to get a conference with Mr. Hays before Mr. Garretson and Mr. Lee had a conference with him. In that I was wrong. Mr. Murdock and Mr. Berry had not had any conference with Mr. Hays. The parties were apart, the difficulty was to get them together, and Messrs. Garretson and Lee came to this country to obtain an interview with Mr. Hays and see if they could not terminate the difficulty. It was when they found they could not succeed in doing this that the Canadian leaders sent a telegram to Ottawa asking me to intervene. It was, therefore, only at the request of the men that I went to Montreal, because I had no communication with the company whatever. In fact my chief difficulty was to get the company to allow me to intervene; and were it not for the assistance of my hon. colleague the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) it might have been impossible for me to get even that opportunity.


John Dowsley Reid: That was probably at the first, but not later, because later on the Grand Trunk railway wanted the strike settled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The company never wanted it settled. So far as the Grand Trunk railway were concerned, it was impossible for me to understand their position. I believe they' were prepared to keep up the strike for a month, even if thereby they should ruin the whole concern. That was the difficulty in bringing about a settlement. The Grand Trunk railway wished to effectively defeat the men and their organization if it were at all possible to do it.


John Dowsley Reid: No doubt that was the case until the president of the Grand Trunk railway started for Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: 


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The president of the Grand Trunk railway?


John Dowsley Reid: I mean the chairman of the Grand Trunk railway in England. The strike was settled about two days before he landed in New York.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Throughout the whole trouble the difficulty was to get the Grand Trunk railway to settle at all, and it was only after the greatest possible pressure that the company was brought to consent to a settlement in the end. I have no hesitation in saying that Mr. Hays, had he not been forced to feel that he owed some obligation to the country, would have kept up that, strike until he had succeeded in worsting both organizations, even if he destroyed the property of the company in so doing.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that such was the case until within a week or so before the strike was settled. But the position of the company then compelled it to settle. With its securities going down in England, it could not have allowed that strike to continue much longer. Supposing we take it for granted that the minister went down on behalf of the men, the men trusted him, theyf placed their case absolutely in his hands, and they felt they had the government at their bach when the minister made that settlement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And they were perfectly satisfied.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, because they expected that the settlement which the minister had made would be carried out, but they were afterwards sadly disappointed. The minister knows that the company is not carrying it out. At the end of the 90 days, very few men were taken back, and those who were taken back were not reinstated in their former positions, and are not in those positions to-day. They are on the road but not in such good positions. What I cannot understand is tbis. The Minister of Labour knows that the labouring men look to him in his official position to see to their interests. It was in their interests mainly that the labour department was established. Great corporations, of course, have occasionally difficulties with their men and the men look to the Department of Labour to help them in these difficulties. The minister settled this strike, and the men relied on the company living up to the terms of the settlement. In this they have been disappointed and there is now no possible way of their grievances being removed and their difficulties straightened out because once they have gone back you can hardly expect them to strike again. The result is a great deal of suffering to-day among a number of the Grand Trunk railway employees due to

the fact that the Minister of Labour did not see that the agreement was carried out to the letter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And how much suffering does the hon. gentleman think there would have been if the strike had not been settled ?


John Dowsley Reid: There would not have been another week's trouble, and the men would all have been taken back.
Mr. {1ESBITT. Who says so ?


John Dowsley Reid: I say so. And the hon. member (Mr. Nesbitt) himself knows that it would have been settled in another week.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: 
John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member has a right to his opinion. But from the information that I got along the line, I believe the Grand Trunk would have settled the strike in a very short time But the question I asked the minister at the start, was whether he could name an instance of a strike being settled by him in a way satisfactory to the men and the employers. He mentioned this Grand Trunk case, and I think that the discussion shows that that settlement was not satisfactory. If this is the only case he can name, I cannot see much use for the department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have here the issue of September 10, last of the official monthly publication of the. Brotherhod of Railroad Trainmen. It gives a statement of this case from the point of view of the men themselves. At page 797,- the following appears:
The company, however, was able to secure enough _ strike breakers to enable it to run 148 freight trains within the twenty-four hours ending at 6 p.m., August 2, handling an average of twenty-two cars per train" While this avei-age of trains run was far below normal conditions, a start had been made in the freight service, and it was only a question of time when the entire service would be resumed.
There is the statement as to the freight situation. This publication goes on:
Passenger service on the main line was but slightly impaired at any time during the strike, while the branch passenger line service was demoralized for about a week.
I think that statement is absolutely correct-that it was only a question of time. But, in my opinion, it would have been a
long time. Meantime, the country would have suffered irreparable loss and injury,
to say nothing of the possible loss of life and the loss of property to individuals, and certainly whatever the outcome the men would have fared pretty badly.


Mr REID (Grenville).: Who wrote that article ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is called ' The Railroad Trainman,' and it is published monthly at Cleveland, Ohio, by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. T. L. Cease is given as editor and manager. This is the official publication of the Brotherhood interested in this strike. The men who were most concerned and who had first-hand knowledge of the facts, recognized the service rendered in terminating that strike, and getting a contract which secured the reinstatement of the men, with the exception of the few who are still out. I think the number involved was about 4,500, while the number still out, are in the vicinity, I understand, of 200. What was secured was an agreement that they should go back into the company's employment, and it may be that even those who are still out will be returned to the service. I hope they will. Their representative states, under date February 20:
The agreement made when the strike was called off was, under ihe circumstances, equitable and amply sufficient to conserve the rights and interests of all concerned, public, employer and employee.
If there has been any difficulty since, the parties who are responsible, and who are being held responsible by the men, are the Grand Trunk officials, who have not played, perhaps, as generous a part as I think the country would, on the whole, have expected them to play. I am free to say that if I had been manager of the Grand Trunk I would have acted in a very different manner from the way in which the Grand Trunk has acted. But one must concede that, every man has a right to manage his own business as he thinks best, and must be responsible for the outcome.


William Barton Northrup: The difference between my hon. friend (Mr. Reid, Grenville) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), seems to narrow down to a. small point. This letter from Mr. Murdock proves, what everybody knew, that the settlement made between the men and the Grand Trunk, as a settlement, was satisfactory. The representatives of the men had done their duty, and we assume that Mr. Hays had done his duty, acting for the Grand Trunk,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And has the government done its duty ?


William Barton Northrup: I was just coming to-that. The government intervened at that

time to give a definition of three or four words, and the strike was called off solely by virtue of the definition of the words given by the government. The whole difficulty since has arisen over the interpretation-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) is mistaken. The government's part in the work was really getting these parties to meet. That was the great difficulty. Mr. Hays took the position-that there should be no dealing between them, and the men had tried to get an interview and could not. It took a good deal of persuasion to bring about an interview in the_ first instance. And when the interview did take place, it took a good deal more persuasion to prevent the parties flying off at a tangent and making matters practically worse than before. For three or four days, it took as strenuous work, I believe, as any two men could perform, and as much patience as a man could possess, to keep these two parties together and hold them together, despite the feeling between .them, until a contract was drawn up which each was prepared to sign. That was the service of the government, and it was rendered, according to statements of the company and the men alike, in such a way as to bring about a contract which was' absolutely equitable and fair.


William Barton Northrup: The hon. gentleman (Mr. King) does not wish the House to understand that the government dictated the terms of the settlement. The settlement, I take it, was come to between the men and the Grand Trunk, however they were brought together.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
William Barton Northrup: That agreement was made between the men and the Grand Trunk, however they were brought together, and that agreement has caused no difficulty since, with the exception of the unfortunate words which were entrusted to the care of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Militia and Defence.* Over those words the whole difficulty has arisen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. There has been absolutely no difficulty over those words-the words he refers to, I suppose, are ' as soon as possible.' The words ' as soon as possible ' have in themselves no definite meaning whatever. The men wished to have ' immediately ' put in; the company wished to have the words ' as soon as possible ' left, leaving the meaning indefinite. The Minister of Militia and myself said to the company: Put some meaning on these words; you have no right to say you mean ' as soon as possible ' unless you are prepared to give some definite time. Do you mean to take those men back within a stated time, or not to put them back at all? If you mean a stated time, name the time. We had great difficulty in getting them to name a time, and finally ninety days was agreed upon. Then the question came up. Should the ninety days go into the contract? The company did not wish ninety days to be put in writing, because at the time they did not wish it to appear to the public that they had settled this strike and agreed to take every man back at the end of ninety days. Now if they had taken every man back, this agreement about the ninety days would never have been formally disclosed. It was understood by all parties that nothing should be said about that, provided they lived up to it. The company does not deny that, they admit they promised to take these men. hack within ninety days, they say now they have taken them back, and the point of difference is, not the ninety days, but it is one of the terms of the contract which says * Except those who have been guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct.' These words were not the words of the Minister of Militia and myself, they were the words agreed upon between the parties themselves, and it is over these words that they are differing to-day. The company says these 200 men have been guilty of disorderly conduct, the men say they have not, and it is over these words that the difficulty has taken place. So my hon. friend is wrong when he says it is over the words ' as soon as possible ' that all the trouble has arisen.


William Barton Northrup: I would just ask the minister to take the trouble to read the cor-

respondence, and he will find there, over Mr. Hayes' signature, the statement that the reason they have not taken the men back was because the Grand Trunk Company must be the judge of the competency and fitness of the men, and they have a right to discharge their men on the Grand Trunk system regardless of whether they had already been there before. It shows a new factor introduced by Mr. Hayes, which was not in the agreement, and which new factor is the cause of all the trouble and dissatisfaction which have since arisen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is a new factor introduced by Mr. Hayes which all the trouble is about, then it could not be anything which the Minister of Militia and myself are responsible for.


Adam Brown Crosby: I understand by what was said by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) that Judge Barron was in the -pay of the Grand Trunk Company. I would like to know if that is a fact?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Judge Barron has been appointed by the Grand Trunk Company to investigate the cases of all the men who have not been reinstated, or not been taken back.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is he in the pay of the Grand Trunk Company? '


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not presume he is acting for nothing, I presume the Grand Trunk are paying for his services.


Adam Brown Crosby: Does not the minister know whether he is being paid or not by the Grand Trunk?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say what the consideration is. All I know is that Judge Barron sent me a communication himself stating that he h,ad been asked by the Grand Trunk Railway Company to investigate the cases of these men. In the first instance, I suggested, when this difficulty arose as to the non re-instatement of certain men on the ground that they had been guilty of acts of violence, that the matter should be referred to some third party, and I suggested Judge Barron's name, as he had been engaged on similar difficulties before. He had acted as chairman of the board which prevented a strike of the street railway men in Toronto, and I knew him to be acceptable to the employees, and being a judge, I thought he was the right kind of a man to act, I suggested that he would be a good person. The company would not accept him from the outset, and as I have indicated tc my hon. friend, the government intimated to the company pretty firmly that the cases of these men ought to be looked into, that they ought to take a generous view, or what the public would
regard as a fair view. Then the company asked Judge Barron to investigate. I have here a letter which was written on December 23, by J. G. O'Donogahue to Judge Barron, which has reference to the view the men take of his appointment:
I had a talk with Messrs. Murdock and Berry this morning and as a result I take the responsibility of saying to you to go ahead with the suggestions of yesterday.
That had reference to the judge investigating without solicitors for either side; he preferred to investigate the matter himself.
Their view is that as they were ready to accept you as a government nominee they will have just as much confidence in you in the other capacity.
I am told that the men have absolute confidence in Judge Barron's ability and integrity and in the justice of his decision, whatever it may be.


James William Maddin: My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Crosby), before the committee rose at six o'clock, was discussing with the Minister of Labour the question of the recognition of the unions in the province of Nova Scotia growing out of the difficulties in the coal mining districts for the last year or two. I would ask him if it is a fact that out of the nineteen hundred odd unions that were in existence in Canada in 1909, over ninety per cent of these were international unions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can hardly say offhand whether there are ninety per cent, but I would say that certainly a preponderating majority were international unions?


James William Maddin: I think I remember the minister saying that out of 1,900 odd there were 1,900 international unions, which would be really over ninety per cent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might point out that the membership in these unions varies considerably. One union might have a hundred members, and ten other unions together would have no more than a hundred members. Therefore, the mere number of the unions would not signify much.


James William Maddin: I am informed it is a fact that about 1,900 of the nearly 2,000 unions in the Dominion of Canada are international unions. Now, I would ask the minister if it is not a fact that the question of the recognition of the United Mine Workers' of America was involved on three different occasions when boards of conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act were constituted in the province of Nova Scotia, and that each of these boards was constituted by an appointee of the men who are compelled to appoint a representative when they make their application, and that the other two appointees on each of these three occasions, were appointees of

the governments. The first one of these investigations which took place was after the application was received by the Department of Labour on the 4th March, 1909, and the constitution of the board was made up of his Honour W. B. Wallace, county court judge of Halifax county, chairman, appointed by the minister in the absence of any joint recommendation of the other members of the board, and Mr. G. S. Campbell, Halifax, Nova Scotia, appointed by the minister in the absepce of a recommendation by the employing company. In that case two members of the board were appointed by the minister. The question of the recognition of a uniop is largely an economic question, and it seems to me that the minister in selecting two representatives to.form the personnel of this board might very well have selected some one familiar with economics, some professor of economics in one of our universities. Professor Shortt, who served on 28 or 29 boards of conciliation, would have made an ideal chairman of one of these boards. I discovered in 1907 that Professor Shortt is a strong advocate of international unions, a firm believer in trade combines and that he believes that a healthy restriction on trade combines is international union. It might be that other economists in this country share the views of that distinguished gentleman. However, on the occasion of which I speak, the chairman of the board was the Hon. Mr. Justice Wallace, county court judge of Halifax. I do not know anything about his capacity to sit in judgment on a question of economics, but, as a member of his profession, and in his capacity as a judge,
I am sure that he has the confidence of all people who come in contact with him. But, to sit in judgment in an inquiry as to whether or not a trade union should be recognized I do not recognize his Honour Mr. Justice Wallace as a competent authority. A great deal of prejudice was exercised against international unionism in the province of Nova Scotia at that time. Evidently members of these boards forgot or took no cognizance of the fact that the principal industries of that province are developed by international capital. We have one coal mine in the province of Nova Scotia controlled by a company whose whole directorate, almost to a man, are American citizens, whose head office is in Boston and whose annual meetings are held there. I have reference to the Acadia Coal Company. The investment of American capital in the coal mining industries of our country means American boards of directors and means, as in this particular case to which I have reference, American mine managers, American overmen, American underground managers, American superintendents, or in other words, American bosses. The other appointee of the Mr. MADDIN.
government on the first board of conciliation which was held on these matters between the Dominion Coal Company and their employees was Mr. G. S. Campbell, of Halifax. Mr. Campbell is an employer of labour, a square, upright citizen in every respect as I know him to be, but still an employer of labour and you would naturally have expected that the Industrial Disputes Act, which says that any one having an interest in the case shall not sit on the board, would have guided the minister in judging whether or not an employer of labour would be an unbiased member of a board of conciliation, and would have led him to the conclusion that, being an employer of labour, he was unfitted to discharge his duties impartially. That is one case where the government appointed two members of the board. That was the first case that came up. The next one was the dispute between the employees of the Nova Scotia Steel & Coal Company and the United Mine Workers' of America. In both those instances the United Mine Workers' had named as their nominee the president of their organization. Now, I quite admit that Mr. Campbell as an employer of labour was in as good a position to render a fair and equitable judgment as the president of the organization was on the board, and I condemn his appointment to sit on the board in the same manner that I would condemn the appointment of Mr. Campbell. But I am dealing now with the appointees of the government. Mr. Campbell was appointed in the Dominion Coal Company's matter, and at Sydney Mines the personnel of the board was made up of these gentlemen :	His
Honour Judge Chipman, Kentville, N.S , chairman, appointed by the minister ; His Honour Judge A. McGillivray, Antigonish, N.S., appointed by the Minister and Mr. McDougall again representing the employees. His Honour * Mr. Justice Chipman is, in so., far as I know, just such a gentleman as the chairman of the board that sat in the dispute on the 4th March in which the Dominion Coal Company and its employers were concerned. As to. his previous record with regard to organized labour I have no information, but the minister could have found the record of His Honour Mr. Justice McGillivray with regard to organized labour, and I think il he had made himself acquainted with that gentleman's past record in connection with labour unions, if he had known the active part that Mr. Justice McGillivray had taken in the legislature of Nova Scotia against organized labour in any shape or form, he might well have hesitated before he would have asked him to sit in judgment as a representative of the employer to determine a question between the employer and the employee with regard to the recognition of the labour union. In

1878 the Provincial Workmen's Association in Nova Beotia sought incorporation under the laws of the province. His Honour Mr. Justice McGillivray was a member of the government of Nova 'Scotia at that day, and he it was who led the attack against the organization. The government refused to pass an Act incorporating the Provincial Workmen's Association. In 1882 the Grand Council of the Provincial Workmen's Association sought incorporation in Nova Scotia again and when the Attorney General Mr. C. J. Town-shend introduced the measure Mr. McGillivray said that :
Mr. McGillivray thought it was a very peculiar Bill and one that required some consideration before being passed, and that it would be imprudent to deal with it until first its real object had been ascertained. There was nothing to show what the purpose of the association sought to be incorporated was, except that it was to promote the moral, material, social, and physical well-being of its members and to manage their pecuniary aftairs. Now under so indefinite a purpose much harm might be concealed. The House had nothing to do with associations of the kind proposed, and it would not be wise to make a precedent. He, therefore, would move that the Bill be read this day three months.
On the second occasion on which the Provincial Workmen's Association made an effort to get their association incorporated in Nova Scotia, Mr. Justice McGillivray, then a member of the opposition, moved the three months' hoist of the Bill and he urged that further particulars should be brought to the attention of the House, and that the constitution of this organization and its by-laws should be submitted to the House.
On a later day the Attorney General brought the Bill up again.
Hon. Mr. Townshend said in reference to !he Bill to incorporate the Provincial Workmen's Association which had excited considerable discussion in committee on Friday last, in accordance with the wish expressed by the House at that time he had communicated with the secretary of that association and obtained from him several copies of the constitution and by-laws and also a statement of the object of the association.
The secretary of the association at that time was the Hon. Robert Drummond, now editor and publisher of the ' Maritime Mining Record ' in Nova Scotia, and one of the leading authorities on coal mining in that province.
In his reply the secretary said: I send you a number of constitutions of our society. I think you will find them as good a code of laws as in any society. The objects of the society are therein defined as being to strive by every legitimate means to improve the condition material, social and moral-of our members. Our association has done much good and is stimulating the workingmen who
come under its influence to better their con-diton; to first of all respect themselves, as the surest way of gaining the respect of others. We seek to get the best remuneration possible for our labour, but we inculcate that high wages are nothing without an exercise of prudence and economy. We are, if you will, a trades union on an improved principle and allowed by law. See chap. 165, Rev. Stat. sec. 2, (appendix).
This was read by the Attorney General, and then the Bill finally came up for discussion before the House, and Mr. McGillivray, from his place in the House, said:
Mr. McGillivray suggested that as there were several hon. gentlemen absent when this bill was discussed on a previous day it would be better to let it lie over and take up some other Bills.
It is to be observed that Mr. McGillivray did everything he could to delay the passage of the Bill, or even its discussion. However, the matter came up for discussion, and then he said:
Mr. McGillivray did not oppose the Bill for any other purpose than that of getting the fullest understanding of what it contemplated.
The purpose for which this society sought to be incorporated were not very clearly set ferth. The first object stated was that of n an aging the pecuniary affairs of the society. These were words of very extensive meaning, and very dangerous powers might be gnen by the use of these general and indefinite terms. The Bill proposed to incorporate the grand council and all the subordinate lodges. Some of those lodges were not in this province but in New Brunswick and the House was asked to pass upon by-laws of aa institution not only belonging to this province but New Brunswick as well. One of the objects of the association, as explained in the constitution, was to shorten the hours of labour and to strive to obtain legislation by which the more efficient management of the mines might be effected, and to enforce the legislation already existing. Now it was well known that the labourers in this country were not overworked. Their hours particularly in the coal mines were not long and they were well paid except when the times we re hard and all concerned were obliged to suffer and the wages were reduced in proportion. Then with respect to the management of the mines there was already an Act on. the statute-book during the passing of which representatives of this association were heard and every amendment that they asked for had been substantially incorporated in the Act. Why then incorporate this society and give it a legal status when the constitution of the society was so vague' and would perhaps give them power to pass by-laws by which the trade of the country would be t ampered. Trades' unions were dangerous things. In other countries where the miners were subjected to oppression there might be some call for them, but there was no such oppression exercised in this country and the miners were fully protected by the law. These unions had promoted strikes which were very injurious not only to the employer-:

but in a greater measure still to the men themselves. In 1870 there was a strike in the United States of a serious character.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, under the new rules hon. gentlemen must talk to the question. I am sure that the strike the hon. gentleman is reading about in the United States has nothing to do with this question.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: If a point of order is raised, the item before the chair is
Conciliation and labour, including publication, printing, binding and distribution of the ' Labour Gazette,' and allowances to correspondents.
The first three words, ' conciliation and labour,' are so very broad in themselves that I hardly feel I can rule out any article that refers to such subjects.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: So long as he confines himself to this country it is all right, but he is reading about a strike in the United States that has nothing to do with this country.


James William Maddin: I think the hon. member must have been asleep and just woke up in the middle of my extract.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was not asleep.


James William Maddin: 

are the organizations of capital within the ranks of capitalists, and this is a good thing for employers as well as employees. Many of the best trades unions of this country discipline their men and thereby relieve their employers from a distasteful responsibility and harsh measures. Our labour unions to-day recognize that the man who shirks his work, the man who watches the clock, the man who arrives late at his machine or his work, is a drag on the union, and they either compel him to mend his ways or send him about his business. If a man trespasses on the rights of his employer and it comes to the knowledge of the union, the union takes that matter up and deals with him and thereby removes from the employer a disagreeable task. That is the condition which exists in the largest and strongest international unions, and I submit it would be better for capital in the province of Nova Scotia if some good substantial union, [DOT] be it international between Novg, Scotia and the United States or national in the sense that it would be affiliated with a union in Great Britain, existed in that province, because then capitalists would be able to deal with some good, strong substantial union which appreciated its responsibility, as a member of a powerful association, and would undertake to discipline its own men and thus bring about greater harmony than has heretofore existed in that turbulent industry-the coal industry of Nova Scotia. I am not making these observations, nor did I make those which I did two weeks ago in discussing this matter, for the purpose of harassing or delaying the passage of the minister's estimates. I have every sympathy with him in his administration of this new department which has embarked on legislation which is really of an experimental character; but he must realize that there are many imperfections in the Industrial Disputes Act, and in the Alien Labour Act that ought to be removed. I have no doubt that had my hon. friend read that article from the ' Trainman's Magazine ' a little further, he might have found that the main reason for the ability of the Grand Trunk railway to man their trains lay in the fact that they were able to hustle men across the line in spite of the Alien labour Act. No doubt the hon. minister has had complaints of the flagrant manner in which the Alien Labour Law has been violated even in the city of Ottawa; and so long as an employer can look upon this law simply as a joke, and bring in men from across the line whenever he likes, he need be under no apprehension on account of any labour union be it weak or strong. I have every sympathy with the minister in his undertaking this new portfolio, and instead of harassing him or annoying him in any way I would rather assist him in bringing to per-Mr. MADDIN.
fection some of these measures which are in the experimental stage. I ask him in all seriousness whether he does not think that some legislation should be enacted which would relieve the situation we have in Nova Scotia-a situation which enables an employer to say to his men:	I will
speak to you as individuals, as John Smith or Tom Brown, but not as members of this or the other union. If that condition be allowed to continue, there is no excuse for the existence of our Department of Labour. What I urge on the minister is that he should make it clear to employers of labour that they will be obliged to recognize a union regardless of where its affiliations or ties may bej and if he would do this, the difficulties under which the department labours would be substantially removed. For in that case he would have to deal with but two factors-the union and the company. But where there is no union he has to deal with individuals whose numbers may run up into the thousands as well as with the company. It is a physical impossibility to carry out the objects of the department unless there be a union. A couple of weeks ago I asked the hon. minister if he believed in trades unions and he said he, did. Then he must concede that the working man has the right to choose his own union and that the employer should not be permitted to say to him: You may join union A, but you must not join union B, for if you do I will either dismiss you or not hire you. If the hon. minister would seriously consider the framing of such legislation and also devise some means of enforcing the Alien Labour Law, and of constituting tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act, I think he would make a very long step in advance, and would remove the cause of quite a number of breaches in the relations between labour and capital in this country.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).: I do not propose to follow my hon. friend throughout his meanderings or to discuss the labour question or trades unions or anything of that kind, but I rise simply to take objection to certain observations he made regarding Mr. Justice McGillivray. I happen to know Judge McGillivray, who was on the conciliation board referred to by my hon. friend, and I want to say that the remarks of the hon. gentleman, with regard to him are altogether uncalled for, and absolutely unjustified. To those who know Mr. Justice McGillivray these remarks would certainly sound very strange. The hon. gentleman has eulogized the United Mine Workers, but one must not forget that he has been the paid solicitor of that organization. He has had a brief from it within very recent time and for aught I know may still hold a retainer in its behalf. But great as may be the admiration

of my hon._ friend for the United Mine Workers, it is not regarded in Nova Scotia with at all that amount of respect. What I rose particularly for, however, was not to discuss this union, but to take objection to the remarks which my hon. friend made regarding Judge McGillivray. He intimated that Judge McGillivray was biased and partisan. Well, the hon. gentleman himself, if I remember rightly, served on a conciliation board; and I am sure no one will say, notwithstanding his advocacy of the United Mine Workers that when he sat on that board he did not exercise strict impartiality and discharge his duties without any prejudice. And I am quite sure that any one who knows Judge McGillivray and my hon. friend will have no hesitation whatever in saying that as great impartiality, justice and fairness should be expected from Judge McGillivray as from the hon. gentleman, and in saying this I am sure that I am casting no reflection on the latter but rather paying'him a compliment.
So far as the ability, integrity, impartiality and honesty of Judge McGillivray are concerned, words of mine are not needed. My hon. friend (Mr. Maddin) has, quoted some remarks made by Mr. McGillivray twenty-seven years ago, as he said, in opposition to a Bill intended for the amelioration of the condition of workingmen. The words as quoted must have struck hon. members as being such words as one would expect from a careful, impartial, truthful, judicial man like Judge McGillivray. He advised to go slow; he wanted to hear all sides. If I were disposed to offer advice, I would say that it would be well for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maddin) to follow the lines pursued by Mr. McGillivray when he was in the legislature of Nova Scotia. But, admitting that Judge_ McGillivray was hostile to labour unions twenty-seven years ago, great changes may have since come over his mind. I can remember when the political views of the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) were entirely different from what they are to-day. That does not detract from his merits or involve any reflection upon them. Surely, even if Judge McGillivray did entertain views against labour organizations or unions-and there is no evidence that he did, mark you-the hon. gentleman might have been generous enough to believe that, in the course of twenty-seven years, his mind might have been changed and be disposed to see labour organizations in their proper light. But, when you consider the fact that Judge McGillivray was on the bench when he was on this arbitration, removed altogether from the turmoil of party warfare and freed from pred juice, and considering the fact also that he was sworn 135}
to discharge his duty impartially, to do what was right between man and man, I am sure the hon. member will agree with me, on reflection, that he spoke a little hastily when he insinuated that Judge McGillivray could not be depended upon to do justice between employer and employee. If I were interested, whether as employer or employee I would not have any hesitation in appealing to Judge McGillivray as an arbitrator who would give fair play and justice, in preference even to the hon. member for South Cape Breton, for whom I have the highest regard.


James William Maddin: It seems to me that the hon. member for Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm) was unduly exercised about His Honour Mr. Justice McGillivray. I would utter a fervent ' amen ' to all the eulogies the hon. member cast upon the distinguished jurist. I merely pointed out that Mr. Justice McGillivray was an appointee of this government, one of six, but, notwithstanding that ninety per cent of the unions of this country were international unions, he and the other five recommended against the recognition of international unions. I pointed out that his past record in connection with unions was such as might cloud and w arp his judgment. Those were the terms I used. And I added that, doubtless, if such were the case, he was unconsciously biased. As a member of the legal profession, surely the hon. gentleman (Mr. Chisholm) can understand a man possessing all the virtues that he attaches to Justice McGillivray could be unconsciously biased. The law takes cognizance of unconscious bias, and for that reason, forbids a father to try his son, a son to sit in judgment on his father, and others within certain grades of relationship to try their own kin. So far as Mr. Campbell and Mr. Archibald are concerned, I think they are, to say the least, the equal of Mr. Justice McGillivray in all the virtues assigned to him by the hon. member, and my observations with regard to these gentlemen were to show that their association, their training, the views they had expressed from time to time-views that there was no evidence to show had ever been changed-were such as to, perhaps, cloud and w^arp their judgment and thus render them unable to deal equitablv with a case of this kind. I imputed absolutely nothing dishonourable to any of the gentlemen whose names I have mentioned; I simply pointed out that, in preference to these men, there might have been selected some student of economics, some professor from one of our numerous universities, a man trained in economic questions of this kind.
The hon. member for Antigonish suggests that I eulogized the United Mine Worker's of America. He is absolutely mis-

taken there. I have not uttered a syllable In this House at any time since I became a member, eulogistic or derogatory of the JJnited Mine Workers' of America^ or any other labour organization of this Dominion.
.1 have said, and I say it again, that when it is conceded to men that they have the fight to belong to a labour organization, they should be permitted to belong to the .organization of their choice, whether it be in affiliation with organizations of another nation, or wholly contained within our own province and country. In order to relieve the hon. member's mind of the idea that perhaps I might be receiving a retainer-I ,do not know what the custom is on the other side-I can assure the hon. member .that I have received no retainer to promote the interests of any labour organization in this House. During the summer of 1909, or, to be accurate, from 19th of July .to the 19th of November, I was solicitor under contract to the United Mine Workers' .of America and acted as their solicitor, afterwards being specially retained in some cases in my own county. That is my whole connection with them, and I have had nothing to do with them, or any other labour organization, either in a professional or any other manner, from that time up to .the present. I have not even had correspondence with them, except that their officers have sent me petitions to be presented asking for the repeal of the Industrial Investigations Act. I am surprised that the hon. member for Antigonish should have suspected that the character of his distinguished friend in Antigonish was so easily susceptible to attack. I am sure that he will read ' Hansard ' in vain for' language of mine that will bear any construction reflecting upon the honour, dignity, or character of the Hon. Justice Mc-Gillivray, for whom I entertain as high a regard in his judicial capacity as the hon. member for Antigonish.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to take up time more than is necessary, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maddin) has mentioned as the employees have, but the government, and if I understood the force of his remarks, he would have the country believe that, in some way, due discretion had not been exercised by the government in the choice. I would like to point out to my hon. friend the circumstances under which the choice was made in each instance. In the first place, the companies have the opportunity to name a member of the board, as the employees have, but the government's opportunity to make the appointment does not come until the company has either refused to name a man or has nominated some one whom it is impassible to appoint. This afternoon, in the House, the hon. gentleman asked me if I had observed the petition from the miners of Mr. MADDIN.
Port Morien with regard to the member of the board named by the company.
I mentioned to him that I had refused to appoint the nominee of the company because I had understood he had direct interest or was a shareholder in the concern affected. I then named a member because they refused to name any other member of the board. I named the mayor of Sydney Mines, believing him to be a person who would act fairly on behalf of the company. My hon. friend will say he is a government appointee. But it was not due to any desire on the part of the government that the appointment was made, but because one of the parties failed to name a representative that could be accepted. In selecting a man where either of the parties refuse to name one, my hon. friend will see that our only desire can be to select an impartial man who would be as far as possible acceptable to the interest concerned. If it is the men who have refused to nominate, then some one acceptable to the men should be appointed. I think in some cases the men did refuse to nominate, and in those cases I nominated a man who, I thought would be acceptable to them, and at the same time would give confidence to the community in general. As to the appointment of the chairman, the remaining member of the board, the two parties selected have in the first instance an opportunity to agree upon the chairman; the government has nothing to say in the matter unless they fail to agree, and then we have to appoint the chairman. The idea always is to get some person who, there is reason to believe, will act with strict regard to the justice of the situation. In the province of Nova Scotia I was aware of the fact that the struggle was largely a union struggle, that there was hardly an employer in the mining district of the province who had not taken sides one way or the other, and there was hardly a representative of labour whose views on the question involved were not already known. Therefore, in choosing a chairman, I sought to find some impartial person, and made selections from members of the judiciary, believing they would have no personal ends to serve. I share my hon. friend's admiration for Professor Shortt, and would have appointed him on one or two of these boards if he had been available. But he had already been appointed as chairman of the Civil Service Commission, and for that reason he was not selected. As to the question of legislation compelling recognition of the unions, if the hon. gentleman has any legislation which he would like the government to consider and will submit it, it will be considered. But I would point out that in the province of Nova Scotia at the present time one of the features to be con-

sidered is the fact that you have two unions that are seeking recognition, and that is the main difficulty in Nova Scotia at the present time. There are the United Mine Workers' Association asking the employers to recognize them, and the Provincial Worker's Association asking the employers to recognize them. There you have two labour organizations, each seeking to be recognized by one employer.


James William Maddin: That is not so in Spring-hill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, but it is in the other two cases. Any law enacted would have to be applicable to all cases, and I cannot think of any law that I could recommend to this House which would meet a situation of that kind, and compel an employer to recognize one union as against another union which is also asking for recognition.


James William Maddin: What objection could there be to legislation which would compel an employer to recognize any union to which his men belonged? Supposing there were ten unions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It depends upon what the hon. gentleman means by recognition. There are different degrees of recognition, one might involve a contract with the union, and one might not involve a contract. If what my hon. friend means is allowing an employee the right to belong to any organization -which he chooses, I think that is a liberty which every man should have. On the same ground I hold the view that an employer should be free to say whom he shall employ, that is a matter of individual liberty. If you concede to the one the right to belong to any organization he chooses, you cannot take away from the other the right to employ whoever he pleases.


Adam Brown Crosby: What would the minister say where there are two organizations? In the county of Cape Breton a large majority of the men, four-fifths of the men, I believe, belong to the United Mine Workers' Association. Why should they not be recognized as well as the other fifth? Is it not reasonable that the great majority of the working men who belong to the United Mine Workers' Association should be recognized by the employer?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The membership may be divided, as my hon. friend has indicated. But a couple of years ago I think the large majority belonged to the Provincial Workingmen's Association. The position may have changed since then, and it may change again. I don't see that it is going to be possible on the ground of mere numbers to lay down a general rule that is going to be applicable to all cases. I take the same view with regard to membership in labour organizations that I take with
regard to membership in any other organizaation. A man has a right to belong to the Conservative party, a man has a right to belong to the Presbyterian church, and he has the same right to belong to a trades union. But I do not think we can force an employer to employ only Presbyterians, or Conservatives, or trade unionists.


Adam Brown Crosby: But does not the minister think that minorities have a right to be recognized as well as majorities? The Conservatives are a minority in this House, but does he not think they should be recognized?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have regard for minorities as well as for majorities. The other evening, in the course of the debate, my hon. friend mentioned that when Mr. Acland', the deputy minister, visited Sydney in September, 1909, to inquire into the conditions of the coal-fields there, Mr. Acland did not go to call upon him, and in fact that he only saw him as he was about to leave South Sydney for North Sydney. Mr. Acland was not here at the time and, of course, I could not reply. But, I may say, in justice to any officer of the government who is not in a position to put his own case before the House when a statement has been made against him, that it is only proper that I should state the circumstance myself. I know that my hon. friend would be the first who would wish that this should be done. Mr. Acland has given me a memorandum on the point and 1 will just read his own statement as I asked him to make it:
I spent from Wednesday, September 1, to Monday, September 6, in Sydney and vicinity. This period included one Sunday and one holiday (Labour Day). I called at Mr. Mad-din's law office in Sydney on two occasions and left an official card. The dates of these calls were Friday, September 3, and Saturday, September 4. On each occasion I was told that Mr. Maddin was at court. My investigations compelled me to be principally out of Sydney or I should doubtless have called more often. I did not learn until later that the court that Mr. Maddin had been attending was at Glace Bay. On Monday, September 6, the courts and offices being closed (it being Labour Day), I hoped to find Mr. Mad-din at his house, and called there at 9.30 a.m., but Mr. Maddin having no telephone at his house I was unable to make an engagement. I was again unsuccessful, Mr. Maddin having left for a picnic at Port Morien; I again left my card with the message that if Mr. Maddin would telephone me at the Sydney hotel I would come out to see him at such time as he named. Mr. Maddin kindly came in the evening to the Sydney hotel, instead of making an engagement, and spent an hour in my room discussing thei situation. Mr. Maddin falls into a slight error in stating that. I was anxious to leave to go to North Sydney to see the representative of the north riding. I had, when I met

Mr. Maddin, only just returned from North Sydney and I had reserved the evening in the hope of meeting Mr. Maddin. My memory and my notes on the subject are clear. I think I understand how Mr. Maddin's error occurred. Nine months later, in June, 1910, I was again in Sydney and vicinity for the purpose of making some inquiries into matters relating particularly to North Sydney. On this occasion I met Mr. Maddin by accident just as I was about ti catch the hoot to North Sydney and I was pleased again to have the opportunity of diseas ing matters with him. I do not remember mentioning the name [DOT] of the member for north riding or stating that it was my intention to s'e him, but it was naturally my intention to speak with him on the subject of my, investigation, should I chance to find him.
I think my hon.. friend will desire that this statement should go on record because it is an explanation which I feel sure that he will be the first to accept.


James William Maddin: I have not the slightest objection to its going on record. I could not prevent it from going on record when it is read in the House even if I wished to. The deputy minister says that when he called at my office on Friday and Saturday and left his official card there he got the reply that I was at court but did not know until Monday that I had been attending the court at Glace Bay. He knew I was solicitor for the men and he would naturally infer that I was at Glace Bay. As a matter of fact, I live fully a mile by the car-track from my office in the direction of Glace Bay, and I had my mail brought to my house every morning. A note would have found me, and a card left at my office; would not. I was not going to my office during that time. On the Monday evening, after coming in from the picnic, I went down to see the deputy minister and my recollection is, as I expressed it here two weeks ago to-night, that he said he was going over to see Mr. McKenzie. I have my diary on the matter, not in Ottawa but at home, and I have a memo of the date upon which I met him, and of what took place between us. I had no desire to place Mr. Acland in a false light or misrepresent him. But, it was a very simple matter to have found out from the officers of the United Mine Workers', whom I presume he would see on the Friday or _ Saturday if he went down there to inquire as between the contending parties, exactly where I was because I left every morning at eight o'clock, sometimes at seven, went out to Glace Bay and returned in the evening, sometimes 'at six o'clock and sometimes not till later. I submit that the mere leaving of a card at my office, even although it bore the name and designation of the deputy minister, was not what I would call a very sincere effort to come in contact with me. My stenographer could have told him what court I was engaged Mr. KING.
in, and at what point. He shouid have been able to infer that my duties were in Glace Bay and not Sydney, knowing that I was the solicitor of the men. However, it may be that he did not know that. If he did not know that I was the solicitor of the men then I submit that his conduct in that regard is not open to the same criticism. nowever, I am very glad that he has this explanation to make, and I only, regret that he has not some further explanation to make with regard to where he got his information that the strike was a political one, and had its origin in my runqing against John Moffatt for grand secretary, which took place seven years before the strike.
Combines Investigation Act, $'.0 000


Mr. BEST.: Would the minister tell us if he has had any investigation of combines, and if so, what has been the result?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Up to the present time there have been no investigations of combines under this Act. One application is pending before Judge Cannon of the Superior Court of Quebec on behalf of certain parties who have asked for an investigation into an alleged combine known as the United Shoe Machinery Company. I understand that Judge Cannon will give his finding tomorrow as to whether or not he shall order an investigation in that case. There have been a good many inquiries received by the department for copies of this Act and for the forms which have been drafted under it. I think that the purpose of the Act has been served in part owing to the simple fact of its being on the statute-book because parties know it is there, and they have been more guarded in their actions.
Post Office Department, salaries, $561,080.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: There is an increase of $12,320, composed of statutory increases, as follows: 16 of $100 each, 224 of $50 each, 3 of $30 each, and one of $2.


Mr. LAKE.: When does the annual postal guide come out?


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the hon. gentleman will send me his requisition I will be glad to send him any number that he requires.
Contingencies, $64,800.


James Davis Taylor: Could the minister give any information with respect to the newspaper item about a new issue of stamps?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We intend to issue a new issue of stamps before the coronation, with the head of His Majesty King George V. We are in correspondence with the High Commissioner, Lord Strathcona, and I expect within a few weeks to have a copy of that stamp to lay before the House.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I wish to ask a few questions with regard to the salaries of inspectors and railway mail clerks.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose . my hon. friend has in mind the proposed increase in salary to the mail clerks. That will come later on. I received a delegation of railway mail clerks the other day, and am to give the railway mail clerks the increase to which they are entitled.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: About what would the increase be?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not think I would be justified in saying in advance what the increase will be. The deputy minister and I have made up our minds, but the matter has to go before Council. The House will not be disappointed in the measure. I personally intend to give them a substantial increase.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does it cover all the railway mail clerks?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Mr. BEATTIE.: I hope the minister will be liberal in this. I find some first-class railway mail clerks drawing no higher salaries than some messengers in Ottawa.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are two classes of railway mail clerks. We have some who have not passed the examinations required by the Post Office Act, and, of course, they must pass that examination before being entitled to the railway mileage. It is difficult with the increase of mail matter and of the railway mail service to ask from any applicant that he should pass his examination. Generally they are employed for a probationary period, and then after they have passed their examination they are entitled to their mileage. The mileage differs according to the service to which they are attached. For instance, a railway mail clerk having a service between Ottawa and Montreal would receive less than one who runs between Ottawa and Toronto, or London. Wo generally give the longest runs to the older mail clerks as they get the larger mileage. Of course, there is a grade to which they are entitled according to the length of service they have had in the department.


John Best: I wish to ask about the salaries of rural postmasters.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I had the pleasure of increasing their salaries two or three years ago. My hon. friend knows that some years ago the rural postmasters received only a pittance, $12 a year was the minimum. Of course, there is always a minimum and a salary, according to the revenue of each office. Sir William Muloclc increased that salary from $12 to $25, and I increased it
lo $35. I have had representations for a further increase, and it is under consideration. I cannot say at present if their request will be favourably received, but it is under consideration.


John Best: While I have no fault to find with the salaries of any servants here in the House, and I think some of them are not receiving enough, there is no employee in any department of the government as badly paid as rural postmasters. You have a daily mail for 300 days in the year, and they get $35. The government of a country like Canada should not ask any one to keep open house for 300 days in the year for $35, or possibly with a iarger revenue, $60. They should get fair play with the rest of the employers of the Dominion of Canada. I think they have been imposed on in the past, and if they do not take the amount offered in many cases the post office is taken away. In my county our post office was closed up for a day, and it was almost impossible to get any one to take it. We offered $35 and $145 for carrying a daily mail 9 miles, or 50 cents a trip.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course, my hon. friend is aware that the mail contracts are all made under contract and by tender, and I am bound by the Post Office Act to give them to the lowest tenderer. Under $200 I am, of course, at liberty to increase the amount, according to the increase of mail matter and to the cost of living. In the last two or three years I have taken it on myself, after investigation by the inspectors, to sometimes increase the mail contracts. But when it is beyond $200 I must call for tenders. As regards the pay of rural postmasters, when I say that the matter is under serious consideration by the department at present, it is no vain word, for it is being seriously considered.


John Best: The case I mention was not really a contract. We asked for a daily mail service, and we were refused unless we got the mail carried for $145. We succeeded in getting a man to keep the post office for $35, and carry the mail for $145. But we think it is hardly fair to ask any man to carry the mail nine miles and make 300 trips a year for $145. I hope the minister can see his way clear to give the postmasters in the rural parts of the Dominion a substantial increase in their allowances.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask my hon. friend to give me in writing the facts he has stated, and I will certainly take a favourable view of the matter.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understand that in regard to all the items passed to-night, the Postmaster General will allow them to be discussed at a future time, when his estimates come up again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I told my hon. friend this afternoon that when postal matters come before the House, it is understood that any question may be brought up concerning post office matters, and I shall be only too pleased to answer them.


Mr. RUSSELL.: There is an item here of $50 for inspecting letter carriers' boots. How are the contracts let for the manufacture of these boots? Are they all made at one place for the whole Dominion, or at different places ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are made at different places. We have contractors in all the large cities.


Joseph Russell: What is the name of the contractor in Toronto ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not remember at present.


Joseph Russell: The reason I have brought this matter up is, that I know a very good man in Toronto, who has well-equipped establishment for making these boots and who would be veTy pleased to have the contract, and would give good satisfaction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Tell him to send his application to the department.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What has the minister to say with regard to doing something for the family of R. C. Curren, a railway mail clerk in the Owen Sound district, I believe, who was killed while on service Y


Rodolphe Lemieux: The case is under the consideration of the department. Of course, the family of a railway mail clerk has always a recourse against the railway company. The department is not necessarily responsible in the case oi an accident. Each case is considered by the department, and if it is thought that a compassionate allowance should be given, it is provided for in the estimates and voted by parliament. But we cannot lay it down as a general policy that in every case there will be a compassionate allowance. In any case, there is no recourse in law against the department. It is only a matter of equity, and in such a case, the House may be satisfied that I will do my duty.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: When Sir William Mulock was Postmaster General, in 1903, on the 29th of June, he made this statement in the House: I
I have been for a long time contemplating some provision by which the government should decree by statute the payment of a bonus, or a compassionate allowance to the family of a railway mail clerk losing his life in the service, or to himself in case of accident. I am not aware that parliament has ever paid a compassionate allowance to the family of a railway mail clerk who has lost Mr. ARMSTRONG.
his life in the service, until the present government invited parliament to do so, when parliament unanimously agreed to the proposition. It has been our policy ever since coming into power to give a compassionate allowance of $2,000, a fixed sum, to the dependents of a railway mail clerk who has lost his life in the service. But we have not deemed it wise to put that policy into the Act of parliament.
He continued to emphasize that position found a case such as I understand that of the late Mr. Curran, he would grant that amount of money without hesitation. I would also call to the attention of 'the hon. minister another case. Of course he is well aware of the death of the late Mr. Todd, of London district, who lost his life between Goderich and Buffalo. I hope the minister will deal with that case within reasonable time, and in the same spirit as that in .which Sir William Mulock said he dealt with similar cases.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no objection to following the policy laid down by Sir William Mulock, but of course my hon. friend will understand that when, as in the case of Mr. Curran, his widow, as I am informed, received from the railway company or the insurance company some $3,000 or $4,000 or $5,000, the urgency is not so great. Each case is examined and dealt with on its own merits.


Thomas Beattie: In the case of Mr. Tye who lost his life between Goderich and Buffalo, I do not see how you could make the railway responsible unless it was held liable for the accident. If not held liable by the coroner's jury, damages could not be recovered from it. There should be some provision to meet a case of that kind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The department will presently take that matter up. We always take a humane view of these cases.


Thomas Beattie: I hope the hon. minister will also take into consideration the mail clerks in the post office. In the city of London, their work has been doubled. There the mails are transferred north and south and east and west, and the work of the clerks is very heavy. These clerks have not had the increases to which they are entitled, and have been given those in Ottawa. I might remind the minister that if prices have advanced in Ottawa they have also advanced in London. These men have to dress their families and live respectably, and some of them have very low salaries, not larger than those of messengers in the departments at Ottawa.


James William Maddin: I would like to ask if it is the intention of the government to bring in this session a superannuation Act for the benefit of the civil service, such as mail clerks, letter carriers, railway mail clerks and the outside service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is a question of policy for the government to determine, and on which I could not pronounce at this moment. Superannuation was abolished some years ago, and I have not heard of its being revived, although, I may say, that had I been in the government at that time I might not have supported any such policy. But we are seriously considering the advisability of giving the railway mail clerks and all such employees, a relief, and before the session is through, I hope I shall be able to satisfy my hon. .friend. My hon. friend has been very insistent on this point. He has frequently asked that the department should do a little better for the railway mail clerks, and I must congratulate him on the pertinacity on their behalf.


Mr. MAUD  IN@: Is there any provision in the estimates for an increase?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It would be later on. On account of the Post Office Act I would have to introduce it by resolution.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou).: As the hon. minister is contemplating some, ameiid-ments to the Post Office Act, I would like to call his attention to the situation of men who entered the railway mail service before they were 30 years of age. Under the law, unless they pass an examination before reaching that age, they cannot be permanently employed. I have a couple of cases in my mind of considerable hardship. It is rather unfortunate that men perfectly eligible to enter the service and who did enter it at an age somewhat less than thirty, and who for some reason were prevented from passing the examination until they had passed that age, are now not allowed to pass it and cannot be put on the permanent list. It seems to me that there ought to be an amendment to the law which would enable employees who have passed that age, but who are able to pass the- examination, to be allowed to do so and be made permanent. I would ask the hon. minister if he intends submitting any amendment to that effect.


Adam Brown Crosby: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman, but I would add that there are some men in the service, perfectly competent, who, perhaps, will never be able to pass the examination. A man may pass the examination and yet not be competent for the position of railway mail clerk, because that position demands certain qualities of nerve and physique which every one does not possess. A man might not be able to pass a technical examination and yet be a very competent mail clerk and a very competent man on the train. I know of one case where a most excellent mail clerk tried on two or three different occasions to pass. I do not know whether he succeeded in passing in his last attempt,
but I do know that he is a very competent man, and I think there should be some provision for keeping such men in the service, but when taking on new men it might be well to have them undergo an examination.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This question of examination for the railway mail clerks has many difficulties, not only in the east, but especially in the west. It is difficult to get proper men to act as railway mail clerks wdio can pass this examination. This is so much the case that nearly 25 per cent of our railway mail employees are engaged as labourers. Until recently I could not pay these more than $1.50 per day, and yet they are, as a rule, very excellent railway mail clerks.	They could
not, however, pass an examination, and consequently they had .to be employed as labourers. Lately, however, I brought the matter up before the Council, and Council decided that after six months, if these men gave satisfaction I might pay them $2 per day. My view is that wm should make those examinations more pertinent to the work rather than covering the field of knowledge that is at present required.


Joseph Russell: Does not the minister think that the examination that has to be passed by the clerks in post offices, is a proper one for the railway mail clerks to pass? Does not he think that a railway mail clerk should be as well qualified as a postal clerk ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The clerk in a city post office has to do a certain class of work and that alone. But the railway mail clerk is, as has been said, ' a postmaster on wheels.' He has to command all the different branches of knowledge required of the postmaster of a large post office. Therefore, he must be better equipped mentally than the man who is merely given a certain piece of work to do during the day. Besides, more regard should be had for the railway mail clerk, who, as stated by my hon. friend a moment ago, has to travel, with all that that implies of nervous strain and danger to health and absence from home, thah to one who serves in the city post office from about eight in the morning to about four or five in the afternoon. I take all that into consideration, and I intend to see that justice is rendered to whomsoever justice is due.


Joseph Russell: I am glad to hear the minister say that, for I think he is on the right track to do something for the railway mail clerks. I have heard it said that the railway mail clerk was only a stamper and sorter, but have always believed with regard to them, 'what the minister has just stated.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is it the intention of the minister to place the railway mail service under the Civil Service Commission ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I hope it is not the intention of the minister to do anything of the kind.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister is surely capable of answering the question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) may think I am purporting to answer the question, but that is not the case. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman wishes to place these officers under the Civil Service Commission or-not, but I do not think it should be done. The hon. member for East Toronto, has told us why. The case of the railway mail clerks 13 a special one, and ought to be dealt with specially. I do not think the law, as it stands to-day, permits of due recognition of the special conditions under which the railway mail clerks serve. If they were put under the hard and fast rules of the Civil Service Commission, it would be still more difficult to recognize their special conditions. I venture to interrupt my hon. friend to say that I hope that the minister entertains no such view.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It is quite out of the ordinary to see a member butt in and answer for the minister.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not pretend to answer; the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong), knows that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The Postmaster General is capable of answering without assistance. I think the question is a fair one, and one that I am justified in asking.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There was a time-to use the language quoted by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), the other day, in my green -and salad days- when I did hope that we could put all the outside service under the Civil Service Act. That was my view two years ago, and even last year. But the more I go into the post office work, and the more I come in contact with the outside service, and the more I see of the working of the new Civil Service Act, the more I am convinced that the railway mail clerks especially, could not be brought under the Civil Service Act. It is too exacting a law. I may tell the House very candidly that it is difficult for the department at Ottawa, even with the university men, who pass very brilliant examinations, before Messrs. Shortt and Laro-chelle, to get the practical men we want. Of course, after a while, the university men, the young students, become quite able to perform the work. But in the case of a service like the railway mail service, it would be impossible to get the work done Mr. RUSSELL.
if _we had to apply to the Civil Service Commission at Ottawa, -and employ men only as they -could send them to us. As to the railway mail service, you have no idea, Mr. Chairman, of the difficulty we have, especially in the west, to get the proper men. The young men will not take the office of railway mail clerk. They object to it, and ask for pay which w'e cannot -afford to give and to which they are not entitled. The railway development of the country is so great, and the service is increasing so rapidly and its extension is so large that it would be impossible for us to depend upon -a supply -of railway mail clerks through the Civil Service Commission. I had the idea a year or two ago that it could be done, but I must recant and say that the railway mail service, in my judgment, m-ust always remain an outside service. As regards the large city post offices like Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, Toronto, Winnipeg, the supply of officers needed during the rush seasons, is also a difficult matter. 1 am studying that point. My views are shared by the highest officers of my department. But, in my judgment, we should try to bring these officers under the Civil Service Commission, I hope to be able to do it some day, but it is a question to be carefully studied, before deciding the point.


James Davis Taylor: The minister said something a short time ago about the labourers in the city post offices. Does not he -think it beneath his dignity to employ a lot of clerks and call them labourers for the sole purpose of evading the provisions of the Act ? Does he not think it would be better to amend the Act in such a way as to allow him -to employ these people under their proper title as clerks ? The matter is referred to in the Auditor General's Report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Joseph Russell: Would they not come under the head of porters ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some do; for instance, those who carry on the exchange of mails at Toronto, Montreal and other large places. There are porters-regularly empoyees. But others who have some qualifications, but are not ready to take the examination, are needed in the rush seasons in the large post offices. They are appointed as labourers. I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor, New Westminster) that those who want to

come in are not ashamed to come in under the title of ' labourers ' provided they get a suitable salary.


James Davis Taylor: 1 think it was beneath the dignity of a minister of the Crown to employ a lot of persons in an occupation where he was not authorized by law to appoint them, and to beat the devil around the bush by calling them labourers. That was the dignity I referred to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the hon. gentleman reads the correspondence exchanged between the Auditor General and my department, he will find that we had not recourse to that class of men in order to carry out the work of the department, otherwise it could not be carried out. At the Christmas season and at Easter, in all the large cities, we had to take a certain number of men on temporarily and pay them as labourers. I explained that to the Auditor General. It has been the custom for many years.


Mr. BURRELL.: -The minister suggested that there was a good deal of difficulty in getting the right class of labour for the various branches of his department. 1 did not understand whether it was owing to the defective education supplied by our universities that he was getting an inferior class of men, or whether it was that the men were not sufficiently paid. 1 believe throughout my hon. friend's department the men are not paid in proportion to their responsibility. It is my opinion that of all the departments in the government the last one that can be justified in showing a surplus is the Rost Office Department. It is a matter of such tremendous utility and importance to the whole people of the country, that too much attention cannot be paid to the officers who administer it. He said he had difficulty in getting adequate and capable men in the west for railway clerks and other branches of his department. The further west he goes the higher wages he will have to pay all round, and unless you pay adequate remuneration you are not likely to get the class of men that you need. The Postmaster General cannot afford to be niggardly in that respect. I have in my hand a request that meets with a good deal of sympathy from me, it is a memorial signed, I believe, by some 6,000 postmasters. Here are the requests they make:
1.	An increase in salary to meet the sharp advance in the cost of living.
2.	An increase in the rent allowance, and the placing of it on the straight percentage basis.
3.	Necessary supplies, such as twine, ink, pens, pencils, &c., to be furnished by the department.
Now, these are all reasonable requests, especially the last one.
4.	The postmasters to be given greater protection in the purchase of good equipment for offices.
5.	That offices be classified, and a system of promotion (optional for a time) be established, with a view to promoting greater efficiency and permanency.
I think the postmasters deserve our sympathy in that request. There is no doubt that greater efficiency and permanency would be promoted by placing the postmasters on a civil service basis. The day has come for the government to take a step forward in that direction.
6.	Better newspaper labelling, with a view to greater despatch and accuracy.
7.	Full recognition of the association by the government, that postmasters may establish a system of post relief and make suggestions from time to time.
8.	That a copy of the Postmaster General's report be sent to each accounting office.
I am sure the Postmaster General will see the reasonableness of a request like that. I am getting requests continually from postmasters for a copy of the Postmaster General's Report, and I have no doubt the postmasters would read it with more interest than the members of this House read it.
9.	That where safes are advisable, they be furnished by the department.
10.	Throwing the civil service insurance open to postmasters.
11.	A more adequate night service.
At this hour of the night I do not propose to discuss the merits of each one of these claims, but I feel sure they will all appeal to the Postmaster General's sense of justice. They all seem entirely reasonable. He must remember that upon this class of men great responsibilities are thrown, they are men from whom every one of us requires the very full performance of small duties as well as great. 1 think a generous recognition should be given to this class of the public service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This petition has already been forwarded to me by the Postmaster's Association, and by several members of the House. It is under consideration by the department.


Martin Burrell: Favourable?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would not say favourable consideration for each particular item, but it is being considered very seriously by the department. We have always taken their part in the past, at least I take credit for doing so. If they have had an increase in their salary they owe it to me. I am glad my hon. friend has made these remarks as an adjunct to the petition presented by the Postmasters' Association.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to endorse what my hon. friend

has said in favour of that petition. I would also take this occasion of asking the minister whether there is anything in this item for a post office at Central Park, as to which we had some conversation last year. It is near New Westminster.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not got the papers before me. Is the condition the same as it was last year?


James Davis Taylor: I heard that the minister's deputy had visited the locality this year and had given the people some encouragement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my deputy has given the Central Park people some encouragement, my hon. friend may rest assured that the post office will be established, because he generally goes one better than the Postmaster General. He has been there to see what the requirements are. I think he found great improvement in that particular section of British Columbia ; he found a new Vancouver, a new New Westminster and a new Victoria. He was much surprised to see the increased population and business in those cities. He spent a month there at the request of the Prime Minister, who took my place during my absence.


James Davis Taylor: If the minister will refer to his deputy he will find that the representations I made last year as to Central park were fully borne out. The minister will remember that the office was closed, and another office bearing the same name was established about a mile away. We had a long conversation about it last year, and the minister promised to give it attention.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will have a report upon it.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to point out to the minister that while the boundaries of Vancouver city have very recently been extended so as to come very close to where the post office at Central park was, that would not be an adequate reason for not reopening that office because, following on the extension of the Vancouver boundaries that far, there has been opened up another district which will add as much on the east of that old Central Park post office as will be taken off in the west for inclusion in the Vancouver service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there a street railway service there?


James Davis Taylor: There is the Interurban tram which passes through Central park from Vancouver to New Westminster. But the district is settling very fast, and although half of the persons who petitioned the department have now been included in Vancouver and will Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster!.
get the city service there will, in a few months, be some other places contiguous to Central Park who will require post office facilities. I would be glad if the minister would inquire into the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will have to take the case up with my deputy.


Mr. HERRON.: I have had some correspondence along the same line as that read by my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) and I would heartily agree in the recommendation made by the hon. member that the postmasters in the outside service should be more adequately paid. I think that some more liberal allowance should be made for rent for post offices in smaller towns. I do not know whether an allowance is made or whether the department pays the rent, but I know that in many towns very inferior buildings are used for post office purposes, and that they are not adequate to the proportions and importance of the towns in which they are situated. In many cases very much better post offices could be provided for a very small additional sum. [DOT]


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like to ask the minister if in all cases every clerk in the outside service is treated equally and equitably with regard to statutory allowances' and things of that kind. I have in mind now, although I have no list with me that we have in the post office in St. John men who have been there a great many years, and I think, are entitled _ to iarger salaries than they are getting. These men are not getting as much as others who have come in and .who occupy what may be called _ inferior positions, certainly junior positions. It is not encouraging to young men to enter the service if they can see inequalities in the treatment of clerks ahead of them which may possibly be due to changes in government but which ought not to occur under any circumstances. The minister was complaining just now of the difficulty of getting suitable men to occupy-positions in the postal service. I "think that probably is one of the reasons why he is not as successful as he ought to be. The men, when they go into the government service, go in with the expectation of being treated equitably. Every one expects to be put on the same footing, and to be treated with the same amount of consideration. If the minister expects, as I have no doubt he wishes, to have a contented and satisfactory service, all the officials in his department ought to be able to feel that they would be treated with the same consideration no matter by whom appointed according to their length of service, and things of that kind. Governments change and even the government of which my hon. friend is such an orna-I ment may some day cross to the_ other side of the House. He would not like to feel

that all those gentlemen whom he appointed might suffer on that account, and I think that every official ought to be equitably treated no matter by whom appointed. 1 think the minister will agree that what 1 am saying is reasonable, and I hope that he will see to it that no injustice may continue to be done as I think injustice is now being done in St. John.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) will draw my attention to any such injustice I will certainly do my best to remedy it, but I may inform my hon. friend that as far as I and the head officers of my department are concerned there is no prejudice whatever concerning matters of this kind. Men come into the department after passing the examination required by the Post Office Act, they enter in a certain * class and then they go up automatically every year provided that the inspector, the' postmaster and the general superintendent agree that the officer has been a faithful' employee. It is not to my knowledge that in the many post offices we have in the country any injustice has been done for really it is a shame to deprive a man of his increase merely for political considerations. My hon. friend knows that I am myself a son of a civil servant and I know how in days gone by we were sometimes sad on account of the poor salary that my father received he being the head of a very large family. He never complained himself, he was treated fairly by the ministers of his department although he was known to be a good Grit himself. I want to see the same fairness shown towards all the emifloyees to-day as the ministers of old extended to my own father. It is not to my knowledge that any man has been deprived of his increase on account of his political proclivities. I can assure my hon. friend that if any case arises where in his judgment, or in the judgment of an employee, an injustice has been done he has only to report the case to me, and I will see that it is dealt with in fairness and equity.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The first time I am down home I will look up this matter and bring it to the notice of the minister.


Joseph Russell: Does the minister know of a Bill considered in the Senate last year dealing with superannuation, and is there any likelihood it will reach the House this session?	,


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think it was considered by the Senate as an academic proposition. Of course that question would have to be decided by the government. Many wise people think we should return to the superannuation system.


Adam Brown Crosby: I was glad to hear the minister is increasing the salaries of postal
clerks and railway mail clerks. So many new post offices are being erected by the Public Works Department that the Postmaster General will be relieved of many rental charges and I anticipated that this increase would be made. I would suggest that no clerk in the postal service living in the city should get less than $1,000 a year. The salary of $400 which used to be the minimum was quite insufficient. I believe there is no man in the country who ought to be protected by parliament to the same extent as the civil servant if lie faithfully discharges his duty. I wish to mention the case of a lady in Halifax who was in the service some years ago and then left the service and owing to circumstances over which she had no control returned to it. In the meantime she was deprived of the advantage that would come to her of superannuation, Representations have been made and I hope the case will be favourably considered.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will take up the case.


Adam Brown Crosby: We have some cases in Halifax, such as have been referred to by the hon. member for St. John, of men who complain of being in the department many years but who have been caught up to by younger men.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The deputy informs me he has instructed Mr. Ross to prepare a list of the men who have been long in the service in order to review their salaries.


Adam Brown Crosby: We have also many cases of poorly paid rural postmasters in my district, one Mr. Wesley Crooks, who has been in the postal service for 46 years, who has a daily mail which must have increased gieatly in that time, and is now getting what he commenced with. $30 a year and nothing for rent. I trust the Postmaster General will be particularly kind to that gentleman. It is so long since he entered the service that I forget the politics of the government in power at that time. I know this man very well, and I think he has been postmaster for some 46 years, which would indicate that he is pretty well up in years. His name is Crooks, and the name of the place is Peggy's Cove. He is a very active and capable man, and I think is entitled to some reasonable increase.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will look into the matter.


Richard Stuart Lake: I wish to ask that a small post office in the province of Saskatchewan called Lajord should be made an accounting post office. It has considerable revenue and it would be a great convenience to the town and district.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will make a note of it, and if it is possible it will be done.


Mr. FRASER.: Does the same schedule of salaries for postmasters prevail in the east as in the west?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a special allowance to the west.


Austin Levi Fraser: Some post offices in the east have been closed, while in the west new post offices are being opened. Some have been closed in my own riding, though they have been open for over 40 years. One has been closed at New Harmony, the reason given being that the revenue was very small. But there are as many people in the settlement as there were when the office was opened. The reason the revenue is so small is that it has only a tri-weekly service, while the next post office, 3 or 4i miles distant, has a daily service, and the people go there for their mail, leaving the other office almost forsaken.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will take a note of it.


Austin Levi Fraser: Another matter. There is a string of nine post offices near Souris, in almost a continuous chain. One carrier carries the mail to all of them, but three or four have a daily mail service, while - the others have only a tri-weekly service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am having a report on that very matter at present from the deputy, and as soon as I get it I will send a copy of it to my hon. friend.


Mr. WALLACE.: Has the Postmaster General done anything with regard to a free mail delivery in North Toronto?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am going to Toronto on Monday, and that is one of the matters which I am to discuss with Mr. Ross.


Thomas George Wallace: What about the post office at Mimico Beach, -which I asked for last year?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will get the papers.


Clarence Jameson: I observe by the Postmaster General's Report this year that he is claiming a surplus of $743,210.25 on the year's business. I do not suppose that any person except the Postmaster General entertains the idea that the Post Office Department should be a money-making department, and therefore, in view of the very substantial surplus which the Postmaster General has, I do not think I need be at all diffident in pressing this matter upon his attention. There is a request from the residents of Meteghan Centre, in Digby, This village is situated midway between Meteghan and Meteghan River. " The mail carrier in travelling from Meteghan station passes through Meteghan River and so on to Meteghan and on the way, necessarily passes through the village of Meteghan Centre. There is no post office at Meteghan Centre, at present, but there are Mr. LEMIEUX.
some 50 families resident there, besides a store and milling concern, and the business is increasing. The people therefore feel greatly the need of a post office. When I presented their petition for one, the answer which the department gave me was that inasmuch as there was a post office at Meteghan and one at Meteghan River, and as these were not very far from Meteghan Centre, there did not appear to be any great necessity of a post office at Meteghan Centre. The cost, however, of opening an office would not be very great. I think that the minimum salary which the Postmaster General pays for small offices is $35, and that would be what he would have to pay there. The transportation of the mails would probably not coist anything, because the mail passes through there now on its way to Meteghan, so that the total cost would be only $35 per year for providing the necessary postal facilities for a very prosperous and thriving village and one which has a bright future. Under the circumstances and considering the substantial surplus which the post office department enjoys, I think , that the request I make is a very reasonable one.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the distance between Meteghan Centre and the others.


Clarence Jameson: About two miles each way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As there is no mail carrier to pay, I think my hon. friend has made out a veTy good case, and if he would send me over the papers, I think I can meet his views.
%


Clarence Jameson: Do I understand the minister to say that he is convinced because if not, I have more facts which I would present and which will make the case still stronger.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend says it is two miles from each office.


Clarence Jameson: Approximately. I have travelled the road many times, and that is the distance to the best of my judgment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is all right.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I hope the minister will allow us to take up matters pertaining to this item at any future time. I intend to emphasize the necessity of rural free mail delivery and there are others not here, who are prepared to take up the same question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That question must necessarily come up, because I shall have an announcement to make with regard to it,
Mail service, $1,137,700.


George Halsey Perley: There are some other members who would like to ask questions

with regard to this matter and I think the hon. minister should not proceed any further as it is now past midnight and there are very few in the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have other estimates to bring up and every opportunity will be given to ask questions on anything connected with the mails when they are submitted.


George Halsey Perley: Having passed the first item, I think we have done very well.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I want the whole item of 309 to pass as I require the money, but I give my hon. friend the assurance that if he or any of his friends want to discuss the general item of post offices, there will be no objection whatever, and they will have every opportunity of doing so on other items.


George Halsey Perley: I think the minister is asking something very unreasonable when he asks us to pass the whole of his estimates at this hour of the night.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have other estimates to bring before the House.


George Halsey Perley: We have had a long day, and the minister brought on his estimates very late. He can hardly expect us to pass this whole item covering an expenditure of over $8,000,000 with so few members here. I myself have a good many questions to ask, and I do not think that I should be forced to enter into a discussion at this late hour. We have had a very long day as it is.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am in the hands of the House, but I understood that I had made an arrangement with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), and until my friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) made an objection, there was no disposition to prevent this item going through.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I did not understand that all these estimates were to go through in an hour's time. We have passed some $4,000,000 already, and I think we ought to stop there and give opportunity for further discussion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Suppose we leave ' miscellaneous ' and carry the mail service.


Richard Stuart Lake: These different estimates are all part of the one item, and you cannot hold over an item in part and pass it in part.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You can leave the last item.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The Postmaster General will understand that all these estimates are part of the one item 309, and either the' whole of item 309 stands or it passes. I appeal to the chairman.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I, of course, am only too willing to respect any arrangement that both sides may come to; but if objection be raised, there are certain rules of procedure which I may be compelled to enforce.


Richard Stuart Lake: All the four services are under the one item, and it can be of no use to the Postmaster general to pass three-quarters of them and not the other quarter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to insist more that I should. But I thought we had discussed very fully every item. However, at the special request of my hon. friend (Mr. Perley) I waive any objection I might have.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Lemieux, House adjourned at 12.20 a.m., Saturday.

Monday, February 27, 1911.