1911-03-21

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 142) for the relief of Lome Forbes Robertson.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill (No. 143) for the relief of Cecil Ernest Freeman.-Mr. Blain.
Bill (No. 144) for the relief of Ethel May Hornell.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill (No. 147) to amend the Chinese Immigration Act.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 148) respecting the Manitoba Radial Railway Company.-Mr. Molloy.
Bill (No. 149) respecting the Hamilton, Waterloo and Guelph Railway Company.- Mr. Harris.

Hon. MACKENZIE KING (Minister of Labour).: Before the orders of the day are called, I rise to a question of privilege. In the ' Mail and Empire ' of March 15 there is an article under the following heading:



MINISTER'S DENIAL IS PROVED FALSE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. King declares Berlin Board of Trade did not denounce reciprocity. Record disproves it. Return in Commons shows that he was informed of board's action.
Then appears the following:
Special to the r Mail and Empire.'
Ottawa, March 14.-Another return of resolutions and correspondence respecting the reciprocity agreement was brought down to parliament to-day by Hon. Mr. Fielding. Among the resolutions opposing the agreement was one passed by the Board of Trade of Berlin, on January 13. It will be remembered that during his speech in condemnation of the government's policy Mr. Lloyd Harris (Brantford) mentioned that the Berlin Board of Trade had adopted such a resolution. He was at once contradicted by Hon Mackenzie King.
The file of correspondence brought down today includes the resolution to which Mr. Harris referred. It also includes a telegram from Mr. M. W. A. Lochead, secretary of the Berlin organization, apprising the Minister of Labour of the action of the board and an acknowledgment of its reception sent in reply by Mr. King. The resolution itself reached Ottawa on January 14 and Mr. King wrote to Berlin saying that he had laid it before Sir Wilfrid Laurier and that the premier had promised to give it due consideration.
There is such a semblance of truth in that article that I am afraid the public will not be able to discern the amount of error which it really contains. The statement I made to the House when the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Harris) spoke the other evening was entirely and absolutely correct. I refrained from drawing the attention of the House to this article until my hon. friend, who has been absent for the last few days, was in his seat; and as he is in his seat to-day, I now draw the attention of the House to it. When my hon. friend was speaking, he made reference to an article which appeared in the Toronto ' Globe ' and which led him to believe that the Berlin Board of Trade had, a day or two previous, passed a resolution opposing the agreement which is proposed and which is now before us for consideration. The hon. gentleman, along with others in this country, got his information from a report sent out erroneously by the secretary of the Berlin Board of Trade, and which appeared' in several papers, but in particular in the London ' Free Press ', under the following head:
The Berlin Board of Trade unanimously oppose pact.
Then it goes on :
At a recent meeting of the board this resolution was reaffirmed.
Referring to a resolution passed while the negotiations were under way, and before the present agreement was made known. This article, which appeared in the London ' Free Press ', was copied into Mr. KING.
other newspapers, and also a despatch was sent to the Toronto ' Globe.' It was this despatch which led my hon friend and many others to believe that the Berlin Board of Trade had reaffirmed the resolution they had passed at the beginning of the proceedings; and it was to this alleged reaffirmed resolution, which he supposed to relate to the proposed agreement now under consideration, that my hon. friend referred. My hon. friend is in his seat and acknowledges that in that statement I am quite right. I understood him to refer to the resolution that was supposed to be reaffirmed, but which in fact was never reaffirmed; and it was because I knew he was in error and would not intentionally make an error that I corrected him. The Berlin Board of Trade did in fact pass a resolution when they were afraid that the manufacturers of that town were going to be seriously affected by the reciprocal agreement. That resolution was forwarded to me and I presented it to the right hon. the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister will recall that I spoke of the importance of considering the weight to be attached to an expression of opinion of that kind coming from a manufacturing centre like Berlin.
Mr. BLAIN.: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have. It is as follows :
That in view of the agitation now being carried on in the United States in favour of a reciprocal trade agreement with Canada, obviously for the purpose of enlarging the markets for the manufacturers in the United States at the expense of Canadian industries and of Canadian workingmen.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. KING (reading):: And in view of the present agitation in the prairie provinces for a reduction in the Canadian tariff.
It is hereby resolved that we, the members of the Berlin Board of Trade are very strongly opposed to any reciprocal tariff arrangement between Canada and the United States which would mean the lowering of the present Canadian customs tariff, as we are convinced that any such reduction would be injurious to Canadian interests. That this board is of the opinion that the Canadian tariff must be so framed and maintained as to continue to encourage the investment of capital in Canadian enterprises and to transfer to the workshops of the Dominion the manufacture of many of the goods which are now imported from other countries, and notably from the United States.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Gerald King: That this board is further of the opinion that while our tariff should be primarily framed for the protection of Canadian manufacturers and other Canadian interests, it should nevertheless continue to give a preference to the mother country and also to any

other part of the British Empire with which reciprocal preferential tariffs can be arranged, and recognizing always that under any conditions such preference should continue to afford adequate tariff protection to all Canadian interests.
That was the resolution passed.


Mr. SPROULE.: What is the date of that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That resolution was on January 13. I have here an article from one of the Berlin papers which explains what took place on February 24, which was the time at which Mr. Lochead, secretary of the Berlin Board of Trade, sent to the London ' Free Press ' and one or two other papers the statement which led them to believe that the Berlin Board of Trade had reaffirmed the resolution it had passed at an earlier date. I have verified these facts, and they have been given to the public and never questioned, so I will read from this statement:
Unfortunately Secretary Lochead's letter has placed the Berlin Board of Trade in a wholly false light on the question of the tariff agreement, and at the same time has played into the hands of a newspaper that is exploiting the question for political purposes.
In the first place the Berlin Board of Trade did not pass a resolution opposing the tariff agreement. The resolution quoted was passed while negotiations were pending and before any agreement had been reached, and therefore before it was known that the interests' of all Berlin and Waterloo county industries had been carefully protected.
In the second place, the Board of Trade did not reaffirm the resolution passed at the annual meeting in January, as stated by Secretary Lochead in his letter. . . .
According to the minutes there were but six members of the Board of Trade present at the meeting. The motion arose out of a complaint made by several members of the board that proper publicity had not been given to the reciprocity resolutions passed at the annual meeting in January. A motion to reaffirm was, it is true, submitted, but after lengthy debate it was decided that it would be improper for balf a dozen members of the board to undertake to reaffirm on behalf of the whole board a resolution which had been passed at a general meeting at which 150 members were present, and when the members had no information as to the text of the tariff agreement before them. It was also argued that, since by the terms of the agreement, not one Berlin industry could be shown to be prejudicially affected, and that as the purnose of the original resolution was the protection of local interests, to reaffirm the original resolution would be inadvisable. The motion above emoted was then adopted as a comoromise between the contending sections of the Board of Trade council.


Richard Blain: Is that an editorial of the
newspaper?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is a news item headed * Board of Trade Council did not reaffirm the reciprocity resolution.'


Richard Blain: What newspaper?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Berlin ' Telegraph,' of February 27 last. So, what I said the other evening in Teply to my hon. friend is absolutely correct, and this item which appears in the Toronto * Mail and Empire,' and which says that my denial proved false is wholly incorrect. I think the facts I have given the House are sufficient to bear me out in my statement.


Mr. HARRIS.: I accept the explanation given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. King). I made the statement on the floor of the House in perfect good faith, having read in the Toronto ' Globe ' a report to that effect. Since that item appeared, a copy of the Berlin ' Newsdlecord ' has been sent me. That paper gives the date of the passing of the resolution as January 12, and on the 13th the secretary telegraphed to the minister the gist of the resolution asking him to place the contents before the Prime Minister. That was acknowledged. But the end of the paragraph states this:
To make its position stronger, the Board of Trade, since Hon. Mr. Fielding laid the terms of the proposed pact on the table of the House, has ordered copies of the original resolution to be sent to the leading newspapers of Ontario, thus showing that the board considered that it covered the ground'well and was opposed to the pact.
I presume the explanation made by the minister is in connection with this last statement by this newspaper. That was probably at the meeting where the six members were present. However, I am not familiar with the details, and only wish to say that the statement I made on the floor of the House was made in entire good faith.



PRIVILEGE-MR. CROTHERS AND THE FARMERS' BANK CASE.

Mr. T. W. CROTHERS (West Elgin).: I rise to a question of privilege. Referring to remarks .made by myself on the 15th of this month when the affairs of the Farmers' 'bank were under discussion, the Ottawa ' Free Press,' in an article on March 17, in a leading editorial, has the following:
In order to bolster up his case for an investigation into the incorporation of the Farmers' Bank, Mr. Crothers with the idea of showing that ' something was held back ' revamped the story in distorted form of a purely ordinary business transaction which Mr. Calvert had with the said bank.

I shall not read the whole of that article, as it would not edify the members present nor improve the fragrance of ' Hansard.' What I did say on that occasion, as will be found at page 5486 of Uurevised ' Hansard,' was as follows:
We have been told-I do not remember whether in this House or out of it-that the person who was chief whip in the Liberal party in this House at that time introduced Travers to the Finance Minister. It has been established-
I think, perhaps, that word ' established,' was a little too strong. I would not use it if I were speaking now, but I did use it then.
It has been established that, shortly afterwards, that chief whip made a loan from this bank-stated by some to amount to $5,000, but, I believe, stated by himself at $3,000, and that loan was charged up to commissions. Something occurred we had not learned yet.
The difficulty seems to be about the statement that this loan was charged up to commissions. My statement was founded on the report of the police court proceedings, as reported in the Ottawa ' Citizen,' and the Ottawa ' Journal,' of February 18, which report was in concurrent terms and was as follows:
Travers had a personal conference with Hon. Mr. Fielding, being introduced by W. S. Calvert, then Liberal whip. Mr. Fielding asked Travers if he had paid anything to Calvert for the latter's friendly interest, and Travers was able to answer truthfully that he had not. Later Calvert was lent $5,000 without security, which was charged to ' commissions ' on the bank's books. This loan, later, was repaid in full.
The proceedings were reported in the ' Evening Telegram,' of Toronto in these words, this being part of the cross examination of Travers under oath:
' What took place between you and Calvert in the delay in getting the certificate?'
' We took it down to Fielding, and we had 15 or 30 minutes interview with him.'
' Did he assist you ? '
That is, Calvert.
' Yes, he said all he could for us.'
Travers swore lie never paid Mr. Calvert anything at any time.
| Did you loan him any money?'
Not then, but I did some months afterwards.
' How much? '
' About $5,000 or $6,000.
Travers said that all had been paid back but $560, and he had heard this was paid since the failure of the bank.
The statement I made that this $3,000 or $5,000, whichever it was, had been charged up to commissions was based on these reports of the proceedings in the police court in Toronto as evidence coming from Mr. CROTHERS.
Travers under oath, and not made without any foundation whatever as charged in this article.



INVESTIGATION INTO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SOREL NAVAL


Mr. P. E. BLONDIN (Champlain).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I desire to request certain information from the hon. the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur), and with that end in view I will ask permission to read a letter which I have this moment received:
Sorel, March 20, 1911. My Dear Mr. Blondin, M.P.,
This is to inform you that I have been dismissed by the department from St. Joseph de Sorel. It happened on Friday evening when my presence card was taken from me.
I immediately spoke to the chief, Mr. Papineau, who told me that he knew nothing about the matter. I also saw Mr. Badeau, head of my department, who also professed ignorance on the subject. This means that the timekeeper has taken upon himself to dismiss me on the order of Mr. A. Aroham-bault, assistant to Mr. Oscar Champagne, at present in Ottawa.
Ask Champagne why he dismissed me.
Yours truly,



A. SENECAL.

[Stage Direction]
That Mr. Senecal is the witness, Andromi-que Senecal, who came here last week and gave evidence in the investigation now being carried on concerning Marine Department matters at Sorel.
I wish to inquire of the minister whether he gave orders to any one in the department to dismiss that witness, and also if it is his intention to permit attempts at intimidation of witnesses and thus to prevent us from obtaining, in the course of this investigation, independent evidence free from all constraint.
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member, I may say that I have given no orders for the dismissal of Mr. Senecal. I will also inform my hon. friend that very far from preventing witnesses from stating the truth, the Marine Department is anxious to do all in its power to make the investigation thorough in every way.
I should add, however, that I understood from the witness himself when he gave his evidence here that he had left the government service.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) yesterday called attention to two returns which he said had not been brought down, one relating to the

appointment of fish wardens in Victoria county, from 1906 to 1910 and another as to the fish bounties paid in the south riding of Cape Breton at the same time. I must inform my hon. friend that on February 28 last I iaid before the House the return concerning the fish bounties. The other report is being prepared by the officers of my department. The hon. member will see that he has asked for the name, length of service and amount paid to each of these wardens. Owing to the demand for the length of service, the return involves more than a few days copying, as it is necessary to look into all the reports and records of each of these guardians. If my hon. friend does not insist on the length of service, I may get the return to-morrow.


Mr. MADDIN.: I had no notice of the return having been brought down, and on five or six occasions I called at the office of Mr. Polkingliorne and inquired for the Teturn. I must say in justice to Mr. Polk-inghorne that on none of these occasions was he in the office. With regard to the fish wardens, I asked a similar question in the House in 1909 for the year 1908, and the information was furnished concerning about 125 appointees, as an answer to a question, in a very few days. The additional years would only multiply the work by four, and I trust that the minister will let me have that return as promptly as possible as I am quite interested in having it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I wish to call the attention of the government to a number of returns not yet brought down and which were moved for some time ago. These returns are as follows:
December 5, by Mr. Blain, for Mr. Lennox, touching a contract between the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company and Mr. M. P. Davis.
December 5, by Mr. Roche for Mr. Lennox, touching the number of public buildings occupied in whole or in part as post offices.
December 7, by Mr. Macdonell (Toronto), for papers relating to the barracks site at Toronto.
December 7, by Mr. Monk, for a copy of the Imperial Defence Committee concerning the defence of the empire.
December 7, by Mr. Staples, for a copy of correspondence between the government and the government of Manitoba respecting the extension of boundaries.
December 12, by Mr. Macdonell (Toronto), copy of orders in council, &c., appointing members of the Canadian section of the Joint International Waterways Commission.
December 14, by Mr. Ames, for a return of moneys expended in each province since 1880, by the Department of Public Works for harbours and rivers.
December 14, by Mr. Sharpe (Ont.), for a return showing the total payments by the government to the Eclipse Manufacturing
Company, Limited, and to the Office Specialty Company.
December 14, by Mr. Taylor (Leeds); for a return of the amount paid by the government for cab hire and street railway fares in Ottawa.
December 14, by Mr. Taylor (Leeds), for a return showing amounts paid for travelling expenses.
December 14, by Mr. Sharpe (Ont.), for a return showing what ministers of the Crown were abroad in 1908, 1909 and 1910 on public business, and on what business, with their expenses.
January 11 by Mr. Perley for Mr. Apes,- Return showing the total value of buildings owned by the government and occupied as post- offices, &c.
January 11 by Mr. Sharpe (Ont),-Return showing amounts paid to Messrs. Dussault & Lemieux, dredging contractors, during the years, named.
January 16, by Mr. Armstrong,-Copy of,all correspondence and other documents relating to the establishment of a fast Atlantic service between Canada and the mother land.
January 16 by Mr. Rhodes,-Copy of all instructions or communications from the Department of Public Works or the Minister of Public Works to the chief architect with respect to the preparation of plans for the construction of a post office building at Parrs-boro, N.S.
January 18 by Mr. Lennox,-Return showing how many aliens there are in the service of Canada who are residing out of Canada.
January 23, by Mr. Monk,-Copy of the report of the engineer who made the survey of the Back River or Riviere de Prairie.
January 23, by Mr. Borden,-Copies of all orders in council and other documents touching the participation by employees of the government in civic or municipal affairs.
January 26, by- Mr. Boyce,-Statement showing the amount paid by the various departments of the government to the Sherwin-Williams Co.
January 30, by Mr. McCarthy,-Return showing the number of births and deaths in each province of Canada in each calendar year from 1901 to 1910 and other like information.
January 30, by Mr. McCarthy,-Return of the abstract of vital statistics prepared or compiled by the government of Canada or of any province, setting forth or showing the number of births and deaths in each province and territory from 1901 to 1910.
January 30, by Mr. Arthurs,-Copy of all advertisements, letters, contracts and other documents regarding mail routes. Trout Creek to Loring and Powassan to Nipissing or Restoule.
February 1, by Mr. Taylor (New Westminster),-Return showing all applications for homesteads or pre-emption in the railway belt in the district of New Westminster.
February 1, by Mr. Sharpe (Lisgar),-Return showing certain particulars respecting the 16,506.70 acres of Dominion lands and the 14,160 acres of land sold to the Grand Trunk Pacific Development Co.
February 1, by Mr. Blain for Mr. Taylor (Leeds),-Return showing the names, &c. of certain persons who have been given employment in connection with the care of the

"rounds around tile public buildings, Major's Hill park, &c.
February 6, by Mr. Edwards,-Return showing the employees connected with the Printing Bureau in 1896 and other like information.
February 13, by Mr. Sharpe (Ontario),- Return showing the names and addresses of all sessional employees of the House of Commons during the period mentioned.
February 15, bv Mr. Jameson,-Return showing all communications relating to the rifle range at Bear River, N.S.
February 16, by Mr. Maddin,-Return showing how many wardens for the protection of fisheries were appointed in Victoria county, N.S., during the years named.
February 20, by Mr. Jameson,-Copy of telegrams, letters and documents in any department of the government relating to the payment of $500 to assist in the construction of a bait freezer at Barrington Passage, Nova Scotia.
February 20, by Mr. Sharpe (Ontario),- Copy of all letters and agreements between the city of Ottawa Municipal Electric Light Company and the Department of Public Works relating to the lighting of public buildings, &c.
February 20, by Mr. Sharpe (Ontario),- Copy of all memorials, reports, &c., of Boards of Trade and other bodies in the hands of the government both for and against the continuance of bounties to the steel and iron industries of Canada.
February 20, by Mr. Blain for Mr. Maddin, -Copy of all applications by or on behalf of the Glace Bay Bait Association in connection with cold storage building.
February 23, by Mr. Monk,-Return showing sums of money paid by the government to 'Le Canada' newspaper of Montreal.
February 27, by Mr. Macdonell,-Return showing the value, respectively, of certain products of the country, by provinces, during 1909-1910.
February 27, by Mr. Taylor (Leeds),-Return showing applications for aid in the construction of dry docks.
February 27, by Mr. Taylor (Leeds),-Return showing how many Canadians have been accepted as members of the Canadian navy.
February 27, Mr. Borden for Mr. Jameson, -Return of all letters and other documents between the Imperial authorities and the government of Canada touching the settlement ,of the case in the matter of the North Atlantic fisheries arbitration at the Hague.
February 27, by Mr. Borden for Mr. Taylor (Leeds),-Return showing all applications for aid under the Dry Docks Subsidies Act, 1910.
February 27, by Mr. Borden for Mr. Jameson,-Return of all letters and other documents showing the names of persons who supplied materials or worked in connection with the construction of a wharf at Deep Brook, Nova Scotia.
February 27, by Mr. Borden,-'Return of all communications, regulations, &c., showing the systems of method by which the census is taken in the United Kingdom, the British dominions and foreign countries.
February 27, by Mr. Meighen,-Return showing all statutes, regulations, reports and proceedings in the courts of the United States or in the courts of any of the respective states Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
touching the methods and operations of the meat trust and other trusts and combines in the United States.
February 27, by Mr. Campbell,-Copy of all orders in council relating to the fishing lease granted to one Markey in the waters of the Nelson river.
The others are of a more recent date, but I have given the orders and addresses which have been moved for up to the 6th March. The Prime Minister will know that there are some of them which involve greater delay than others, but in so far as these others are concerned, I would think that they might have been brought down before or at least that they might be brought down at a very early day.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I think that some of these orders have already been complied with; for instance that with regard to the boundaries of Manitoba, I believe that everything there is up to date on the question has been brought down already. Then, I think that all the resolutions and communications in regard to reciprocity have been brought down.


Mr. FIELDING.: They have been brought down in instalments from time to time.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then there are some which take a very long time. For instance, I notice that amongst the returns asked for is a return of the regulations of Great Britain with regard to the taking of the census. It will take some time to get that. Then there is another return, moved for by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), with regard to certain regulations in the United States touching trusts. We cannot get that except by very long and-tedious correspondence. At all events there are some of these returns that can be brought down.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not depending on my own information. I made an application to the proper officers of the House for a statement of all the returns which have not yet been complied with. It may be that some misapprehension has occurred. Undoubtedly, certain documents have been brought down that would be included in this list. I might say that in so far as the return with regard to matters touching the census are concerned, I had a personal conversation with my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture * (Mr. Fisher) who told me that if the order were literally complied with it would take a very long time, and he suggested that the purpose might be attained by bringing down the return in a very much simpler and abbreviated form. I at once assented to that being done and said that if we required more information we would inform him of the fact.


Mr. FISHER.: I may say that the chief census officer is engaged in the prepara-

tion of what my hon. friend asks for, and it will be ready in a few days.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: With regard to the return relating to the Atlantic Fisheries the reports were brought down some time in December last, giving all the pleadings before the Hague Tribunal and the award. After that, the papers in reference to the settlement of the question of litigation were brought down on my own motion, and these are all the documents I know of.



SUPPLY-STATEMENT IN ' GLOBE 5 RE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention to an article published in the ' Globe ' newspaper yesterday, which reads:"]
Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention to an article published in the ' Globe ' newspaper yesterday, which reads:



[Stage Direction]
Attempt to Delay Passage of the Reciprocity Agreement.
To Concentrate on Supply Vote. Continuation of Present Tactics Might Necessitate Appeal to Country.
(Special Despatch to The Globe.)
Ottawa, March 19.-With the ending of the fiscal year less than two weeks away, and a very small percentage of Supply for the coming year voted, despite the persistent efforts of the government, and with the obvious obstruction of the opposition, particularly during the past two weeks, it has been decided by the government to devote most of the balance of the month to endeavouring to get Supply, leaving the less urgent matter of passing the reciprocity proposals over until next month.
The article goes on to say:
The government will, by attempting to force Supply during the next two weeks, compel the obstructionists to clearly show their hand, and in the event of a continuation of the present tactics and a refusal to pass an interim Supply Bill, if found necessary, it might be that an appeal to the country would be found necessary to solve the deadlock. The issue in that event would be clearly defined, and although it would be obviously unjust for the opposition to force an appeal to the country before another session, when the Redistribution Bill could be put through and the west given its proper representation in new members, the onus would lie with the opposition, and the government would not fear the result.
Further on it says:
It is probable that Supply will be the first order of government business for the next two weeks, with probably one day in each week given to the continuation of the debate on reciprocity. The developments of the two weeks, with the government's determination to keep the House sitting late unless some progress is made, should serve to put the situation clearly before the people of Canada.
I would like to point out that the article says that the less urgent matter of passing
the reciprocity proposals will be left over until next month, and it concludes in these words:
It may be noted that during the past two weeks the business of legislation and the voting of supplies has practically not been advanced a single step. It may also be asserted with assurance that the government has no intention of either dropping or modifying its reciprocity proposals, and will use every en- _ deavour to have them passed by the House as " speedily as possible.
These two statements seem to contradict each other. Now, as every one in the House knows that article is absolutely untrue, and the ' Globe,' with its usual indifference to truth, evidently pays no attention to what transpires in this House.
I have gone through ' Hansard,' and counted up the columns occupied by Liberal members and Conservative members respectively, to see exactly who has been guilty of obstruction, if there has been any obstruction. On the 28th of February, when the discussion on reciprocity was resumed, there were 80 columns taken up by the Liberals and none by the Conservatives. On the 2nd March reciprocity was again up and there were 54 columns taken by the Liberals and 29 by the Conservatives, while on the matter of the health of Ottawa nine columns were taken by the Liberals, making 63 in	all for the
Liberals that day.	On the 23rd of
March the questions before the House were: the garnishment of civil servants' salaries and the Hague Tribunal, and on that day there were 32 columns taken by the Liberals and 44 by the Conservatives. On the 6th of March the subjects under discussion were the Lanctot matter, Ottawa's health, the Hague Tribunal and Supply, and on that day 42 columns were taken by the Liberals and 29 columns by the Conservatives. On March the 7th reciprocity was again before the House, and there were 43 columns taken by the Liberals and 40 by the Conservatives. On March the 8th reciprocity was again before the House, and there were 68 columns taken by the Liberals and 27 by the Conservatives. On March the 9th reciprocity was again discussed, and there were 53 columns taken by the Liberals and 48 by the Conservatives. On March the 10th the Minister of Railways brought in his annual statement, and he and his Liberal friends occupied 67 columns, as 'against 19 columns by the Conservatives. On March the 13th the Georgian Bay canal, was discussed, and there were 39 column® occupied by the Liberals as compared with 19 occupied by the Conservatives. On March the 14th the question of the capitalization of the railways introduced (by the hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean), was before the House and including a speech by the member for North Cape Breton on reciprocity the Lib-
[Stage Direction]
erals occupied 33 columns that day and the Conservatives 47. On March the 15th and 16th the question of the Farmers' Bank was under discussion and the Liberals occupied 73 columns these two days as compared with the Conservatives 142, that being a field day for the Conservatives. On March the 17th several matters were before the House including the question of health, the question of the speech made by the lion, member for North Oxford, alien labour, and the reading of resolutions in regard to reciprocity, after which the House went into Supply. Yesterday, the resolution of the Minister of Railways was before the House and the Liberals occupied 46 columns and the Conservatives 33. A summary of this from and including the last day of February up to date gives 687 columns of ' Hansard ' filled with speeches from the Liberals and 549 columns occupied by Conservative members. If we exclude the discussion on the Farmers' Bank, and every one will admit that the members on this side were justified in bringing that up, then the Liberals have occupied 614 columns to 407 by the Conservatives. During all this time we have only had an opportunity of discussing reciprocity on portions of five days, and while the Conservatives have filled 162 columns of ' Hansard ' on the question of reciprocity the Liberals have filled up 335. In view of these figures it is up to the ' Globe ' newspaper to apologize, although I do nqt expect that it will. This article in the ' Globe ' accuses the opposition of obstruction, and it says that in consequence of that obstruction the government may be forced to go to the country. It looks to me as though the government were paving the way to go to the country as they know that the longer, these proposals are before the people the more obnoxious they become. At all events the figures I have given prove that if the government do decide to go to the country and deprive the west of the extra representation to which it is entitled the onus and fault and blame will rest on the shoulders of the government and not on the opposition.

Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been called to a statement made referring to me by the member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), in his speech on reciprocity on the 14th instant, when I was not present in the House. He said:
I received from a member from the west this afternoon some evidence that seems to me very striking. In the great province of Saskatchewan they have 51 members local and Dominion, and I am told on the authority of an hon.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO
member from that province that out of the 51 there is only one man who is opposing this pact and that man is the hon, member for Qu'Appelle in this House. A11 the rest are in favour of the agreement.
The hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) has been already taken to task by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), because of a serious misrepresentation of that gentleman's attitude made in the course of the same speech, but his statement regarding me has been quoted outside of this House where the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) is not so well known as he is inside or I would not take the trouble to call attention to it. He had no warrant whatever for making the statement he did. I have so far refrained from expressing any opinion one way or the other. When I have a statement to make I will make it myself, and will not ask the hon. member for North Cape Breton to make it for me. He is one of the last men in the House to whom I would make that request. This is a matter of immense importance, and while the government supporters had no difficulty in endorsing the proposals the moment they were laid before the House and the country, and the moment they heard the barest outline of them, or even before they heard it at all, I have felt it my duty to carefully weigh every bit of information available before coming to a decision. That information has been meted out to us in a most niggardly way. It has had to be dragged out of the government item by item like drawing teeth. The House has a right to complain of the meagre information supplied, in such marked contrast to that supplied to Congress by the American government to enable them to study the question from every point of view. In some respects we are even now dependent on information supplied by the American government which our government should have supplied. But we want more information still than the American government has supplied, and along lines which it was not necessary for them to give. We want information in regard to the trade and prices in Australia and New Zealand, and the other British colonies and in Argentine and the other favoured nations which are to have free entry to our markets which is denied to us in their markets. I am justified in saying that no one in the House has yet had the information necessary to enable him to make a satisfactory study of the full effect of the agreement. It is only within the last few days that important statements have been made on the subject by the Prime Minister, and the Finance Minister which alter in a material degree the bearing of this whole question; and while it will no doubt still further add to the satisfaction of such manufacturers as

are endorsing these proposals-and there are many of them-it will on the other hand be received with bitter disappointment by those farmers who are also supporting it in the hope of getting a square deal.
On Friday last the attention of the House was called by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) to a report appearing in the ' Globe1 newspaper of a speech delivered at Woodstock, Ontario, by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). The hon. member for Dauphin used these words:


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter that I wish to bring to your consideration and to the consideration of this House. 1 do it because I see that the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is in his seat. It is a matter that has been brought up already in this House by my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). It is with regard to an article that appeared in the ' Globe ' of date Saturday, March 4, of this year. At a meeting at Woodstock, in Ontario, the hon. member for North Oxford, in addressing the people there spoke as follows:	The speech is so good I shall read it
all:
' With regard to reciprocity, he noted that very little had been heard about the consumer's interest. He did not believe the reciprocity agreement being negotiated would affect the price to the consumer adversely. That might seem strange, as it was supposed the farmer would get a better price.'
He was addressing, I understand, an aggregation of men who were more or less engaged in manufacturing. He went on to say:
' He could not see that manufacturers would be touched very much, as few articles manufactured in Canada were affected. He was sure the Bain and Woodstock wagon companies would compete in the world's markets even with 21- per cent reduction in the tariff. He thought the manufacturers opposed reciprocity because of what might follow, the ' thin end of the wedge,' but he had been assured

'
This is what I want to bring to your notice: '-he had been assured by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding that nothing of the sort would follow. They had gone as far in the farmers' interests as they would.'
As a farmer and a representative of farmers, I want to emphasize that point that one of the most aggressive members on the Liberal side of the House, one of the strongest supporters of the First Minister and his government, in a public meeting gives his word as a member of this House to the people of Woodstock, a manufacturing centre, that he has the word absolutely of the First Minister and the Minister of Finance that the farmers' interests would not be conserved any further than was dope by. this agreement. He goes on to say:
' It would be foolish for us to think of tinkering with the tariff or putting it on an unstable basis.'
He was talking to manufacturers.
' Therefore, the present government, in his 131
view, would not tinker any more with it unless to make some minor adjustments.'
This matter was brought up by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), and the First Minister in reply said:
' With regard to the other question, I think my hon. friend had better wait until the hon. member for North Oxford is in his seat.'
This is the first opportunity I have had of bringing the matter before the House when the hon. member was in his seat. I hope that he will reply to me either that he is misre-ported in this Liberal newspaper or that he will repudiate this statement. From a farmers' standpoint, I hope he will not say the statement is correct.


Wilfrid Laurier: I can relieve my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) from .answering the question of my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Campbell). I can answer him now. There is no doubt whatever as to the attitude of the government. It has been defined on this floor more than once, the last time it was defined was only two or three days ago, when the Minister of Finance, in answer to a question put to him with regard to the speech of President Taft and that answer will give all the information which my hon. friend wants. The Finance Minister was questioned as to the speech delivered by President Taft at Atlanta, especially to the following extract:
' When we entered upon these negotiations, I asked the Secretary of State and his commissioners to offer free trade in everything, but this Canada could not grant us, because she has a protective system and she was afraid of the competition of our better-organized industries.'
To this the Minister of Finance replied:
' That statement may be entirely correct, and I have no doubt is, as to the instructions that the President gave to his officials. But as to what actually occurred in the conference, the matter did not advance to a position which would enable these gentlemen to make such a formal offer in that way. At the very earliest stage in the negotiations we certainly gave them to understand that we could not undertake to have any free trade in manufactures, speaking generally.
This is the position of the government. We have undertaken to have reciprocity in natural products, not in manufactured products. At the present time our noliov is before the House to have reciprocity in natural products, and I shall li" verv glad if we have the assistance of our friends that far in favour of the farmers. T doubt very much if we will, but we will see what we will do afterwards.
The Prime Minister then continued:
The statement made by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was quite consistent with our policy, it was nothing new. and he had perfect authority, not only he but every member of the Liberal side, to make that statement.


Mr. FOSTER.: Did the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance authorize the member in auestion to make that statement?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have answered that already. It is perfectly true. The bon. member for North Oxford and every Liberal



member had such authority, he was not kept in ignorance of our policy in this matter and knew it well. He only stated what is our general policy.
It may be added that this is in accordance with the answer given to the manufacturers' deputation by the Prime Minister in January last.
During the last few days I have received resolutions from different grain growers' associations in the following terms-they are all alike:
1.	That the reciprocity agreement before the House of Commons be ratified during the present session.
2.	That agricultural implements be placed on the free list during the present session.
3.	That the British preference be increased to fifty per cent of the general tariff at the present session.
If the grain growers had been aware of the government's pledge to the manufacturers, they would not have passed these three resolutions, because the last two are incompatible with the first, and they must accept the alternative between them. If the members of the legislative assembly of Saskatchewan had been aware of the Prime Minister's statement that the present government had gone as far in the farmers' interests as they would, and that they would not tinker any more with the tariff, unless to make some minor adjustments, they also would not have added to their reciprocity resolution the clauses calling for a downward revision of the tariff and an increase of the British preference, because if the reciprocity agreement passes, it precludes a reduction of__the duties on manufactured goods.
In regard to the period for which the government's pledge not to reduce the tariff holds good it must not be forgotten that in the exchange of letters that took place between the American and Canadian representatives it is expressly stated that while either party is free hereafter to make changes it is hoped and expected that the arrangement will remain in operation for a considerable period. The Minister of Finance has stated that the government are in honour bound to make every endeavour to carry out the understanding contained in the correspondence.
At the great farmer's delegation which was heard in this House on the 16th December last the memorial on the Customs tariff was presented by Mr. MoCuaig with the remark that it was the most important of all the requests presented that day.
The arguments used by nearly every speaker on its behalf were levelled at the undue protection granted to the manufacturers and the burden thus imposed upon the farming community. Mr. B. McKenzie, secretary of the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association and editor in chief of the Mr. LAKE.
' Grain Grower's Guide,' in the longest and most exhaustive speech made on the subject touched on no other point and from beginning to end confined himself to a reasoned demand for the reduction of the excessive protection now enjoyed by the manufacturers. Under this agreement it now appears that almost the sole benefit to the farmers is that they are to be allowed 'to sell their products in a free market, but they must continue to buy their implements and all the necessaries, including such natural products as coal, coal oil and lumber, in a highly protected one. It seems impossible to believe that Mr. Mackenzie, who has for weeks been in such close touch with the government and the Liberal members, has been in ignorance of what has now come to light. Yet the * Grain Grower's Guide ' has so far given no intimation of it to the farmers of the northwest.
In the reciprocity negotiations we* were informed that the Canadian commissioners would not even listen to the offer of the Americans for any reciprocity in manufactured goods. The farmers delegation specially asked amongst other things for free trade in agricultural implements, machinery, vehicles, illuminating fuel and lubricating oils, cement and lumber. The only concessions they get in regard to any of these items is a reduction in the duty on agricultural implements and cement, so small as to be of practically no material advantage to them. And the condition attached to the so-called reciprocity in natural products-which by no means includes all natural products-


Mr. SPEAKER.: I have allowed communications, telegrams, &c., concerning reciprocity to be read on the motion to go into supply; but as the House has referred the reciprocity resolutions to the Committee on Ways and Means, I do not think that a specific discussion of the reciprocity question can be in order at this stage.


Richard Stuart Lake: I have no intention of entering into a specific discussion of the question at all, but I am merely making a statement of facts very much along the line of those made in the House on a resolution to go into supply. I do not intend to argue the question from any point of view but wish simply to make what I understand to be a statement of the facts:
And the condition attached to the so called reciprocity in natural products-which by no means includes all natural products-is that the present government will positively not tinker any more with the tariff for a considerable time to come unless to make some minor adjustments. At this session the government has turned down the proposals of the opposition for government abattoirs and chilled meat system, for the government operation of terminal elevators, and for a sub-

stantial reduction, of tlie duties on agricultural implements.


Mr. MACDONALD.: The hon. gentleman said a moment ago that the government had turned down the proposition of the opposition for a reduction of the duties on agricultural implements. Is that the policy of the opposition which has been turned down by the government?


Richard Stuart Lake: The hon. gentleman may draw what conclusions he chooses in regard to that matter, the fact still remains that the government turned down a resolution on that subject. I firmly believe that for a time advantages will accrue to the farmers of the northwest from the free entry of their grain and cattle into the United States market. It will give better competition for these products and they will be better assured of getting their true value. It must not be forgotten, however, that both countries have a surplus, and the price of the whole is finally fixed by the value of that surplus in the Liverpool market.
It is true that it has been generally expected that the democratic party now coming into power in the United States would have materially reduced or taken off altogether the duty on food products and raw materials whether this agreement had been entered into or not. But apart from that I have from the first been favourably disposed to the pact both on account of the free entry of our grain into the United States, and also from the belief that it was a step which was certain to be followed by a reduction of the present high protection on manufactured goods.
On the other hand the principle laid down by the government that the measure must be accepted or rejected as a whole now appears in the view of the government's latest statement to involve the acceptance of their now declared policy that there shall be no further substantial reduction of the duty on any manufactured goods. This is a policy I will not accept. It changes the whole situation.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman must admit that he is now discussing reciprocity, and that cannot be done except in committee.


Richard Stuart Lake: I have just but a couple of minutes more when I shall conclude.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. gentleman is allowed to do that, every other member can do the same thing.


Richard Stuart Lake: I am merely making a personal explanation.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman must submit to the rule of the House and not discuss anything which has been referred to in the committee except in committee.
181 i


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend is violating the rules, there have been at least a dozen others who have been guilty of the same violation.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have said that on the motion to go into supply, telegrams and resolutions might be read, but no one could enter into a specific discussion of the question of reciprocity which has been referred to the committee. I am in the hands of the House. The older members know what the custom is in a matter of this kind.


Richard Stuart Lake: I wish merely to say a few words with regard to the statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister the other day and also to ask for some information from the government with regard to this most important question. The right hon. the Prime Minister states that every Liberal member was aware of the government's policy in this respect and knew it well. I presume they were informed in caucus. They kept it well to themselves, for though I had strong suspicions that it might be so, I had up to Friday last no positive information. Nor, I am sure are the people generally aware of this condition, especially in the northwest.
It therefore appears that Liberal members and the Liberal press have been trying to have this matter rushed through before all its phases and all its significance have been thoroughly before the people.
It cannot become effective before the American Congress has dealt with it, which will not be for some time yet. In the meantime the government should compile further statistics in regard to the prices of the various commodities dealt with both at Canadian and American centres and also at the principle points in the British colonies and the favoured nations which may come into competition with our farmers in the Canadian home markets. Also statistics should be compiled in regard to the exports of those countries to other nations as well as to Canada, and such further information which will give parliament and the country generally a clearer understanding of what they are doing. In the meantime the valuable discussion which has been taking place in the House should be continued from time to time by those who have information to impart. This is too big a question to be decided without the fullest investigation.


Mr. FOWKE.: May I ask a question?


Mr. REID (Grenville).: That is out of order.


Frederick Luther Fowke: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) opposing the reciprocity agreement because it does not provide for reciprocity in manufactured articles?


Richard Stuart Lake: I have made a definite statement, and the hon. gentleman can take what comfort he likes from it.



RECIPROCITY-RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY ASSOCIATIONS.

Frederick Luther Fowke: I should like to present a resolution moved by the Oshawa fruit growers and the letter accompanying it:
Dear Sir:-The following was carried unanimously Friday, March 10, at a largely attended meting of our co-operative company: That the Oshawa Fruit Growers, Limited, heartily endorse the fruit schedules of the reciprocity agreement negotiated by Messrs. Fielding and Paterson and that we as farmers and fruit growers are strongly in favour of the adoption of the agreement without change unless it he to broaden its scope of free trade.
Yours truly,
Elmer Lick,
Secretary.
I should like to explain that this co-operative1 society embraces hundreds of the leading agriculturists of the county of Ontario and the adjoining county of Durham and includes also the horticulturists of that large district.


John Dowsley Reid: May I ask the hon. gentleman was not there another resolution passed by certain parties in Oshawa?


Frederick Luther Fowke: If so, I never heard of it.


Mr.  W. A.@: &. GOODEVE (Koot-on ay).	I
would like to put on record a statement of the employees of the Hamilton Cotton company as follows:
The Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Premier, Dominion of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-We, the undersigned employees of the Hamilton Cotton Company, wish to place ourselves on record as strongly opposed to any change in the tariff relations between Canada and tho United States.
We would respectfully call your attention to the fact that the working people of Canada, generally, have been for some years more prosperous people of the United States, and we *working people of the United States, and we firmly believe that any change in the fiscal policy of the country will be detrimental to the interests of the working class and have a tendency to lower wages and increase the cost of living.
This is signed by the employees of the Hamilton Cotton company, each one giving his street address. I have also a statement from the request of the employees of Brandram-Henderson, Limited, a large manufacturing concern, with branches in Montreal, Halifax, St. John and Winnipeg. Their petition is as follows:
We, the undersigned employees of Brandram-Henderson, Limited, would greatly urge that there be no reduction made in the pres-Mr. FOWKE.	_
ent tariff rates, as we feel sure that if the government makes any reduction it would be very bad for the city workingmen of Canada, as we chiefly depend on the manufacturers of Canada to gain a livelihood.
This is signed by John E. Doyle, Fred Robinson, and other employees of the company to the number of forty-eight. I have also -one from the Daughters of the Empire claiming to represent 10,000 women in Canada:
Moved by Mrs. H. S. Strathy, seconded by Mrs. E. F. B. Johnstone, resolved, that this Order fears that the proposed reciprocity agreement with the United States of America will, if ratified, tend to weaken the ties that b'nd Canada to the British empire, of which we are proud to form a part, and will also tend to destroy our Imperial ambitions and firm determination to assume our share of the responsibilities of the empire.
That the detrimental tendency and ultimate effects of the proposed agreement upon the empire and upon Canada are vastly more important than any temporary financial benefits which may be secured.
That this order earnestly hopes that the government, parliament and the people of Canada will put aside all party, sectional or individual advantages, and carefully consider the inevitable effect of the proposed agreement upon the great, broad, vital interests of Canada and the British empire.
February 22, 1911.
I have also a resolution adopted by the Brantford Board of Trade, as follows:
At a general meeting of the members of the Brantford Board of Trade, held on Tuesday, March 14, 1911, convened to consider the reciprocity pact now before parliament, the following resolution was adopted:
That, whereas the conditions at present prevailing in our Dominion are satisfactory in so far as agriculture, commerce, industry and tiansportation are concerned;
And whereas interprovincial and inter-Im-pcrial trade are on a fairly prosperous and developing foundation' under existing fiscal arrangements ; therefore,
Resolved, that in the opinion of the Brantford Board of Trade, our material, national and empire interests will be best served by keeping entirely free of reciprocity entanglements with the United States at the present time. We, therefore, strongly protest against the ratification of the proposed agreement.
That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Prime Minister, Mr. R. L. Borden, Hon. Wm. Paterson and Lloyd Harris, M.P.
I have another resolution adopted by the United Empire Loyalists:
Resolution adopted by the United Empire Lcyalists Association at Toronto on the 23rd day of February, 1911.
Resolved, that as it was the desire for a united empire which actuated our ancestors in laying the foundations of all our institutions as they exist to-day, and which led them and their descendants, with their French Canadian compatriots, to preserve this land with all its latent possibilities throughout the

fierce and bitter, but successful, struggle of 1812-11;
In the firm belief that an inter-imperial preferential tariff would not only be in keeping with our feelings of loyalty to the unity of the British empire, but that it would be much more to the commercial benefit of Canada than reciprocity with any foreign nation, and in the confident assurance that a preferential tariff will soon be given to us by the United Kingdom if Canada stands as she dees to-day;
We, the United Empire Loyalists Association of Ontario, for these reasons, sincerely deplore the tariff agreement recently made by the representatives of our government at Washington, and we pray parliament not to ratify the same;
Resolved also, that copies of this resolution be sent to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, and Mr. R. L. Borden, K.C., M.P., leader of His Majesty's lcyal opposition at Ottawa.
W. Napier Keefer, president; Wm. Hamilton, hon. secretary; Nina M. Clarkson, hon. asst, secretary.


Mr. E. N. RHODES (Cumberland).: In view of the fact that the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Fowke) read a resolution from certain people in Oshawa, I think it' well to place on ' Hansard ' the exact terms of a resolution passed by a very influential body of men, the Board of Trade of the town of Kentville, in the constituency represented by the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden). I believe that resolu tion was referred to in the House, but the exact terms of it do not appear in ' Hansard.' It is as follows:
Whereas the adoption of the proposed reciprocity agreement between Canada and the United States would substantially reverse the policy which has brought Canada to- her present prosperous and enviable position and cause widespread disturbance in her trade and injury to many interests, and jeopardize the commercial and political status of the Dominion,
And whereas it would hamper Canada's freedom in developing her own resources in her own way and by her own people,
And whereas it would check the growth and development of trade between the various provinces and parts of Canada with each other and between Canada and the empire, and would diminish Canada's position and influence as a unit within the British Empire.
Therefore, resolved that this_ Board places itself on record in protest against the adoption of such reciprocity agreement.
This resolution was passed after a discussion of several hours. The meeting was held after ample notice was given, was largely attended and was presided over by the President of the Board of Trade who happens to be one of the most influential and best known fruit men of the Annapolis valley. I believe that the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) referred to the fact that a resolution had been passed by the Board of Trade of Kings county,
but that resolution was passed prior to the resolution which I have just read, and my information is that it was passed at a small meeting of which ample notice was not given, and there was no discussion. If I am credibly informed, the matter is to be reintroduced for discussion by that board, when we shall know the reai views of its members.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: The statement I made the other day as to the action taken by the Kings county board of trade was absolutely correct. The meeting was not a small meeting. The vote was carried in favour of reciprocity by 87 to 2, which would not indicate a small meeting. Also, it was held in daylight and the vote-was taken in daylight. The vote on the resolution to which my hon. friend (Mr. Rhodes) refers was taken between one and two o'clock in the morning, and in the dark -a deed of darkness. The only fruit grower or farmer, or man directly interested in fruit-growing, the principal industry of Kings county, was the president. The meeting was called ostensibly to transact other business, but, in the course of the evening, the secretary of the Tory party of Kings countv


Mr. HUGHES.: A fruit man.


Frederick William Borden: No, a lawyer, not a fruit-grower and not interested in fruit growing-the secretary of the Tory party brought in the resolution, and it was seconded by my former opponent, Mr. Webster, another lawyer. The discussion was kept up until the electric light service of the town, which is a partial service, had ceased, and no vote was taken. I am credibly informed that at the time the meeting dispersed, so far as could be seen in the darkness, there were only 8 people left in the room.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that it is material whether the resolution was passed in daylight or in darkness, I. cannot see that the question >of light or darkness would affect the hearing of those at the meeting, but my information is that this resolution was passed rmahimously and I have that authoritatively from the secretary.


Mr. BLACK.: There were just six left and they were in the dark. "


Mr. STRATTON.: I desire to present a resolution from the Cheese Board of the county of Peterborough, asking for the adoption of the proposed agreement regarding freer trade relations between Canada and the United States.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: I desire to present to the House a resolution passed by the Board of Trade of Peterborough as follows:

I liave the honour to inform you that I have received instructions from the president of our board to notify you that at a special meeting of the board held Tuesday, the following resolution was duly moved, seconded and carried nem. con.:	*
That in view of the great change in the , fiscal system that will be brought about by the putting in force of the reciprocity pact.
Be it resolved that this Board of Trade memorialize the government that the reciprocity Bill be not put into effect until the people have had an opportunity to express their views on it at the polls, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the government at Ottawa, and also to our representative in the House of Commons.


James Robert Stratton: How many were at that meeting?


Mr. McCRANEY.: I beg to call the attention of the House to a resolution passed on the 18th instant by the Central Saskatchewan Consolidated Boards of Trade at Saskatoon:
Saskatoon, Sask., March 19.-At a representative meeting of the Central Saskatchewan Consolidated Boards of Trade held here last evening the following resolution was moved and unanimously carried:
That the Central Saskatchewan Consolidated Boards of Trade desire to go on record as heartily and from purely a national standpoint endorsing the attitude of the provincial government towards the reciprocity agreement, and that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to Mr. Fielding, Minister of Finance, and George McCraney.
Members of both political parties voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. CROCKET.: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to a report of a speech delivered by him in Boston on October 27 last, as reported in the Montreal ' Star ':
Any proposals the United States may make for reciprocity with Canada will receive careful consideration from the Dominion government, but the attitude of the Canadian people is to let well enough alone. . . . The predominant note in public affairs in Canada to-day, is contentment with its present lot and hope that the future may bring forth closer relations with the mother country.
I was somewhat amused the other day when the Minister of Militia was listening to the Prime Minister making light of this cry, ' Let well enough alope,' applauding the Prime Minister's utterances. At the time this extract came into my mind. Is that a correct report of the speech delivered at Boston on that occasion?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Of course the minister has already spoken on this resolution. With the consent of the House the minister can speak again.


Frederick William Borden: I feel greatly flattered to observe that the hon. gentleman from York not only reads my Mr. SEXSMITH.
speeches made in Boston, but watches my countenance to see how I accept the views expressed by the Prime Minister of this House.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Denouncing those which you expressed.


Frederick William Borden: No, not at all. Since the question has been put I may say that I had the honour of being invited to address a meeting of Canadians in Boston some time ago, and although I cannot remember exactly the remarks I made, the impression I endeavoured to give was very much on the line of this quotation. I do not think I used the words ' Let well enough alone,' but I had no idea at that moment that the authorities of the United States would accept a treaty with this country on the lines which the ministers who went to Washington were able to secure. I had in view that which I had for the last 15 or 20 years believed to be in the minds of the United States that no treaty would be made with this country which did not include free trade in manufactures, and from that point of view, I thought, and I still think, it would be advisable for us to remain as we are. But, Mr. Speaker, I never was foolish enough and, representing a county such as mine, I would not be wicked enough to refuse to accept from the United States an open market for our agricultural products in that country, the greatest blessing which could possibly be conferred upon the producers of natural products, particularly agricultural products and fruit in this country.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I would call the attention of the House to the following despatch :


Mr.  W. A.@: Shepherd, member of the Council of the Consolidated Boards of Trade of Saskatchewan, asserted to-day that all the boards of trade in that province were opposed to reciprocity, as were also a majority of other people.


George Ewan McCraney: I would call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that this Mr. Shepherd is a member of the Consolidated Board of Trade whose resolution was read by me.



PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.

George Eulas Foster: I have been veTy much interested by the play of argument on the question of this reciprocal arrangement, hy the deft reading of resolutions and extracts from papers. It is a thing which in my experience is novel in the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: One would have been astonished 10 or 15 years ago to have an

episode like this take place. What I am asking myself and would like to ask the first Minister and the Speaker is, what kind of a House we are going to have if this irregular mode of procedure is allowed to go on. Mr. Speaker seemed to have had a hazy idea that in going into supply we ought not to be allowed to take up and discuss the question of reciprocity, the reciprocal pact which has been referred to the Committee of Ways and Means. In that I believe he is correct, but the reading of every one of these resolutions and all the discussion we have had for the last half hour, which might go on for 55 hours so far as any objection from the Speaker or the House is concerned, is clearly a violation of the rule which the Speaker laid down. I am not at all censuring or attempting to censure the members who have been engaged in this interesting form of discussion. It has brought out many points. I just end as I began, by asking whether or not we propose to allow the House to drift into this irregular method of proceeding. If so I do not know what will become of us as a deliberative body, and I do not quite see how we shall ever get through with the business.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) are appropriate, I thank him for having brought the attention of the House to the matter, and in future I think we should endeavour to keep within the rules and practice of the House as we find them in the books.



GRAND TRUNK TRAINMEN'S STRIKE.

Mr.  W. B.@: of all courses which would have commended themselves to the government, that is the one which they would immediately and persistently have followed. However, although this report was made on the 22nd of June and the parties were notified, and although the men declined at once to accept the report and the Grand Trunk railway, after the men had so declined, intimated that they would accept it, no attempt whatever was made by the department to secure any arbitration. The strike did not begin until the 18th of July. Practically a month elapsed. There is no evidence of any kind in the correspondence and documents brought down to show that the department at any time in this interval had taken any step to secure arbitration. There is, however, on the 21st of July, a letter from Mr. Charles M. Hays, to Mr. King, Minister of Labour in which he says:
I have your letter of July 20

When for the first time arbitration was suggested by the government.
I have your letter of July 20th suggesting arbitration. What you propose is what I offered Messrs. Berry & Murdock in my letter of July 8th. It is also wliat I proposed in my letter to you of July 13th, to which in yours of July 15th you replied:	'I regret
that it does not seem to me that I have the requisite authority to take either of the courses you suggest, nor do I believe it would he in the public interests to do so/ While your attitude appears to have changed, I infer from the report statement of the views of Messrs. Murdock & Berry, as contained in the morning papers, that they maintain the same position they have taken from the beginning.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) CHAS. M. HAYS, President.
Apart from the fact that the department might have thought of referring this matter to arbitration, apart too from the fact that Mr. Nesbitt in his report had suggested it, _ there was this singularity that both parties all along had been in favour of arbitration. The Grand Trunk railway were in favour of	arbitration,
the men were in favour of arbitration, and the principle had been accepted by both. The' only difference between them was as to the tribunal to whom the differences should be referred to. It is not a part of my duty here this afternoon to stand in judgment between the men and the railway company, but the men, on the one hand, contended that the two arbitrators to whom the matter should be referred were two gentlemen on the other side of the line who had acted with regard to similar matters in dispute with a number of American railways, and who had standardized the rates in the States. The men were in favour of arbitration, but insisted that these two arbitrators should be appointed. On the other hand, the Grand Mr. NORTHRUP.
Trunk was equally in favour of arbitration, but insisted that the matter be referred to a board composed of experienced railway men with the obligation of abiding by the result of the finding. If ever there was a case in which the department, which is supposed to act the part of conciliation, which is supposed to prevent strikes and to put an end to them as soon as possible in case they do occur, in which one would think that the wisdom of referring the matter of arbitration would_ occur at once, it was in such a case as this and, in spite of the fact that both parties desired arbitration, and the only difference was as to the composition of the tribunal, a difference which might have been settled by an appeal to the Minister of Labour and which might have been settled by the exercise of the law provided by the government, no suggestion whatever was made of arbitration until after the unhappy strike had commenced.	.	.
Now, in view of these facts is not one justified in saying that no general demand had been made for arbitration? For six months the difference had existed between the company and the men and for months it had been acute. For months the Conciliation Board had been sitting and nearly a month lapsed from the time it gave its report until the strike actually occurred. Yet during all that time not one finger was raised, not one suggestion was made by the Minister of Labour in favour of arbitration even although the president of the Grand' Trunk Railway Company says that he himself suggested this arbitration to the minister on the 13th of July. As soon as the strike had really commenced the suggestion was then made by the Minister of Labour that there should be arbitration. On the 20th of July the minister writes to each of the parties concerned pointing out that it is rendered imperative in the public interest that means be found to affect a settlement of the difficulties and the speedy resumption of work * in all branches of the company's service. The answer, it must be admitted, was not very satisfactory. The men promptly declined the suggestion and the Grand Trunk replied that they had offered this before and that the men had refused. The letter of the 21st July of Mr. Hays which I have read, states that he declines to accept the proposition made by the government. But, nothing was done by the government then. Having written that letter to both parties the government seemed to think all had been done that should be done and until the 27th of July, so far as one can judge from the correspondence, nothing practicable seems to have been done by the government other than the writing of letters. Then, it apparently began to dawn on the minister that something really must be

done, and he wired to Messrs. Murdock and Berry representing the men, again suggesting arbitration, and asking them to consult the head authorities whom they represented to obtain, if possible, their consent to arbitration; the .matter to be referred to some persons who would be mutually acceptable. I think it must be said to the credit of the men that on receiving this appeal from the minister, which was based on grounds of the public interest and in view of the loss which the strike was causing, within 24 hours a reply came by wire which was followed by letter, accepting the proposition of the minister and offering to refer the matter, to the arbitration of some parties mutually acceptable. Mr. Hays, howeveT, took a different position and on page 96 of the report we have this reply as follows:
Montreal, Quebec, July 24, 1910. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa. .
Your telegram of the 23rd received, while as you know from the many conferences urging your action before the strike took place and from our offer repeated and urged upon the committee we were desirous of arbitration and so avoiding the existing trouble. The time for such action has now passed and it is only necessary that we should have the protection to which we are entitled to enable us to resume the full operation of the road.



CHAS. M. HAYS.

[Stage Direction]
We have now come to the 24th of July, when the first genuine appeal was made by the government to both parties, and the men accepted the offer of arbitration, and the president of the Grand Trunk declined, stating the strike was over and that all the Grand Trunk wanted was sufficient protection for their property to enable them to resume the operation of their road. It must be admitted that if the statement of Mr. Hays were true, it amply justified the position he took. The strike had commenced on the 18th of July and by the 24th of July according to' him, the strike was over, and if that were so, he would be justified, in saying that having beaten the men, all he wanted was protection for his property to resume operation of the road. But, the question arises whether this telegram of Mr. Hays to the Minister of Labour was true or not. No one in the world should better know the truth of the statement than the president of the Grand Trunk, and had the government no evidence to the contrary, they might act upon it, but the first thing it was the duty of the government to do, was to ascertain what was the real truth. It happened that owing to the absence of the Prime Minister, Sir Richard Cartwright, Minister of Trade and Commerce, was acting Prime Minister, and recognizing the gravity of the strike and the injury to Canadian trade, Sii
Richard Cartwright on the 26th of July, two days after Mr. Hays had declared the strike was over, sent a telegram to all the collectors of customs in the province of Ontario asking reports from them as to the manner in which business was being carried on. This is the telegram,:
Ottawa, July, 26, 1910.
Confidential and urgent. Please inform me by wire immediately, not later than noon Wednesday, if possible, extent to which business in your locality is being affected by present strike, to what extent is fright being moved.
Then a letter was sent by Sir Richard Cartwright on the 27th of July to Mr. Hays, after all the answers to this telegram had been received, and that letter reads:
July 27, 1910.
Dear Mr. Hays,-I am inclosing for your information copies of telegrams received this morning by the commissioner of customs in reply to a wire sent last night to the collectors in the several towns and cities of Ontario, asking for information as to the extent to which business is being affected by the present strike. Yon will observe that the replies cover virtually all of the important localities in the province on the Grand Trunk Railway system, and that, without exception, they go to show that up to the present little or no freight has been received or sent out by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, also that in some localities industries are being obliged to close down, while in other localities which are fortunate enough to be served by two roads, the facilities of the other roads are proving inadequate to the demands upon them.
The government has been carefully considering the whole strike situation, and whilst it is the wish of my colleagues and myself to cause yon as little embarrassment as possible, we cannot but feel, in view of the situation as disclosed in these messages, all of which are from an official and strictly impartial source, as well as from many other urgent representations, that it is eminently desirable that some settlement of the present dispute should be immediately effected, and that if this cannot he brought about by a conference between the parties, the matter should be left to arbitration as already suggested by the government.
I very much hope that you may find it possible to co-operate with the government along the lines suggested in its endeavours to deal with the critical situation which has arisen, through the interruption of operations over a large part of your company's system.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) R. J. CARTWRIGHT,
Acting Prime Minister.
I shall not read all the answers that came in from the 60 or 70 collectors of customs. The Minister of Trade and Commerce having said in his letter to Mr. Hays that the trade of the country was paralysed, that little or no freight was moving on the Grand Trunk, that many industries had closed down and others would ibe compelled to close down, I shall quote a few sample bricks from the replies sent
[Stage Direction]
to the Department of Trade and Commerce. The first is from Trenton and it Teads:
Trenton, Ont., July 27, 1910. John McDougall,
Commissioner of Customs, Ottawa.
Little inconvenience from strike apparent here to date. Have Canadian Pacific railway and boat connection with Montreal and Toronto, and Merchants' needs supplied in that way. No freight moving on Grand Trunk railway. Loss trifling so far and will not suffer for ten days yet.
ROBERT FRASER, Collector.
That, I think, is about the most favour-ble of all the replies, and that says:
No freight moving on the Grand Trunk.
The next is from Owen Sound:
No Grand Trunk freight trains moving; Grand Trunk not receiving freight! and freight sheds actually closed and business badly affected.
The next is from Orillia:
No freight has been moving since the 18th July. The material cleared here has been merchandise that was on hand. The customs revenue affected by strike would be in the neighbourhood of $1,000.
The next is from Woodstock:
No freight moving on Grand Trunk railway; local business not affected so far.
The next is from Windsor:
Wabash passenger and freight trains leaving Windsor as usual, no interference. Grand Trunk passenger trains leaving Windsor as usual, no delay. Grand Trunk local freight handled by Canadian Pacific and Michigan Central railways. No freight leaving Windsor by Grand Trunk with exception of six car-loads of horses by Canadian express to Fort Erie. Two freight trains from east to Windsor over Grand Trunk since strike was inaugurated.
I will not occupy the time of the House in reading these 60 or 70 communications from the various collectors of customs; but in going through the return brought down by the Minister of Labour, I find, in addition to these telegrams from collectors of customs, that about 100 pages are filled with protests from mayors of various municipalities in the province of Ontario. The first is from Mr. Patterson, mayor of Brockville, dated July 27, urging the government to renew the effort to bring about conciliation; another from Mr. H. A. Currie, mayor of Collingwood, to the same effect; another from a wholesale firm in Hamilton; another from Kincardine, from the mayor; another from Walkerton, from the mayor ; another from Peterborough, from the mayor. There are probably 60 or 70 additional communications!, bearing date the 27th or 28th of July, from mayors of Mr. NORTHRUP.
municipalities and from presidents of boards of trade throughout the country, protesting that business was paralyzed by the strike, and stating that no freight was moving on the Grand Trunk. Therefore the fact is un-c-ontradictable that the government knew cn the 27th and 28th of July, if they could place any reliance on the words of their own collectors of customs and on the words of the mayors of various municipalities, and the presidents of various boards of trade, that the strike was continuing, that practically no freight was being moved on the Grand Trunk, and that trade was being paralyzed throughout the country. Now 1 think I am justified in saying that at such a time as that, when an appeal had ileen made to the government for arbitration, when one side had consented to arbitration and the other side had declined simpjy and solely on the ground that the strike was ver-though the government had in their possession incontrovertible evidence that the strike was not over-the premier and the Minister of Labour might well have used the big stick on the president of the railway to insist on a settlement of this matter by reference to arbitration; and yet nothing of the kind was done.
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the big stick?


Mr. NORTHRUP.: That is an American 'xpression, and as the right hon. gentle man and his colleagues have had more ex perience with the people of that country than I have had, I would hardly venture o instruct him in the American vernacular. The late President of the United States used that expression very frequently.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend used the expression without knowing what it means.


William Barton Northrup: There is no doubt as to the meaning of the expression. The government has a certain power which it can exercise over railway companies and other corporations which are continually asking favours of the government, to compel them to do what is right, and that power is what the late President of the United States described as the big stick. I do not go so far as to say that the government of this country has power to compel railway companies to do what is wrong; but I think their power is irresistible when it is exercised to compel a railway company or any other corporation to do what is right, provided they have public sentiment at their back. The only reason the president of the Grand Trunk gave for declining arbitration was that the iStrike was over; but in face of all these telegrams wdiich came to the government between the 24th of July and the 28th of July from all parts of the province of Ontario, I think the government would have

been amply justified in saying to the president of the Grand Trunk: You have maxle a statement which is not justified by the facts; the only reason you give for refusing arbitration has fallen to the ground, and we insist on arbitration taking place now. Various gentlemen throughout the country who took an interest in this matter aJlso wrote to the government. I find in the .correspondence a letter from Mr. Mills, who is connected with the Mutual Assurance Company of Canada, and one from Mr. Trowern. Secretary of the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, eminently shrewd, practical business letters, calling the attention of the Minister of Labour to what he might and should do; and I venture to say that the real 'solution of all these difficulties as suggested in these letters. That is not mereilv in an arbitration between the men and the company. If a strike takes place, it is the people of the -country who have to foot the bills. It means an enormous loss to the people who are doing the business of the country. It is the duty of the government to protect these people; and therefore, instead of having simply an arbitrator for the men and another for the company, the only fair wav would be to have an arbitrator for the railway company and another for the men, another for the agricultural interests, another for the mercantile interests, another for manufacturing interests, thus constituting a board sufficiently large and representative to command the confidence of all parties, and then by legislation to have it declared that the finding of that board should be absolute and final. If something of that kind had been done in this instance the country would have been -saved an immense loss which has resulted from this unfortunate strike. But nothing of the kind was done. Not only prior to the strike was nothing done to prevent it, but during the continuance of it nothing practical was done to bring it to an end. At last towards the end of July an appeal came from Messrs. Murdock and Berry stating that they had seen Mr. Hays and nothing could be expected from him, and praying that the Minister of Labour would come to Montreal and see if he could do something. Then for the first time the Minister of Labour took some action. He went to Montreal; and it is a curious fact that Mr. Hays, who on the 24th of July had said that the strike was over, is found three or four days later negotiating for a settlement of the strike. The strike was settled on the 29th or 30th of July.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the 2nd of August.


Mr NORTHRUP.: The settlement was practically agreed two or three days- before. The Miniser of Labour (Mr. King) did go to_ Montreal and meet the Grand Trunk railway authorities and the men, and an
agreement was come to. I need not weary he House with the terms of this agreement save as to one item, on page 341 of he return, the agreement is set forth, and n it there is this clause:
T-he company will put back as soon as possible the men other than those who have been or may be found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct, the understanding being that there is to be no coercion or intimidation used towards the new men.
The men declined to accept that condition. They said very naturally that if the company was only bound to put the men back as soon as possible, there was no limit to the delay. It might be months or years or never, so that although the men and the company had agreed on the terms, the agreement could not be made operative simply because the men said:	We must
have some definition as to what you mean by putting the men back as soon as possible. Failing to agree, the men left Montreal. The Minister of Labour (Mr. King) and the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Bordetn), however, continued their good work, and I give them full credit for what they did at that time; and after two or three days an arrangement was come to, and this wire was sent to Mr. Murdock and Mr. Berry, and also a letter from the minister over his own signature a few days later. The telegram will be found at page 336 of the return. This was the wire sent to James Murdock, representative of the general committee of the Grand Trunk railway and Canadian Pacific railway:
Confidential. Mr. Hays has given Borden and myself an understanding that the men will within three months from this date be taken back into service and within that time be placed in their former positions. All men referred to in agreement signed by both parties. We understand by the men, all men referred to in agreement signed by both parties. In accordance with our understanding with you, I shall expect to hear by wire immediately that the strike has been declared at an end. I will confirm this wire over my own signature.



MACKENZIE KING,

[Stage Direction]
Minister of Labour.
On that telegram being received by the leader of the men, the strike was, on the 2nd August, called off. Immediately felicitations began to be exchanged between the department and the men over the happy results of the negotiations whereby the men immediately, or within three months at the latest, were to be returned to their former positions. Unfortunately as time went on, the men began to find that these felicitations were rather premature. The men were refused their old places, and put into inferior positions. In fact to such an extent was that done that it seemed almost as if Mr. Hays was in a jocular mood when he
[Stage Direction]
said he would put the men back, for that is what he really did. He put the conductor of a limited on an express train and the ' conductor of an express train on a local. At all events complaints were rife as to the manner in which the Grand Trunk railway was failing to keep its agreement with the men. Unfortunately the department did not seem able to do anything. It seemed to content itself by merely writing a letter now and then protesting to the Grand Trunk railway that the company was not doing what was right by the men, and it suggested that Judge Barron might be appointed to. investigate the complaints. The Grand Trunk railway, however, refused to accept any such proposition, and Mr. Hays wrote this extraordinary letter which will be found on page 468 of the return. The Minister of Labour (Mr. King) had written Mr. Hays urging on him to carry out his agreement, and on the 10th of November this extraordinary refusal was received from Mr. Hays. The House will remember that the agreement was that the men should be put back in their old positions within three months. Mr. Hays writes as follows:
I have yours of November 9. In the opinion of the officers, our undertaking to re-employ all who were not found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct has been complied with.
Here is the extraordinary feature of this letter:
In the interests of good discipline and public safety it is imperative that the officers of the company shall be the sole judge as to the proper qualifications of the employee and his fitness for the duties assigned him. It would, therefore, in our opinion, be prejudicial to the public interests to leave to an outside party, positively unacquainted with the railway service, the determination as to the fitness of any one for our railway service. That responsibility can only be assumed by the proper officials of the company.
So we find this extraordinary state of affairs, that when the president of the Grand Trunk railway had agreed with two ministers of the Crown that he would put the men back within three months and when the men relying on that assurance, had resumed their work, and when the Grand Trunk railway had failed to put the men back, the president of that road, in reply to an appeal from the minister to carry out his agreement, gave as a reason for not doing so that the company had the right to decide as to the fitness of the persons to be reinstated. But the company had been satisfied with these employees. The company had not discharged any of them. The men had gone out voluntarily to the regret of the Grand Trunk railway, and yet after the company had promised two ministers of the Crown that within Mr. NOETHRUP.
three months it would restore these men to their positions, its president dared write to one of the ministers refusing to carry out his pledge and giving as the reason that his company had the right to decide who were and who were not fit for the positions. If ever , there was an opportunity for the ministers to use the big stick, to exert their authority to say to this railway magnate: You cannot break your agreement in- that way, you cannot break faith with these men, who accepted this agreement on the faith of ministers of the Crown-if there ever was an occasion, it was this; and the ministers who would fail to assert their dignity and compel this railway president to carry out the promise he had made to them can hardly expect to command the confidence of this House.
After that letter had been sent on November 10, the Minister of Labour acknowledged it. One would have thought that there would have been an outburst from the Minister of Labour, one would have thought that after the Minister of Labour had received this letter stating such a wilful, deliberate breach of faith, which put the ministers of the Crown in the position of having given a pledge to the men that was not being carried out, the minister would have sent to Mr. Hays such a letter as he would not easily forget. What did the minister say:
Ottawa, Ont., Nov. 12, 1910.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge and thank yop for your communication of the 10th inst. in reply to mine of the 7th, in regard to employees in train and yard service of the Grand Trunk Railway Company who have not as yet been taken into the company's service.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) W. L. MACKENZIE KING. Chas. M. Hays, Esq.,
President G.T.R.: Co.,
Montreal, Que.
Now, am I not justified in saying that no genuine, sincere, honest effort was made by the government to secure the return to their places of these men, when, in the face of such a breach of faith as I have just pointed out on the part of the president of the Grand Trunk railway, the minister, instead of teaching him a lesson he would remember to his dying day, wrote thanking him for his communication? A minister who appreciated his position would have notified the authorities of the railway that, if their president was a man who would deliberately make an agreement with a minister on which the minister intended to act and did act, and on which some 3,000 men had acted on the statement of the minister, and afterwards would trv to put a lie in the mouth of the minister, then, for all time to come, he would decline to do business with a man who had so failed to appreciate his

position, and the position, dignity and honour of a minister of the Crown.
Now, the question arose afterwards as to what position was really occupied by the minister at the time this agreement was made. I have read the telegram sent by the Minister of Labour to the men stating that an agreement had been made by Mr. Hays with him and Sir Frederick Borden. Now, let me read you another letter. This is found at page 549 of the Return brought down. It is dated November 29, 1910, and was written by the Minister of Labour to Mr. Murdock. I will not go into the whole letter, but will read only a few extracts:
I have, of course, nothing to say as to the method taken by Mr. Hays. That is his own business. I feel, however, as stated at the interview with Mr Berry and yourself that it is eminently desirable that whatever course may he suggested by Mr. Hays should be followed by men who are seeking reinstatement, provided the course suggested is both feasible and honourable.
And further:
From communications which have been received, it would appear that an effort is being made in certain quarters to hold the government responsible for the non-reinstatement of all of the men involved in the recent dispute. This, as I am sure you will admit, is most unfair, inasmuch as the undertaking as to the reinstatement was given not by the government but by the company, Sir Frederick Borden and myself being in the position of witnesses to such undertaking.
Now. does the minister really appreciate the importance of that statement? First, a telegram is sent, followed by a letter over his own signature, to the men, that an undertaking had been given to them, the ministers. That undertaking is not carried out, and the men are protesting against it not being carried out. Members who sit behind the Minister of Labour are protesting on behalf of their constituents and pointing out that the men by hundreds are being discriminated against and a gross injustice done. When these protests come in, the minister writes Mr. Murdock stating that the agreement was made not by the government, but that 'Sir Frederick Borden and myself ' were ' witnesses to the undertaking.' Could there be a flatter contradiction of what the hon. gentleman himself had wired the men? Witnesses! How could they be witnesses? There must be two parties to an agreement. The men were not there; they had gone away, refusing point blank to be parties to the agreement unless the term ' as soon as possible ' were defined. Then the minister intervened, and an agreement was made, as truly said by wire in the first instance, between Mr. Hays on one side and Sir Frederick Borden and the Minister of Labour on the other, that so and so should be done. And afterwards the minister writes that he is a witness.' Tt is perfectly obvious why
he wishes to be regarded only as a witness. If the agreement were admitted to be made with the ministers, as the minister stated in his telegram and in his letter, then the ministers were responsible for the carrying out of the agreement, because they were parties to it-the men could not be, for they were not there. The ministers and the railway company were the only people there, and therefore, as stated in the telegram, the agreement was made between the railway company and the ministers. And this meant . that it was the duty of the ministers to see that the agreement was carried out. _
I wish to make my remarks as brief as possible, so I will not go over the almost endless correspondence between the parties representing the men and the individual men, with regard to the hardship, the injustice done them by the Grand Trunk authorities in refusing to reinstate them. Tc put the matter briefly and taking the case that was least injurious to and most favourable to the men, a man was put in this position:	If the Grand Trunk authorities decided not to re-employ him, he was compelled to' bring his evidence and go before the very official under whom he had worked and prove that he was innocent. It was the first time in the history of British jurisprudence when a man was asked to prove his innocence, instead of being held innocent until proven guilty. And this proof he had to bring before the official who had dismissed him, and dismissed him, as appears in many cases, without rhyme or reason. To prove himself innocent meant thereby to prove that the official who had dismissed him was wrong. Talk about appealing from Philip drunk to Philip sober! Here wag a case of appealing from Philip sober to Philip sober, and attempting to prove that he had been wrong in the judgment he had given. And if, after trying to prove his innocence, the judgment of this unusual court was against him, he was at liberty to appeal along up the line, and if he succeeded in reaching Mr. Hays, Mr. Hays would be willing to hear him. Is it any wonder that dissatisfaction arose among the men? At last, so much dissatisfaction arose that the government suggested that Judge Barron be appointed, and offered to pay his expenses if he were appointed. But after the president of the Grand Trunk refused to have any person appointed, on the ground that the railway company had the right to decide who were the persons to have in their employ, suddenly, the Grand Trunk did employ Judge Barron. Now, 1 have nothing but the most profound respect for Judge Barron personally. I doubt if any man could be found more likely to act rightly and judiciously in this matter than he. And I am delighted to see that the


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the hon. member read the first part of that letter?


William Barton Northrup: Certainly. It reads:
Dear Sir,-In further reference to conference held yesterday between the Premier, the honourable Minister of Railways and yourself with a committee of unreinstated Grand Trunk employees accompanied by the undersigned, at which meeting the facts in connection with the Grand Trunk Company's failure to equitably apply terms of settlement made when strike was called off were discussed.
The committee desire to assure you and through you the government that they deprecate the attitude taken by certain gentlemen (presumably well intentioned), whereby an effort is being made to hold the government responsible for the failure to apply the terms of settlement made.
We appreciate fully the assistance given both at the time of the strike, and since, by the government in its efforts to bring about on behalf of the Canadian public and the citizens of Canada, who were involved in the strike, a settlement, and an equitable carrying out of the terms of that settlement. It is definitely understood by the men interested and the undersigned that it is not on account of any failure on the part of the government that.the present unfortunate situation obtains, but that the existing conditions are rather the result of the obstinate disregard for contract obligations on the part of Grand Trunk officials.
The assistance given so far in a conciliatorv ' and mediating way by representatives of the government is much appreciated, but flip committee would further request that if consistent the government should take further means, if possible, either bv the appointment of a Royal Commisison or in some other consistent manner to enforce from the officials of the Grand Trunk an acceptable carryinsr out of the agreement made and understandings reached.
In the subsequent part of that letter they protest against the men who have repudiated the agreement made with the Grand Trunk employees and the understanding reached with ministers of the Crown. As I pointed out one can hardly relieve the ministers of the Crown from the responsibility that rested on them of seeing that the agreement made with themselves was carried out. The men seem to have acted with wonderful forbearance. They seem to be most grateful for any slight crumbs of service that fell to them from the Crown and certainly if ever there was a body of men, if one may judge from the correspondence as set forth by the Minister of Labour, who deserved to have him stand by them, it was the striking employees cf

the Grand Trunk Tailway in the late strike, and I think there is nothing more touching than the fidelity with which up to the last they stood by the minister and the reckless disregard of their interests by the minister whenever the mighty head of the Grand Trunk railway appeared on the scene.
Then there is an interesting correspondence between the men and Judge Barron. There is first a letter from the President of the Brotherhood of Bailway Trainmen, and the vice-president of the conductors to Judge Barron dated January 5, from Toronto. They send a number of names to the judge, of men that they claim have been left off. They also send a number of names of men who were formerly conductors and who were reduced in position saying:
Men who were formerly conductors have been started into service as brakemcn and numbers of men have been continuously employed on inferior trains or in less preferable positions than those occupied prior to the strike.
They also promised to send him a further list. Judge Barron acknowledges that letter on January 10, and says this:
I have now carefully compared your list with that sent me from Montreal. Your list contains 127 names of men, not given me by the Grand Trunk railway to investigate. I have no explanation for this great difference. But I would suggest for your consideration the propriety of every man who wishes to do so (and who has not yet done so) applying for a hearing under section 12, page 10, of the regulations governing employees, and then appealing to the general officers of the company, should the result of the hearing be unsatisfactory. The wisdom of doing this is that if delay arises in the decision for fifteen days, he thereafter receives his regular pay, and furthermore such action brings him within the sphere of my investigation should the railway not reinstate.
In so far as I can see from all the documents and correspondence brought down, that is the only insight we have into the jurisdiction of Judge Barron. We know hd is appointed by the Grand Trunk, we know he is paid by the Grand Trunk, we know he received a list from the men and a list from the Grand Trunk, and that the list from the Grand Trunk contained 127 less names than the list supplied him by the men. Writing on the 10th January he points out the wisdom of a man appealing to the officer who discharged him, and then by regular gradations up to the head of the railway, this action alone bringing the man within the sphere of Judge Barron's investigation. Surely the minister must be willing to impose a little more on these men than he would like others to impose on him if he thinks that the gratitude which they ex-oressed again and again in the early days of this case should be continued to the end when at the most all they get is a tribunal Mr. NORTHRUP.
such as that, and when Judge Barron, in his own letter addressed to Mr. Murdock, the men's representative, pointed out that the only case in which he had the jurisdiction of a sort of Supreme court was when the men had exhausted all courts of appeal from the first man to whom he appealed, the man who had discharged him, up to Mr. Hays and when, if justice had not been done by Mr. Hays, he could appeal to him.
Now, there is a very long letter from Messrs. Murdock and Berry, and I will only read a few extracts from it. It is dated Toronto, January 13, 1911. This letter was addressed to Judge Barron on receipt of the letter to which I have just referred.
We acknowledge herewith receipt of your letter of January 10, wherein you advise that the list which we sent to you some days ago contains the names of 127 men that are not shown on the list furnished you by the Grand' Trunk railway.
We are advising the employees generally at the several terminal points on the line whose names are not shown on the list given you by the Grand Trunk officials of that fact and suggesting to them that they should at once make necessary application for further hearings or undertake to ascertain in some way why their names have been omitted from the list furnished you.
We note your statement that section 12, page 10 of the regulations governing employees would give these men their regular pay if decision was not given in their case within fifteen days, or that it might at least he contended that they should he paid if not reinstated within that time.
We beg to advise that under past and normal conditions the apparent intent of the section you refer to, has been a dead letter to the extent that we never heard of its application in a single case, and we are firmly of the opinion that its intent would be equally ignored in the cases referred to.
As you may possibly he aware, we have endeavoured to conform to any reasonable suggestion or requirement of the offic als of the Grand Trunk, although we are satisfied that the contention made that men should appeal from the subordinate to the higher officials for reinstatement in the cases cited is unreasonable, and only brought forward for purposes of delay and excuse. As a matter of fact we hold numerous letters over the signature of Mr. Fitzhugh in which he says:
1 am in receipt of your letter of Nov. 18 requesting reinstatement in the company's service, and in reply, beg to say, our records show you deserted your post, and are, therefore, ineligible for re-employment.
There is no contention of disorderly or improper conduct, merely that you deserted your post, you went on strike and there-ore you are ineligible for re-employment.
In the face of such contentions on the part of the higher officials of the Grand Trunk, it does appear as though there was an endeavour to technically evade the actual terms of settlement by the higher officers of the Grand Trunk, insisting on an appeal (from one official to another when in no individual case

any other result has so far been secured only a reference by the higher officials back to the officials making the original decision.
If we might be permitted to do so, we would like to draw your attention to two or three important facts in connection with men being charged and kept out of service. For instance, certain men who have been loyal employees of the company for many years have been refused their former positions on the contention that they could not write the necessary examination. We contend that in many cases this is unfair, as the company's officials knew full well for many years that those men were educationally unable to pass a written examination. Samples of such cases are in evidence in the case of Mr. Purtell and Mr. J. Cain.
It is not necessary that I should weary the House by reading the names given to the judge of men whom the company were bound to reinstate if they had not been guilty of disorderly conduct who were subjected to an examination which they could not pass, and therefore refused reinstatement.
Then, there is this letter, dated January 13, from Messrs. Barry and Murdock to Mr. Chas. M. Hays, and I will only give two or hree quotations from it:
We are advised that you have requested and authorized his honour Judge Barron, of Stratford, to commence investigations in the cases of some of the men who have not yet been returned to service.
On Dec. 3 last a sub-committtee, representative of the general committee for the Grand Trunk and Central Vermont, handed to you a list which contained the names of 268 men located at different terminal points on the line, and who had not at that time been returned to service. That list also showed the reasons so far as known by the committee and as given by your officials for keeping those 268 men still out of service.
As stated above Judge Barron now finds that the names of 127 men given on the list we handed you December 3 (copy of which have given the judge) had been omitted from the list which you had handed to him. There is apparently no explanation for the difference in the lists.
We are also advised by Judge Barron that he had been instructed that the investigations to be held are not to include Central Vermont men. It appears to us that this is entirely inconsiderate of the terms of settlement, which intended to apply to the Central Vermont as well as to the Grand Trunk railway system, and so stated.
One of the complaints of the men was that thev had not been reinstated on the Central Vermont system. Then they go on:
We do not believe that when settlement was agreed to on July 31 it was contemplated that a great number of men would be kept out of service at the option of your officials, and without any apparent reaspn for so doing, except the general statement that the men had deserted their posts, and we are confirmed in our belief in this regard by one sentence in the telegram we received 182
from the Minister of Labour on August 2, wherein he in referring to the understanding between yourself, Sir Frederick Borden and the Minister of Labour, said: 'We understand by the men, all men referred to in agreement signed by both parties/
There is a letter of January 17 from Mr. Hays to Messrs. Murdock & Berry which reads:


Messrs.  S. N.@: Berry, vice-president O.R.C.
James Murdock, vice-president, B. of R.T.
Dear Sirs,-Yours of January 12 duly received. As you have been advised, this company considers that it has complied with its obligations under the agreement to which you refer. Since you were not parties to the agreement, or present at the time it was entered into, we cannot concede your right to say what was intended or to place your own interpretation thereon. As to such of our former employees who may desire Judge Barron to look into their cases where such men are still out of employment have applied to their superintendents for a hearing and have not been satisfied as to the result of such application, there is no objection to their being heard by Judge Barron.
That was on J anuary 17, and it will be interesting to note that from that date to this no step has been taken by the minister to bring to his senses this magnate of the Grand Trunk who not only in this but in other matters which the Minister of Railways will remember and understand, seems to have an hypnotic influence over this government, or some other influence which they either fear or perhaps love so much that they wish to have it extended and increased. In conclusion, I say that I believe this correspondence shows beyond all question that no effort of any kind, good, bad or indifferent, was made by the government to avert the strike by means of arbitration. It shows also that when the government had its choice of appointing a conciliation board under either of two statutes it chose the one which did not give the power to the minister to have an award made which would be binding on the parties. The evidence also shows that after the report was made by the conciliation board, and when the minority report by a gentleman of the standing in the country of Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, pointed out that conciliation was impossible, although a month elapsed before the strike commenced, no effort was made by the government to secure arbitration, and Mr. Hays in his letter claims that not only had no effort been made by the government, but the suggestions made by him in that direction had been turned down by the Minister of Labour. Then, after the strike was on there is nothing to show that any practical effort was made bv the department until the agreement of the 2nd of August. I give the department full credit for having made



that agreement, which at the time was apparently satisfactory to both parties, and for having wired the terms of it honestly and fairly to the men, on the strength of which they abandoned their strike and returned to work. I do, however, think that the government will fail to command the bast judgment of the House in not taking steps to enforce the agreement which they themselves had made with the Grand Trunk. When the men appealed to the ministers to see that the agreement made by them is enforced, the only answer they get is that the ministers made no agreement, and that they were simply witnesses to an agreement between the men and the company; the fact being, according to the letter of the company to the men, .that the agreement was made between the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Militia and Mr. Hays as to the three months within which the men would be restored to then-positions. Therefore. I submit that the responsibility and duty in all fairness and honour rested with the government to exercise every power in their possession to compel the president of the Grand Trunk to carry out the agreement he made with them, and not to have the pitiable exhibition that ,notwithstanding that the men had been assured on the word of the minister of the Crown that every one not guilty of acts of disorderly conduct would be restored to his position within three months, there are to-day 258 men still off the road. And Judge Barron, who is appointed by the Grand Trunk, and paid by the Grand Trunk, tells the men that in order that he may have jurisdiction under the rules laid down, the men must first appeal >to the man who dismissed them, and then through the various grades of officials until they come to the president, and that then if they do not obtain justice he will inquire into their case. That is the position in which these innocent men are placed; men against whom no charge is made, men whom the Grand Trunk are in honour pledged to restore to their places. And, Sir, this agreement is violated with respect to these men without protest on the part of the Minister of Labour, who seems to be content, in his correspondence with this magnate of the Grand Trunk railway, to thank him for his kindness, although apparently he was badly snubbed. I beg to move:
That all the words after '(hat' be struck out and in place thereof the following be inserted :
This House expresses its regret that the government, through the Department of Labour or in any other way, wholly failed to make any intelligent effort to avert the late strike on the Grand Trunk railway, to put an end to it during its continuance, or to compel Mr. C. M. Hays, the president of that railway, to effectively carry out the agreement Mr. NORTHRUP. '
made with the government, on the faith of which when communicated by the Minister of Labour to the Brotherhoods concerned, the men at once offered to resume their service with the company.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee for further consideration of (Bill 123) to incorporate La Ban-que du Canada.-Mr. Bickerdike.
On section 1.-corporate name.
George Ewan McCraney: I simply wish to enter my protest against the name, the Bank of Canada, being used in this Bill.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The following Bills were referred back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines for consideration of amendments made by the Senate therein:
Bill (No. 60) respecting the Lake Champlain and St. Lawrence Ship Canal Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 81) to incorporate the Canadian Northern Branch Lines Company.- Mr. Cash.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 138) for the relief of Gertrude Maud Grant.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 140) for the relief of Mary Hamilton Johnston.-Mr. Totenie.
Bill (No. 141) for the relief of Dalton Mabel Stapleton.-Mr. Tolmie.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed debate on motion for Supply and Mr. Northrup's amendment thereto.
["As a number of my constituents are interested in the question now before the House I desire to make a remark or two. I entirely concur in the motion presented by my hon. friend from East Hastings. I believe that the men have not been properly treated by the Grand Trunk Railway Company ; I believe that the men have been deceived as a result of the agreement arrived at. In the city of Windsor which is one of the terminals of the Grand Trunk, out of 12 conductors who went out on strike one has returned to work and 11 are still without their positions. I know, as a matter of fact that not one of those men is guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct. I do not criticise the Minister of Labour for endeavouring to bring about a settlement between the men and the company; I think that was the proper thing for him to do, as I understand that the Department of Labour was created to assist the great toiling masses of this country in just such cases as this. Now, clause 1 of this agreement which was arrived at when my hon. friend went to Montreal at the request of the men, provides as follows:\nShei.,company win Put **<>k as soon as possible the men other than those who have been or may be found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct, the understanding j-emg that there is to be no coercion or intimidation used towards the new men.\nThe minister knew that under the provisions of that clause the men had absolutely no assurance that they 'would be given their positions in any definite time. The minister was quite willing that the men should accept that provision, which they refused to do. In a telegram dated Ottawa; 2nd of August, and addressed to S. N. Berry, vice-president of the Order of Railway Conductors, Windsor hotel, Montreal, the minister said:\nMr. Hays has given Sir Frederick Borden and myself an undertaking that the men will within three months from this date be taken 183*\nback into service, and within that time be placed in their former positions.\nI had occasion about that time to meet about 300 of the men from Detroit and Windsor who met in the city of Windsor. They had nothing but words of praise for the minister up to that time for the part which he and the government had ..taken in this matter; but it is because he failed to see that the provisions of the agreement were carried into effect that they complain to-day. The minister has quoted a number cf resolutions of boards of trade and communications from representatives of the men. all of which were addressed to him before the three months had expired within which the men were to be taken back to work. The ' Labour Gazette ' makes this statement:\nA strike of the employees of the Grand Trunk railway system in train and yard services occurred on the evening of July 18, at 9.30 o'clock, as the result of a failure on the part of the employees concerned to agree wi, the company upon the rates of wages and rules which should govern their employment. The strike in question continued from the date above mentioned until the evening of August 2, at 7 o'clock, when it was announced that through government intervention terms of settlement had been agreed upon, as a result of which the strike was at once declared off and the employees again reported for duty.\nThe fact is that the men had a just cause to strike, and I believe the public sentiment of this country was with the men. '\nFrom the reports in question it appeared that the demand which was presented to the Grand Trunk Railway Company in January, 1910, for a new schedule of agreement with the employees in train and yard services, was part of a general move by the railway conductors, baggagemen, brakemen and yardmen to secure the adoption of standard rates of pay and rules of employment obtaining on the principal railway systems of the eastern states, and of eastern Canada.\nIt would seem reasonable that the Grand Trank railway employees would expect the same rates of wages as those of the Canadian Pacific railway. It would be reason-aV!e to aisume that a man engaged as a conductor or a brakeman or in any other position upon the Grand Trunk railway system should be entitled to the same rates ot pay as a man in a similar position on the Canadian Pacific railway; and the men formally_ made their complaint to the company asking for a standardized scale of wages, and Mr. Hays refused it, on the ground that the earnings of the road should fee standardized before the company could pay similar wages. He also stated that at seme future time he might be able to pay the employees of the Grand Trunk system the same rates of wages as the Canadian", 'Pacific railway paid. The third reason given was this:\nThe management will pay the same standard. of wages as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as soon as the Grand Trunk Railway Company, through its relation with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, is in a position to participate in the higher rates obtaining on traffic in the Northwest, by reason of the completion of that road and the obtaining of through rail connections between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which should be accomplished within two years.\nI have always had the idea that the object of the government of Canada in constructing the Grand Trunk Pacific railway was to cheapen the rates of this country. It was to be a road which would be in competition with other roads in Canada and for that reason would be the means of lessening the rates. So I do not think either the men or the government or the public of Canada or any one else, took that reason very seriously. I can tell the minister that there- are employees in the city of Windsor who have not yet received the positions to which they are entitled under tire terms of the agreement which was entered into with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and which provided that they wore to be taken back in three months. It was through their trust in the honour of the Department of Labour that the men were willing to accept that condition; but I am of opinion that in that agreement the minister ran up the white flag, fhat he did not stand by the men. The voice was the voice of Jacob, but the hand was the hand of Esau. The men were looking for bread, but the minister handed them a stone. To-day they have not their positions, and it seems to me that they are justified in taking the position they do, in condemning the minister and his department for not giving to them that service which they had a" right to expect from those supposed to be working in their interests.\nAmendment (Mr. Northrup) negatived on division.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the House Tose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Northrup) had moved an amendment to the motion to go into Supply to the effect that the House expresses its Tegret in three particulars: first, that the government, through the Department of Labour or in any other way, had wholly failed to make any intelligent effort to avert the late strike; second, that the government had failed to put an end to this strike during
. 5777

its continuance; and third, that it had failed to compel Mr. Hays, the president of the Grand Trunk railway, to effectively carry out the agreement made with the government. There aTe therefore in that amendment three distinct charges. First, that the government is responsible for not having effectively prevented the strike which took place on the Grand Trunk railway ; second, that the government was responsible for its continuance or failure to terminate it; and third that the government is responsible for the alleged failure on the part of Mr. Hays to carry out the terms of the agreement.
I shall endeavour to deal with these charges in their order; but before doing so it -may enable the House better to understand and appreciate the -significance of the strike and the difficulty of dealing with it if I briefly outline its nature and true proportions. Let me point out first of all that this strike was but the culmination of a movement which started on this continent nearly two or three years ago, on the part of the organizations connected with the railways of the continent to bring about a standardization in the rates oi pay and the conditions under which the men are obliged to labour. I say on the continent, because these brotherhoods have organizations not only in Canada and the United States but also in Mexico. They extend throughout the whole of North America. About three years ago they endeavoured to bring all the railways on the continent on to one plane as respects the conditions under which the workingmen are obliged to labour. That movement, which started in the western states, took up the greater part of the year 1909 in that section of the country. Then having succeeded in bringing about an equalization of conditions on the American roads, they endeavoured to bring a similar condition in western Canada and succeeded, so far as the Canadian Pacific railway was concerned. In 1910, these organizations endeavoured to bring into line the railways in the eastern states. Some 40 or 50, or perhaps 60 different railways were affected; and when these brotherhoods were able to bring about an equalization, making allowance to a certain extent for the differ-ent^ conditions under which men were obliged to work-when they succeeded in bringing into line the whole of the United States and western Canada, they next turned their attention to- eastern Canada. In that connection there were two different railways to be considered-the Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Pacific railway.
If hon. .members have grasped the significance of what I have said, they will see that the dispute, which finally took the 1821
shape of a strike on the Grand Trunk railway, was -but the culminating point of that movement which had been -successful in every part of North America except in the Dominion as respects the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway. When that point is grasped, hon. gentlemen will perhaps hesitate before endeavouring to hold the government or any one responsible for the fact that that strike came on as it did with the force and effectiveness that characterized it. As I have said, there were only two railways left, after the railways in the eastern states had been brought into line. These were the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway. Under our law before any action can be taken in the nature of a strike, the parties are bound to submit their differences to a board. They applied for boards in the case of the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway, and these were granted in each case. The boards met simultaneously and reported in the case of each company. In neither case was the report wholly acceptable to the men, but I believe in the case of the Canadian Pacific railway, that company was prepared to accept the award of the Board of Conciliation, though the men were not. What followed? After the board had given its award in the case of the Canadian Pacific railway the men in the employ of that company expressed dissatisfaction at certain things, and then the Canadian Pacific railway company and the men -came together and negotiated further and armed at a settlement satisfactory to each. -That left the movement then confined en-irely to the Grand Trunk railway. The men had been successful on all the railways in the United States and western Canada and in eastern Canada, with the exception of the Grand Trunk railway, with which they had been unable to bring about a satisfactory settlement. One reason alone is sufficient to account for that fact, and that is that different methods of payment in connection with the two roads the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway, had been in existence. In the case ot the Canadian Pacific railway the men were paid by the mile, and in the case of the Grand Trunk railway by the day. On practically all the railways in the United States, these organizations had been able to -bring about a system of payment by the mile, and the object of the struggle in connection with the recent strike was to compel the Grand Trunk railway to change its system from a day to a mileage basis. The importance of that difference will be apparent when one -considers what takes place as the roadbed and the rolling stock are improved. Where the payment is on the mileage basis, the better the condi-

tion of the roadbed and the rolling stock, the greater the run can be made, and the longer the run, the more the amount of *wages. On the other hand, when payment is by the day, every improvement to the roadbed and the rolling stock calls from the men the expenditure of a greater amount of energy; they have to. travel over a greater distance for the same pay And as the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway have been improving their roadbeds and rolling stock, the result is that the men on the Canadian Pacific railway were getting a higher rate of wage relatively than those on the Grand Trunk railway. In some cases the difference was as high as 38 or 40 per cent in favour of the men on the Canadian Pacific railway as compared with men doing the same work on the Grand Trunk railway. It was this large difference in the rate of wages and this difference in the method of payment that caused dissatisfaction among the men on the Grand Trunk railway, and it was because this difference was so great that the Grand Trunk railway was not prepared to accede to the demand made on them at the outset nor the terms proposed later on.
My hon. friend in his motion charges the government with not having made any intelligent effort to avert the strike on the Grand Trunk railway; and in endeavouring to impress this on the House, he said there were two ways open to the government by which they could have averted that strike. One was to appoint a board under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and the other was to appoint a board of arbitration under the provisions of the Conciliation and Labour Act and compel the two parties to execute the award of that board and thus prevent the possibilities of a strike.
My hon. friend is a lawyer, and I am somewhat surprised that he should have made that criticism because he must be familiar with the laws which this House has enacted; and if he reads through the statutes he will be unable to find any law which gives the Minister of Labour power to compel an arbitration. This parliament has never seen its way to concede compulsory arbitration. And. in the absence of a statute of that kind, I am unable to see how the hon. gentleman could draw the inference he has attempted to draw that the minister had power to compel arbitration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With the permission of the minister, I desire to ask a question. Is there any question about the jurisdiction of this parliament to pass a compulsory Act? I ask purely for information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think myself there is any question about it. I think that if this parliament decided that it was a wise Mr. KING.
thing to enact such a law, it would have full power to do so. When the matter was considered some years ago, a Compulsory Arbitration Bill was introduced by Sir Wm. Mulock, then Minister of Labour. That Bill was read twice, I think, in this House, and then copies of it were distributed throughout the country to labour unions and important companies with a request for their opinions as to a law of that kind; and they were pretty nearly unanimous in stating that they did not wish compulsory arbitration, but what they wished was compulsory investigation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Would there not be an interference with the right of contract if such a law were passed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as railways chartered by this parliament are concerned, I think certainly this parliament would have authority to enact a compulsory arbitration law. However, that is aside from the question. The point I wish to make clear is that there was not the alternative which my hon. friend has suggested. He has referred to some correspondence between Mr. Hays and the department as being rather extraordinary-he used that remark, I think, in reference to a letter written by Mr. Hays to myself. The line of argument he has taken is preciselv that taken by Mr. Hays at the outset which, I must confess. I thought was somewhat extraordinary on Mr. Hay's part. For I felt that he could not but have the best legal advice, and I was unable to see how he could think that this government had power to compel arbitration. As I have said, the dispute was referred, first of all, under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. It was in January, 1910, that the men first presented their demands to the company. These demands were considered and negotiations took place between the parties until March 17, by which time they had discovered that it was impossible to reach a settlement by mutual agreement. The men applied to the department for a conciliation board. This board met for the first time on May 25, and on June 22 the board presented a report to _ the government. From June 22 until July. 18, the parties continued their negotiations. The hoard's award was not taken as satisfactory to the men or by the company, but they used it as a basis in the effort to bring about a satisfactory settlement. So, from June 22 until July'18, the date when the strike was declared, the parties did their best to reach an agreement. My hon. friend says that during that interval, the government should have stepped in and compelled arbitration; and he says we should have do so as a consequence of a request which came to the government from Mr. Hays, pointing out that we had the power

to compel arbitration, and that it was the duty of the minister to compel it under the circumstances. I will not weary the House by reading correspondence, but will refer hon. members to a letter which is on file, and which had been brought down, of July 13, in which Mr. Hays suggested that the department should take action under the Conciliation and Labour Act to compel arbitration. And I would refer hon. members also to my reply to Mr. Hays and my communication to each of the parties involved on behalf of the railway organizations. I took this position-and I think it is the only one that could be taken: The dispute had been referred under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. So, any reference under the Conciliation and Labour Act could only be in the nature of a second investigation. I held that it was never the intention of this parliament, when it enacted the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and made provision that railway disputes might come under that Act, or under the Conciliation and Labour Act, that such a dispute should be taken first under one Act and then under the other. That is, parliament intended to give the railway men an alternative to proceed under either of these statutes, and, the men having proceeded under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, they were not by law obliged to submit to a second investigation under the Conciliation and Labour Act. However, I pointed out to Mr. Hays that if it was an arbitration as commonly understood-that is, each of the parties agreeing to be bound by the award of some third person who might be called in-I would do my part to see if the men were willing to accept arbitration of that kind. I communicated with both Mr. Murdock and Mr. Berry, who were representing the men, and drew their attention to Mr. Hay's letter. What was the reply? In one letter, which I received, which was signed by Mr. Hays himself, he inclosed a communication from the men, and this had the following significant statement:
The committee have also carefully considered the suggestion contained in your letter in reference to arbitration, and they desire us to advise you that in their opinion the questions referred to (being the contentions of men employed in train and yard service in the eastern territory for standardization of wages and general conditions), have been very fully arbitrated already. First, for some eight days on the Baltimore and Ohio railway under the provisions of the so-called Erdman Act; later in the case of some ten or more properties by a submission of the entire question to two gentlemen experienced in these matters, to dispose of.
The committee are not inclined to believe that further arbitration should be necessary or that arbitration would bring out anything in the way of contentions upon either side that has not already been fully considered and passed upon.
Similarly, the letter which I received from Mr. Berry and Mr. Murdock in answer to the communication which was sent them transmitting Mr. Havs' letter, contained the following:
On behalf of the members of these organizations-
The Brotherhood of Trainmen and the Brotherhood of Railway Conductors ___generally throughout Canada, and especially on behalf of the men employed in train and yard service on the Grand Trunk railway, we trust that it may be decided by the minister as unnecessary to apply the provisions of the Mulock Bill for the purpose of investigating this situation. The men on the line, generally, cannot believe that such action would conserve their interests, or the interests of the public, but would rather feel that any further investigation of the nature referred to would only tend to prejudice the situation unfavourably against them by causing further delay.
That was the situation. Mr. Hays had asked the government to try to bring about a second investigation under the Conciliation and Labour Act. I believed that an investigation of that kind could not serve any useful purpose, and, further, that it would be prejudicial; and I based that belief not only on my general knowledge of the situation at the time, but on the expressed opinion of the men themselves when Mr. Hays' communication was transmitted to them. I had no power to compel an arbitration. But had I tried to precipitate in any way this question of a further investigation into the difficulty as it was at that time, it would only have aggravated the situation and put the government in a position where it might reasonably have been held responsible for some of the trouble which might have ensued. All that it was possible to do, after the Board had presented its report was to offer the good offices of the government to the parties and to agree to meet any of the expenses which might be necessarily incurred in carrying out any proposal which either side might make and which would be agreeable to both. That I did in communications sent both to the company and to the men on every occasion; for example, in mv letter to Mr. Havs I said:
I regret that it does not seem to me I have the requisite authority to take either of the courses suggested by you, nor under the circumstances do I believe it would be m the public interest to do so. If, however, either the company or its employees can suggest any way in which the good offices of the government can be further exercised towards mediating the present difficulties I shall be pleased to do my utmost to see that they are immediately placed at the service of the parties.
That was the standing offer which was kept before the parties at every stage of this dispute, that if either of them could suggest any way in which the government

would lend its good offices to prevent the situation becoming more critical, the good offices of the government would be placed immediately at their service.
Take the parallel case of the dispute on the Canadian Pacific railway. There the board had given its award, which was not accepted by the men; the company and the men continued negotiations. Had I done what the member for Hastings (Mr. North-rup) suggests I should have done in their case and said to the parties:	You have
been unable to get a settlement as a result of the investigation by the board, now the government wants you to arbitrate this matter, I would have been in a nice position, and the government would have been in a nice position if they had turned round and said: Thank you, we do not want any of your . arbitration, we do not need it, and if they had subsequently shown that they did not need it by coming to an agreement, as they did, which is binding to-day. The Grand Trunk situation was precisely the same as that of the Canadian Pacific railway. There, too, the board's award was not accepted, they were still negotiating and for any third party to have gone in at that particular stage would only have been to make the situation worse than it was at that time. I would point out in that connection that the government on any occasion of this kind has to consider more than the immediate case. There is such a thing as precedent and particularly in dealing with these industrial disputes it is easy to establish a precedent which may lead to 'a great deal of trouble later on. My belief is that after a board has been appointed and has made an investigation the government should not interfere further between the parties unless there is something very exceptional to compel them to do so, because once the parties get the idea that government can be called upon indefinitely to lend its good offices they are not going to end their dispute or the negotiations at the first stage, they are always going to continue them until they have exhausted every possible means of gaining their end. So I feel in administering the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act that the government is on the right side where it refuses, unless the cases are most exceptional, to take_ any step as between the parties, after a dispute has been referred to a board, and the board has given its award on which they are to base their judgment.
I have in my hand a pamphlet signed by Mr. Lee, President of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. This pamphlet is an account of the Grand Trunk and Central Vermont railway strike as given by the president of this organization to the men who were concerned in the dispute. At page 5 of this pamphlet Mr. Lee sets forth the negotiations which took place between


William Lyon Mackenzie King: the company and the representatives of the men, after the award of the Board of Conciliation had been given. He points out that on July 16, there was a lengthy conference in the office of the president and again on July 18 another conference. He says:
Mr. Hays replied shortly that he would meet the committee and officers at 11.30 a.m., the 18th, which was done, other officers of the company also being present. Mr. Hays at this conference stated that the company would definitely promise to put the eastern standard rates into effect January 1, 1913. This was not accepted and the conference was adjourned and resumed again at 3 p.m.
That was on July 18, the very day on which the strike was declared. The parties up to 3 o'clock that afternoon were negotiating together to see if it were possible to come to a settlement themselves. Mr. Lee goes on:
Prior to the departure of the general committeemen a draft of a proposal of last resort was prepared and ratified which it was agreed should be submitted to Mr. Hays if it was finally concluded that a peaceable settlement could not otherwise be effected. After it appeared that Mr. Hays was indisposed to make any appreciable concessions, the proposition mentioned was presented to him, on which he expressed himself quite favourably and asked the opinion of other officers present as to the time it would take them to analyse it. They answered that it would take two or three days, but the attention of the officials was called to the fact that they had had several months to consider the men's demands, and that the committeemen were now out on the line getting ready to put a strike order into effect that evening and that the men were opposed to any further delay at that time. The president then stated that they would take until 5 o'clock to consider the matter and the officers and sub-committee were told to return at that time. Upon return the president handed Brothers Berry and Murdock copies of proposed terms of settlement as the company's ultimatum. The officials were informed that the terms offered were entirely unacceptable and, even if the officers and sub-committee were so disposed, they could not accept the offer as it was not up to the lowest basis, above referred to, fixed previously by the joint committee. Mr. Hays stated that the company would go no further and the meeting closed.
It was now definitely realized that a strike was inevitable. Up to this time the sentiment in all parts of the Dominion was that the Grand Trunk Company could not consistently refuse to give the men the same rates and conditions as granted by practically all eastern railways. It was not believed that the company would engage in a strike.
That was the position the men themselves took in reference to this dispute. If, up to 5 o'clock on the afternoon on which the strike was declared, the leaders of that strike did not believe a strike would take place, wherein would the government have been justified, in the midst of these critical negotiations, with the example before

them of the case of another railway company having negotiated with the same body in which a successful settlement had been reached, it had rushed in and tried to compel- an arbitration which the men themselves had indicated would only help to precipitate an element of danger into the whole situation? I say if the government had taken the course which the hon. member in moving this resolution has suggested they should have taken, I think the hon. member might have brought in the resolution which he has here, and have very properly condemned the government for being too precipitous, too officious, and for preventing the parties themselves from coming together and effecting a settlement which might have averted the strike. So I say as to the first part of the resolution which my hon. friend has moved and which expresses regret that the government had not endeavoured in any intelligent way to avert a strike on the Grand Trunk railway, he is wrong in two particulars: he is wrong first of all in the method he suggests should have been taken ' by the government, for I claim that is a wrong method, and he is "wrong in stating that no effort whatever was made inasmuch as when the demands of the men were presented these demands were made a subject of investigation by a board which was appointed by the government and then the government from the time the board's award was given up to the time the strike took place, held out an offer continuously to each side in the dispute to lend its good offices in any way that would be acceptable to the two parties.
There seems to be just as little ground for criticism of the government's action as respects the second charge contained in this amendment, namely that the government had wholly failed to put an end to the strike during its continuance. Just here I would call the attention of the House to a curious contradiction in the motion of my hon. friend. He wishes to condemn the government on every possible side, first of all for the strike, secondly for not ending the strike, and thirdly for not having had the agreement carried out. But he finds himself in this dilemma that to hold the government responsible for the agreement oeing carried out, he has in some way to make the government responsible for the agreement itself. So he is put in the curious position of being obliged to admit that the government did bring about a settlement of the strike when he tries to hold it responsible for not having the terms of the settlement fully carried out. On the other hand, when he wishes to make his denunciation wholesale, he says the government are to blame for not putting an end to the strike during its continuance. Follow the two clauses of my hon. friend's motion. He says that the [DOT]
government have ' wholly failed .	.
to put an end to it during its continuance ', and he goes on to say: ' or to compel Mr. C. M. Hays, the president of that railway, to effectively carry out the agreement made with the government, on the faith of which .	. the men at once offered to resume their service with the company '. Either one of these two clauses must be wrong, both to my mind are wrong but either of them is certainly wrong and it must appear so to every one who reads them. If the government did not put an end to the strike then the government can not be held responsible for the terms of an agreement that, according to the third paragraph of the amendment, it is supposed to have drawn up and as a result of which the men returned to work. On the other hand, if the government did draw up an agreement as a result of which the men returned to work, then the second clause of my hon. friend's amendment, namely, that the government did not put an end to the strike, falls absolutely to the ground.
Just a word as to what the government did do when the strike took place. It was the 18th of July when the men decided to go out. On the night of the 18th of July an order was issued from Montreal to all the railway trainmen and conductors from Portland on the Atlantic to Chicago, half way across the continent, and the whole Grand Trunk railway system throughout that entire distance, including something like 4,000 miles of railway, was completely tied up. The number of men who went out at that time totalled 3,450 and then, a day or two following, after the company had closed its shops at Quebec and other points, the total number who were out in consequence of the strike was 8,500. What was the situation on the morning of the 19th of July? Between 8,000 and 9,000 men were out, an entire railway system was completely tied up, not a passenger or freight train moving from one end of it to the other and this over something like 4,000 miles of railway system. That was a position to which the government could not be indifferent. I have already said that I do not think it the business of the government to interfere once the board has issued its award, (unless the case is exceptional, but I contend that in this particular case the situation was exceptional. This was one of the first strikes of any magnitude that had taken place since this legislation was passed, and when it became apparent that the whole railway system of the Grand Trunk was going to be effectively tied up it became the duty of the government to do what it could to relieve the situation. My hon. friend, in suggesting what might have been done, said that he did not see why the government did not

appoint a Board of Arbitration and place on that board merchants, manufacturers, working men and capitalists, so that all interests in the country would be represented. Now, the hon. gentleman knows just as well as I do that the government could have appointed a thousand boards and not one of these boards could have affected the situation one way or the other. The dispute had already been investigated. It could not have been referred to a Board of Arbitration without each party being willing that it should be so referred and being willing to abide by the award. The parties were not willing. The only step that was possible, in so far as I could see in the premises, was for the government to endeavour in some way to affect public opinion on the question so as to compel each of the parties to realize that theirs was not the only interest that had to be taken account of, that while they, as working men, or a railway company, might believe they could afford to fight over their own differences, the public also had an interest in the situation and the public was entitled to have its voice heard. So, on the day following the strike, I addressed a communication to each of the parties asking them if they could not see their way to refer this difference to , arbitration. I pointed out that they had professed to be willing to arbitrate before the strike had taken place. I had my doubts as to the genuineness of their professions and my doubts increased when I gave them an opportunity to refer the matter to arbitration and they did not take advantage of it. That was the first step necessary to be taken and it was taken promptly. Each of the parties had asked if they would not agree to refer the dispute to arbitration, and I told them that in the event of their being willing to do so the government would bear the expense of the arbitration and assist in every way to see that it was faithfully and properly carried out. What were the answers that were received? The answer that came from the men was largely an evasive answer. The answer that came from the company was no less evasive. Each of them was unwilling to appear to be the first to give in by consenting to arbitration. I shall not delay this discussion by reading the messages that were exchanged on the one hand and the other, but I would point out to the House that what the department sought to do on that occasion was to let the public know who was responsible as between the two parties for the situation which had been created. That could be made apparent if one or the other was refusing what was obviously fair, and I felt that sooner or later the pressure of public opinion would make itself felt to such a degree that the parties could not longer stand out against it, and Mr. KING.
that very soon the strike would be terminated. That communication was sent to each of the parties, and as neither of them sent satisfactory replies I addressed the following letter on July 2 to each of them- to Mr. Hays on the one side and to Messrs. Berry and Murdock on the other:
Referring further to my letter of the 20th inst. and the replies received, I would respectfully point out that neither the reply from the president of the company nor the reply from the representatives of the general committee of the employees, answers the question it asks and which is, whether, as representing one of the parties to the present dispute, you will now be willing to refer the existing differences to arbitration, provided a board of arbitrators mutually acceptable can be secured, and the- necessary expenses incidental to such board met by the government. This is a question to which the people of Canada who, at the present are being more largely affected by the existing dispute than either of the parties, have a right to expect a definite reply, and which, as a minister responsible to them, I feel it my duty to ask on-their behalf. Will you kindly give a direct answer to this question at your earliest convenience, that the public may be able to judge for itself of the present positions and attitude of the parties on a matter which so vitally affects its interests?
That letter or telegram, for as a matter of fact it was wired, gives the keynote to the attitude of the government at that time. The government had made up its mind that it would find out for the people of the country who was responsible for keeping up this dispute, it was determined to give each of the parties an opportunity of entering into an arrangement which would afford a satisfactory way out of the dispute, and if either failed to take advantage of the opportunity its action could speak for itself. The answers to that communication will be found in the papers which have been brought down to the House. In brief, the replies that we received were also evasive. The committee that were dealing with the case of the men replied that they did not have authority to refer the matter to a board other than one of the nature which they [DOT] had agreed previously to refer it to. Mr. Hays replied that he had nothing to add to his previosu letter. I continued to press for a definite reply, urging the obvious public grounds and in the course of another day or two one of the parties did finally consent to refer the dispute to a Board of Arbitration, this was the men. In their letter sent from Montreal on July 23, they give reasons which are well deserving of consideration and they say:
We recognize the special obligation to the public and regret exceedingly the inconvenience and loss to which public and private interests are being subjected, and with that recognition desire to advise you that we will be willing to refer the existing differences to

arbitration provided a board of arbitrators mutually acceptable can be secured.
The strike took place on the 18th July, and by the 23rd July the government had succeeded in getting one of the parties to consent to have the differences referred to a board of arbitration. Had Mr. Hays been ready to take the same step at the same time there is no reason why the strike should not have ended then. When 1 received this letter from Messrs. Murdock and Berry, I at once communicated its contents to Mr. Hays, and I asked him pointedly whether, the other party having agreed to refer the matter to arbitration, he would not also agree to do so. In reply he [DOT]said:
Your telegram of the 23rd received, while as you know from many conferences urging your action before the strike took place and from our offer repeated and urged upon the committee, we were desirous of arbitration ;and so avoiding the existing trouble, the time for such action has now passed, and it .is only necessary that we should have the protection to which we are entitled to enable us to resume the full operation of the road.



[Stage Direction]
Had the government been indifferent, had dhe government been prepared to take Mr. Hays' word, the matter might have ended with that letter, but the moment that reply was received from Mr. Hays the government communicated with the customs officials throughout Ontario as to the movement of freight in their respective towns, and from all of whom replies were received stating that the Grand Trunk Railway system was practically tied up, that trains were not moving in some, that factories had [DOT]closed down, and, in all, that inconvenience, loss and distress were being experienced. The government then took action as a government, and a meeting of the cabinet was called, and Sir Richard Cartwright, who was acting Prime Minister, in a communication pointed out to Mr. Hays That the reports of the government officers demonstrated that Mr. Hays' telegram did not correctly describe the situation. Sir Hichard Cartwright wrote:
The government has been carefully considering the whole strike situation, and whilst it is the wish of my colleagues and myself to cause you as little embarrassment as possible, we cannot but feel, in view of the situation as disclosed in these messages, all of which are from an official and strictly impartial source, as well as from many other urgent representations, that it is eminently de sirable that some settlement of the present dispute should be immediately effected, and that if this cannot be brought about by a conference between the parties, the matter should be left to arbitration as already suggested by the government.
Mr. Hays had refused the offer of arbitration, and the government came back at
him and pointed out that he should accept arbitration at that particular stage, and Sir Richard Cartwright concluded:
I very much hope that you may find it possible to co-operate with the government along the lines suggested in its endeavours to deal with the critical situation which has arisen, through the interruption of operations over a large part of your company's system.
On that day the Minister of Militia was leaving for the maritime provinces and he agreed to take this communication in person to Mr. Hays so as to impress upon him how determined the government was that the strike should be ended and ended speedily. The Minister of Militia took that letter to Mr. Hays on July 27, and the same afternoon I received this telegram: Messrs. Garretson and Lee held conference to-day with Mr. Hays without result. May 1 be permitted on behalf of the men on strike to request that as' a minister of the Crown and representative of the people you come to Montreal and by further effort try and arrange an honourable settlement either by arbitration or negotiation.

[Stage Direction]
As a result of that telegram, I left on the following day for Montreal, and the Minister of Militia and myself did our utmost to bring together the two parties with a view to a settlement. I point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) that instead of being indifferent and doing nothing to bring about a settlement, the government was as active as it could be from the moment the strike took place. The only step we could take at the outset was to bring all the pressure possible on each side to get them to agree to a joint conference or arbitration and the communications which passed between the government and the parties were the means of helping to focus public opinion on the situation, and enable the public to discover which side was right and which wrong in refusing to take advantage of the government's offer. In this way public opinion combined with the active intervention of two of the ministers, eventually succeeded in bringing about a settlement, and instead of the government being criticised by my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) he should have complimented it on its activity and success in ending the difficulty in so short a time. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Northrup) said that the government should have used the big stick, and although he did not define what he meant by that expression, his meaning apparently was that the government should have done all it could to compel the Grand Trunk railway to agree to a settlement on reasonable terms. But, if we^ are to judge by results, I think my hon. friend (Mr. Northrup) has plenty of evidence to show that the big stick was used, and used pretty effectively on that occasion. There is no doubt at all that Mr. Hays did not, intend to settle that strike. I have no hesi-
[Stage Direction]
tation in saying that once the men went out on strike, it was the intention of Mr. Hays, no matter what the cost, to keep up that strike until he defeated the men. And that such was the opinion of the men themselves is evident from the statement in this same pamphlet sent out by Mr. Lee, the president of the organization, in describing the effort made to bring about a settlement. On page 6 he says:
The entire service was demoralized in the beginning, but before a great many hours enough strike breakers had been bought and borrowed to man a number of passenger trains and as usual the passenger service did not suffer badly after a few days. The freight service, however, was crippled seriously. The loss to the companies in revenue was enormous. Valuable freight contracts were lost, at least for the time. Mr. Hays, however, seemed to give little consideration to the immediate financial consequence of the strike, but appeared fixed in the determination that the men should be fought to the end.
Again he says:
He seemed as ever intent upon prolonging the strike indefinitely, regardless of cost, apparently with the view of eventually having the public interest itself to the extent of forcing the government to demand a resumption of the service.
He goes on to describe the efforts that were made by Messrs. Garrison and himself to bring about a conference with Mr. Hays with _ a view to settling the difficulty, pointing out that they were unsuccessful and that these efforts were finally broken off. The correspondence itself shows that the men saw plainly that the attitude of the company was that they were going to fight to the bitter end, no matter at what cost to the company or to the country; but the government made up its mind that the fight would not go on to the bitter end, but that a settlement of the strike would take place. So the efforts of the Minister of Militia and myself, during the two or three days that we were in Montreal, were devoted to bringing the parties together, and putting them in a position where each would be obliged to show exactly where thev stood, so that the public might learn, if necessary, from us as ministers of the Crown, who were in the right and who were in the wrong. It was Thursday afternoon, I think, when we left for Montreal; by Saturday a joint conference had been arranged between the parties, and by Saturday night we had practically come to an agreement as to the terms of . settlement except in one particular, and it took from Saturday night till Tuesday to get that one remaining- ^question settled before the strike could be'declared to be at an end. What I want to point out to my hon. friend is that by the action of the government, first, in offering arbitration and in bringing public opinion to bear on
William Lyon Mackenzie King: the _ situation, secondly, by actively intervening when requested to do so by the employees, and, thirdly, by bringing all the pressure possible to bear on the parties when we got them together, the strike was terminated inside of 15 days, instead of being continued over a period of time.
Now, I think I am right when I say that the efforts of the government to bring about a termination of the dispute were appreciated, not only by the public, but by the parties to the dispute themselves; and, seeing that my hon. friend thinks that ino intelligent effort was made to avert the_ strike, or to end it after it began, it might be well for me to read some of, the communications which were received immediately after the termination of the strike, to show that those who had to do with it and knew the situation took an entirely different view from what he does. For example, here is a communication from Mr. Garretson, president of the Order of Railroad Conductors. He was one of those who were present during the negotiations with Mr. Hays; in fact, he conducted the negotiations on behalf of the men. His letter is as follows:
Order of Railway Conductors, Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
August 10, 1910.


Hon.   W@: Mackenzie lung,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa, Ont.
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 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,


A. B. -GARRETSON,
[Stage Direction]
President.
I believe that a similar communication was sent by Mr. Garretson to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence. Then, Mr. Berry, who represented the organization in Canada, in a letter dated Toronto, December ,31, 1910, wrote as follows:
I inclose herewith a copy of minutes of Eastern Association General Committee, Order Railway Conductors and Brotherhood Railway

Trainmen, held at Buffalo, N.Y., October 18 to 20, inclusive, 1910. I -would draw your attention to resolution on pages 9 and 10 expressing appreciation of action taken by the officials of the government, especially Sir Frederick Borden and yourself. This resolution had the unanimous endorsation of the meeting.
It will be observed that this letter is dated December 31, so that the feeling it expresses was not simply that which Mr. Berry entertained just at the moment after the strike was settled, but the opinion he continued to have up to the end of the year. The resolution referred to by Mr. Berry is as follows:
-Resolved, that we express our full appreciation of actions of officials of the Dominion government in their untiring efforts to settle the strike, and we especially commend the efforts of the Minister of Militia, Sir Frederick Borden, and the Minister of Labour, the Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, who did so much toward restoring peace and harmony.
This resolution was passed at a joint meeting of the Eastern Association of General Committees of Railroad Conductors and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, held at Buffalo from October 18 to October 20. Then, in a. communication from Mr. Barry, dated August 15, on behalf of the Canadian members, I find the following:
In conclusion, I wish to take this opportunity of expressing to you on behalf of myself, other officers of the Order of Railway Conductors, and especially our members employed on the Grand Trunk and Central Vermont railways from Portland to Chicago, and the Canadian membership in general, the profound obligation under which we lie for the services of yourself and your associate ministers of the Dominion government in connection with the settlement of the strike upon the above-named railways. I feel, and sincerely trust, that the ready recognition and untiring efforts of Sir Frederick Borden and yourself will not be forgotten by the Canadian citizens, especially our membership, and that they will in the future make that reciprocation thoroughly apparent.
Again thanking yourself and associate ministers on behalf of the membership of the Order of Railway Conductors, and with highest personal regard, believe me, sincerely and gratefully yours,
(Sgd.) S. N. BERRY,
Vice-president O.R.C.
Those communications speak for themselves. I might also quote from the official journals of these organizations. Here is the ' Railroad Trainman,' the official journal of the Brotherhood of the Railroad Trainmen, at page 797 of the September issue, I find the folowing with regard to the setltlement:
The settlement was effected principally through the efforts of the Minister of Labour, Mr. King, assisted by the Minister of Militia, Mr. KING.
Sir Frederick Borden, to whom full credit is given for their efforts in bringing about the settlement.
Also in the ' Railway Conductor ' which is the official journal of the Railway Conductors Brotherhood, I find at page 718 the following passage:
Mr. WILCOX.: What date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: September, 1910. This is what that journal says:
In connection with this settlement the thanks of the Canadian membership and of our entire organization as well, are due and tendered to the Hon. Mackenzie King, Minister of Labour, and Sir Frederick Borden, Minister of Militia, for their untiring efforts on behalf of the men, for the influence they brought to bear on the Grand Trunk Railway management contributed in no small degree-in producing a satisfactory result and ending the controversy.
My purpose in reading these resolutions is not in any way to record on ' Hansard ' communications which one might be pleased, to read concerning his own work, but I am forced to read them in view of the resolution moved. My hon. friend says that no effort was made by the government to put an end to the strike during its continuance. That is the charge which he brings against, the government in general and the Department of Labour in particular. In order to reply, I feel it necessary to quote the words of the men themselves who, better than any one else and as well at any rate as the company itself, knew who had rendered them good service.
Not only did the parties themselves believe that the government had rendered the men a service, but the people of the country also. I have a telegram from my hon. friend's own constituency for I believe he is a resident of Belleville. I am not sure whether he is a member of the Board of Trade of Belleville, but on August 3, I received the following telegram from that body:


Hou.  W. L.@: Mackenzie King,
Ottawa.
Executive Belleville Board of Trade thank you for effective work in settlement of strike.
W. B. DEACON, President.


W. N. PONTON,
[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
Will my hon. friend say that the board of trade in his own town was mistaken when it sent a telegram congratulating the government on its effective work?
William Barton Northrup: They did not understand the facts then.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend does not understand them yet. Here is a telegram from the mayor of Hamilton, dated! August 3:

Hon. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
The city of Hamilton appreciates your earnest efforts to settle strike and congratulate you on your success.
john i. McLaren,
Mayor.
Does my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) think that the citizens of his city were mistaken in their belief as to the nature of the services rendered?


Mr. BARKER.: No doubt they congratulated the hon. gentleman on what they thought was a success. They do not think so now, perhaps.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to have my hon. friend admit at any rate that they were sincere when they sent that telegram. 1 could quote very many others, but I mention only these two. Here is a communica tion from an important firm of wholesale grocers, representing the business interests of this country, and my hon. friend referred to the business interests. This communication also comes from the city of Hamilton:
Hamilton, August 4, 1910. The Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
We beg to offer you our congratulations upon the success of your efforts in adjusting the differences between the Grand Trunk railway system and the trainmen. It is a great relief to the trade to have this matter set-led because, instead of conditions improving, they were gradually getting worse, and had the strike continued for two or three weeks longer the loss to the trade would have been much greater. It may interest you to know that the extra volume of business that was thrown on to the Canadian Pacific railway resulted in a congestion of freight over their system that will take them from one to two weeks to clean up. The Canadian Pacific railway had practically arrived at the point where it was impossible for them to guarantee prompt delivery of goods; delays were becoming general and much longer in extent.
In view of the conditions that were becoming so bad the prompt settlement of this strike has been a great relief, and we thoroughly appreciate the prompt and aggressive way in which you kept at it. It is encouraging to the trade of this countrv to have a minister to so grasp the situation that realizes the necessity of prompt action in matters that concern the trade and commerce of this country.
Again congratulating you on the successful termination of this unpleasant difference.
We are, vours trulv,


W. H. GTT.T.ABTl A CO
[Stage Direction]
per H. C. Beckett.
My hon. frin-ed referred to Mr. Trowern, the secretary of the Retail Merchants Association as a man Of shrewd judgment. Well, here is a communication from Mr. 'Trowern, dated1 August 9, in which he says: M. KING.
I wish to congratulate you on your success in bringing about a settlement of this unfortunate disagreement.
So I might go on, but I think these are sufficient to show the House that at the time the strike was settled, when the facts were fresh in the minds of the people, there was no doubt on the part of any one- either those concerned in the strike itself or the public most affected by it-as to the service the government had rendered in helping to bring it to a speedy termination.
Richard Blain: Did the government not receive a good many communications complaining about its inactivity while the strike lasted?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We had a sample of those this afternoon when my hon. friend was reading some communications which he said were sent in-telegrams from different Boards of Trade urging that something should be done; and when by chance I asked my hon. friend to read one, I found it began with these words: ' While appreciating your indefatigable efforts.' Most of the communications received were along those lines.


Richard Blain: I thought it would be only fair to place those on record alongside with the compliments to the minister himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no doubt about their going on record. If any can be found, I can trust hon. gentlemen opposite to see that they will all be given a place in the report. But if my hon. friend will look at the press he will find that in practically all the newspapers the government was credited with making every effort possible to bring about a termination of the strike. It was not possible, however, to settle that strike in a day. In the case of a dispute of that magnitude, with the interests involved, with the .feeling existing, 'there is no agency under heaven which could have brought about an immediate settlement of the difficulty. When one considers the nature of the dispute, its magnitude and the bitterness of the parties, the miracle is not that it lasted so long, but that it did not last several months longer. So much for the second part of my hon. friend's resolution.
In the third part he charges the government with having failed to compel Mr. Hays, the president of the Grand Trunk railway to effectively carry out the agreement wihidh he says was made with the government and on t|he faith of which the men offered to return to service. Well, as already pointed out, this third part of the resolution contradicts the second. He savs that an agreement was made on the faith of which the men returned to work; but in the second part he says that the government failed to do anything to terminate the dispute. While I think that in this

third part the hon. member is also mistaken, let me first draw his attention to its wording. He says:
To effectively carry out the agreement made with the government on the faith of which the men at once offered to return to service.
My hon. friend saw that it was necessary to make out a case in that connection, for he spent some time in the endeavour to show that the agreement was with the government and not between the parties. There I take issue with him. The agreement was not with the government, but was between the parties to the dispute, the Grand Trunk Railway Company on one hand and the organizations involved in the dispute on the other. They were the parties to the dispute, and they were the parties to the settlement. The government helped to bring about an agreement- brought the parties together and, through its representatives, assisted the parties in trying to reach satisfactory terms. But the agreement was an agreement between the parties to the dispute, and the best evidence of that is that one party is now saying that the other is not carrying out its agreement.


Richard Blain: Was not the understanding with the Minister of Militia and my hon. friend (Mr. King) a part of the agreement? That is the part that my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) was complaining about?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) likes to regard it as part of the agreement-


Richard Blain: I am asking if it was not part of the agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The agreement would not have gone into effect if that understanding had not been given-I will say that. But the question of the understanding having been given is not the question in dispute.


Richard Blain: Did not the hon. minister regard it as part of the agreement, though it was not written?
other. The Minister of Militia and mvself, with the solicitor of the company, and Mr. Wainwright, the vice-president, watched the proceedings. We took little or no part in negotiating the terms of the agreement. The award of the Board of Conciliation was made the basis of discussion and the two parties debated every clause in that proposed settlement. They would get to a certain length, and then break up. But we would get them together again, to see if we could not get a little further. By about nine or ten o'clock, it was thought that a settlement had been practically reached. There were only three main questions to decide-first, as to the reinstatement of the men; second, the rate of wages; and, third, the rules of the company and the method of payment. As I Temember it, Mr. Hays, as the representative of the company, had a draft made of what was the tentative agreement all were discussing, and typewritten copies were made in his office and brought up and made the basis of further discussion. Copies were handed to the men on one side; Mr. Hays and his officers had copies; and Sir Frederick Borden and myself were given copies. I have here the copy which I had at that time. I will read the settlement in full, because it will make plain the nature of the discussion:
The company will put hack as soon as possible the men, other than those who have been or may be found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct, the understanding being that there is to be no coercion or intimidation used towards the new men.
The company will put into effect on May 1, 1910, the rates named in schedule of rates dated July 18. 1910, those rates to be embodied in the present schedules now in effect on this line, it being understood that those rates shall in no instance affect a reduction in any existing rate.
The company will on January 1, 1912, make effective on the Grand Trunk railway the rates of pay and the rules contained in the schedule or agreement on that date in effect on the lines of the Canadian Pacific railway east of Fort William.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regard it as part of the settlement, certainly; but it is not that part that is in dispute at the present time. I will explain that situation a little more fully. I fortunately happen to have retained a paper which was Used during the course of the negotiations, and by a reference to it I think I can make perfectly plain to the House exactly what took place in regard to these words to which reference has been made. I have stated that, on Saturday afternoon-about three o'clock, I think it was-my hon. friend (Sir Frederick Borden) and myself had succeeded in getting the company and the men to meet. Mr. Hays and his officers sat on one side of the board, and Mr. Garretson and Mr. Lee, representatives of the men, on the
Now, I have written in one corner of this document the words used by Mr. Hays to the men when he presented this schedule -' If I take the last two, will you take the first one?' In other words:	'If I give
you rates of wages, to go into effect, May 1, 1910, in accordance with the schedule you want, and if I agree on January 1, 1912, to make the rules of my road similar to those of the Canadian Pacific railway at that time, will you on your part accept this clause which says that the Company will put back, as soon as possible, the men who are not found guilty of violence or disorderly conduct? ' So, the question narrowed itself down to the acceptance by the men of the first clause on eondi-1 tion that Mr. Hays would accept the

other two. The men asked Mr. Hays what he meant by ' as soon as possible '. They said: 'Do you intend to take all the men back? Mr. Hays said: 'Yes, as soon as possible '.	' What do you mean by that?
Do you mean next week, or two weeks?' They wanted to change these words or have them left out altogether. In fact, I think that was the first suggestion they made- to leave out the words, and said that if these were left out they would accept. But Mr. Hays would not agree. Well, to make a long story short, before we broke up we had got this far-that the men would be willing to let these words go into the agreement if Mr. Hays would give Them a definite meaning. First they wanted the words left out; then they wanted a definite meaning given to them; in the third place, they said: If you give them a *definite meaning, we don't care whether they are in or not. And their last offer was-and I have Mr. Garretson's words written on the' other comer-' Satisfy Sir Frederick and Mr. King as to the meaning of: 'As soon as possible.' They, said :	We will accept your first, provided you satisfy Sir Frederick and Mr. King what these words: ' As soon as possible ' mean.


Frederick William Borden: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) is here, and I think he "will bear me out.


Frederick William Borden: Quite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In other words, on that Saturday night, an agreement had been reached between the two parties. The only question remaining was the meaning of the words: ' As soon as possibFe.' And the men stated they did not care whether the words were put in or left out, so long as something definite in the way of an assurance was given them as to their exact meaning. They went so far as to say: You will only have to satisfy Sir Frederick and Mr. King, and we will accept that as an assurance. It was not the government making an agreement for the men, or the gov-ertimeni making an agreement with the *company, but the company and the men making an agreement together, and *doing so under terms in black and white, but in regard to the meaning of one of which terms Sir Frederick Borden and I were to stand as witnesses. And we stand as witnesses at the present time. But Mr. Hays would not give a meaning to these words on Saturday night, and because he would not give a meaning to them the strike lasted through Sunday and Monday and Tuesday, for it was not until Tuesday that we could get Mr. Hays to stive a definite answer. * Hori. members *opposite state that we ought to have used Mr. KING.
the big stick. Did we not use it? I will tell my hon. friends how it was used.
When I left on Tuesday Mr. Hays had not given that assurance. I gave Mr. Hays to understand that unless he gave some meaning to those words ' as soon as possible,' I would see that the people of Canada knew why the strike was not settled, and that it was because he had not defined the meaning of those words ' as soon as possible,' the whole Grand Trunk Railway system was being tied up, and I gave him virtually six hours in which to decide whether or not he would give a meaning to those words. I left him on the understanding that I would come to Ottawa, and would see that the whole transaction from beginning to end was made public in order that the men and the government should not be put in a false light before the country and that the blame should fall where it was due, that there were these three words to which he would not give a definite meaning. I would never have made this statement public if it had not been that so much difficulty has arisen over these words, and that the government is being blamed in a way in which I do not think it should be. Had Mr. Hays followed out, as I think he should have followed out, the agreement at an earlier stage there would not be any occasion to mention this now. Mr. Wainwright came up to Ottawa on a train about the same time as the one on which I came and as vice-president of the Grand Trunk railway he gave me an assurance in the presence of two of my colleagues here that the president of the Grand Trunk railway would consent to giving to these three words ' as soon as possible ' the definite meaning of three months which was the time Sir Frederick Borden and myself said we thought would be sufficient. That was exactly the position, and Mr. Hays yielded at this stage in view of a, knowledge of the pressure that was being brought to bear on him by the government, and for no other reason. That strike would have continued for weeks and months probably, no matter at what cost to the country or loss to the men, but for the pressure which was brought to bear in that way. Just here I would say a word in behalf of Mr. Wainwright. If any man in this whole transaction is entitled to credit it is Mr. Wainwright. He had a very difficult position to maintain, but I think it was his good counsels and good actions which more than anything else were responsible in the last analysis for the company seeing the wisdom of accepting the settlement.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to place on the government the responsibility for the manner in which one of the terms of the agreement has been carried out. As I have said, the terms of the settlement stated that as soon as possible

all those who had not been guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct should be restored to the company's service. The company does not deny having given that meaning to the expression ' as soon as possible.' What Mr. Hays says is that he has carried out that part .of the'agreement and that the men who are out at the present time, according to the statement of his officers have been guilty of some acts of disorderly conduct. It is one of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties themselves that is causing the trouble to-day, not a part of the agreement to which Sir Frederick Borden and myself are witnesses, but another part, words that were perfectly agreeable to the men themselves, and which they were prepared to sign. The dispute that has arisen to-day is as to the ' as soon as possible ' or the three months, but whether the men who are still out have been actually guilty of acts of disorderly conduct.
The government, to my mind, were not obliged to do anything further, certainly the government has never accepted in virtue of the agreement entered into between the parties, any obligation on its part to see that the terms of the agreement were carried out. Were that doctrine once admitted, this government and parliament would be opening the door to a wide obligation, that the government would become responsible for all that grows out of the actions of every person who performs an act on behalf of the government. That, for example, in the case of the Boards of Conciliation appointed 'by the government the government would become responsible for the way in which the terms of settlement effected by them were carried out, we would be assuming an obligation which I think would be going much further than this parliament ever intended to go, and I do not think that the government would be justified for one minute in admitting any obligation of that kind. However, the government has stood and still stands to do its utmost to further industrial peace, and when after the settlement had been made and three months had gone by, and some of the men had not been reinstated, with the information that this situation was likely to give rise to fresh trouble on the Grand Trunk railway, the government naturally, in the interests of industrial peace, offered to do and has been doing all in its power to awaken a consciousness on the part of one of the parties to the agreement to the necessity of discharging the obligations arising out of the agreement respecting the present dispute, and so the government has in many ways pointed out to the Grand Trunk Railway Company that it expected, in virtue of its being one of the parties to the agreement - in the interests of industrial peace, that that great corporation should deal with its men in a manner worthy of a corporation carrying on business to the extent that it does. When my hon. friend says that nothing has been done but to send a letter occasionally to Montreal, I think he can hardly have read over all the correspondence, because he would see in it references to many interviews which have taken place not only, between myself and Mr. Hays and other officers of the Grand Trunk railway in Montreal, but between Mr. Hays and the Prime Minister in Ottawa. I think that on two or three occasions the Prime Minister has himself spoken to Mr. Hays on this particular phase of the transaction. Mr. Hays is in a difficult position, I am prepared to admit that. His officers give him certain advice. He feels that, managing a great company, unless he pays attention to the advice of his officers he may not be able to carry on the organization as it should be carried on and so he has tried on the one hand, I think, to carry out the wishes of the government in the matter, and on the other hand to stand back of the officials whom he holds responsible for carrying on the affairs of the road in a certain way. The government gave him to understand clearly that if his officers were making misrepresentations to him, if the men were saying one thing and the officers another, the only fair way to do was to call in some third party and allow the third party to pronounce upon the cases. I made that suggestion first in a communication offering on behalf of the government to pay the expense of an arbitrator. I think the Grand Trunk railway should have accepted that offer, I think it was a small thing to ask a big company to do especially as the men expressed their willingness to do the same. One of the doctrines to which the managers of great corporations seem to hold most strongly is that they are going to manage their own business, and after all _ what the government was interested in doing was not to antagonize that corporation so that it would perhaps treat its men in a spiteful manner, but rather to facilitate the return of these men to the positions they formerly held. The government intimated that it did not matter what the method was so long as these men were given a fair chance of having their cases investigated. Judge Barron's name had been mentioned because he had acted as chairman of one or two boards in industrial disputes with great satisfaction to both employers and employed, and my hon. friend has paid him the praise which he merits in saying that he feels that in every way Judge Barron will be upright, faithful and trustworthy in the discharge of his duty, and that it would make little difference by whom he is appointed. Judge Barron has been appointed to investigate the

cases of all the men still out in the United States as well as Canada, and the fact that he has been appointed at all, no matter by whom, the government or the Grand Trunk railway, it is pretty good evidence of the pressure which has been brought to bear on that company by the government. Judge Barron would never have been appointed, the cases of these men would never have been looked into, and instead of 200 men being out there would have been 500 or 600 if not more, were it not for the pressure that the government have brought to bear on the situation.


James William Maddin: Who is going to pay Judge Barron for determining who has been guilty of misconduct amongst the strikers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I presume the Grand Trunk will pay him for his services. I think my hon. friend will be the first to admit that any man of honour will discharge his duty in an honourable manner irrespective of who .pays him. I think that certainly members of this House who have the privilege of knowing Judge Barron will feel that no member of the judiciary is more likely to act in an honest and faithful way than he is and I believe the men have just as much confidence in him as we have. I think it would have been preferable had the company accepted the offer of the government to appoint Judge Barron to make this investigation, but a large company like this prefers to manage its own affairs and the company is determined as far as possible that it is going to conduct its business along its own lines. In the absence of compulsory arbitration you cannot prevent a practice of that kind being followed by a company. I cannot say that I am in favour of compulsory arbitration, nor can I say that I am altogether opposed to some measure of compulsory arbitration where the ends of justice and the public good can be ignored at the will of an individual. This dispute has made me feel that never again, if possible, should this country be brought face to face with a situation such as occurred here through the attitude of any individual or group be they capitalists or workingmen. I think the country as a whole is too important to allow its interests to be sacrificed. I would say to my friends amongst the workingmen and capitalists that if any occurrence of this kind takes place again they can expect, and I think they very naturally would expect, that some action may be found necessary which will prevent the possibility of any further recurrence if a method can be found that will prevent it.
My hon. friend (Mr. Northrup), in the third clause of his amendment, says that the government is responsible for not compelling Mr. Hays to carry out the agreement effectively. I shall answer Mr. KING.
him, not in my own words, but in the words of the men who are most affected, those who are still out and are members of the organizations that are affected by the agreement not having: been lived up to in the way that they think it should have been lived up to. What do they say? My hon. friend read part of one communication this afternoon. Here is a letter signed by Messrs. Berry and Murdock representing the railway conductors and the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen:
Windsor Hotel, Ottawa,
December 13, 1910. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour, Ottawa,
Dear Sir:-The committee desire to assure you and through you the government that they deprecate the attitude taken by certain gentlemen, (presumably well intentioned) whereby an effort is being made to hold the government responsible for the failure to apply the terms of settlement made.
We appreciate fully the assistance given both at the time of the strike, and since, by the government in its efforts to bring about on behalf of the Canadian public and the citizens of Canada who are involved in the strike a settlement, and an equitable carrying out of the terms of that settlement. It is definitely understood by the men interested and the undersigned that it is not on account of any failure on the part of the government that the present unfortunate situation obtains, but that the existing conditions are rather the result of the obstinate disregard for contract obligations on the part of Grand Trunk officials.


William Barton Northrup: What is the date of that letter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: December 13, 1910, at a period some six months after the strike had been settled. Here is a communication of a later date from Mr. Berry:
Toronto, December 31st, 1910.
I herewith acknowledge receipt of your favour under. date of the 19th mst., which was delayed in Ottawa several days before being forwarded me. I wish to assure you that the untiring efforts of yourself, other members of the cabinet and members of the Dominion government are appreciated in full by me, and I trust, by the membership of our organization throughout the Dominion of Canada, as well as parts of the United States, where they have had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the actions of our government relative to the Grand Trunk and Central Vermont situation.
There is also a letter dated January 28, from Mr. 8. N. Berry, vice president of the Order of Railway Conductors. In this letter Mr. Berry says:
I do not, of course, hold the government responsible for the enforcement of the settlement-
An entirely different point of view from
that which hon. gentleman opposite are taking.

but I incline to believe in view of the fact
the men accepted the settlement as it was made, partly to relieve the public of suffering, we can consistently look forward to all assistance possible in having that settlement adhered to by all concerned. We recognize the great help you and other members of the government rendered to" the men in connection with the matter, and we appreciate your desire that the settlement should in honour be carried out.
Then, on February 10, hon. members of the House will remember that the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) asked me some questions in regard to the settlement. It appears that on February 7 that hon. member wrote to both the representatives of the conductors and trainmen's organizations and sent them a communication somewhat as follows:
I inclose a copy of questions I intend to ask in the House and would be glad to have your view of the situation. I have for a good many years endeavoured to advance the interests of railway employees where I could, and have been in close communication with the men at Allandale. The railway contention now is that although there was a settlement, the men who came back, came back as new men and were not restored to a claim on pension fund.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) HAUQHTON LENNOX.
That is addressed to S. N. Berry, Esq., 53 Beatrice St., Toronto. These communications were forwarded to me by both the officers of these organizations, without any knowledge on my part of their having received them. They sent them to me>
thinking it important that I should be informed of all that had taken place. I will not attempt to read what was said in reply in full, but I will read what Mr. Berry and Mr. Murdock have said in part in reply to the communications of the hon. member for Simcoe. In a letter dated Toronto, February 27, 1911, Mr. Berry writes:


Hou.  W. L.@: 
Mr.   BLAIX@: Why not read the whole letter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well. I may say that the questions put to Mr. Murdock were in this form:
Was the settlement of July 31 last between the Grand Trunk railway and its employees in train and yard service:
(a)	Intended and understood to put an end to all then existing disputes and difficulties.
(b)	Was it understood that the men would be put back in the positions they held previous to the strike.
(o) Was it understood that the men would be reinstated.
This is Mr. Murdock's reply:
Montreal, February 20, 1911. Mr. Haugliton Lennox, M.P., Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Your letter of February 7, with which was inclosed three questions relative to the settlement of the Grand Trunk strike, has only just reached me, hence the delay in my replying.
I will answer your questions in order as given.
(a)	Fes, most positively hoped for and understood .
(b)	Yes, without reservation it was expected that the undertaking that Mr. Hays gave to ministers of the Crown on August 2 as to his intended application of paragraph 1 of the agreement made on July 31, contemplated that all men who had gone on strike



and who had not been guilty of the commission of overt acts would be returned to their former positions, runs, seniority, standing, etc.
(e) Is answered in the reply given to (b).
I am indeed glad to know that yourself and other eminent and representative members of the Dominion parliament are taking such a commendable interest in the welfare of Grand Trunk employees who have not yet been returned to service, or who, having been returned to service, have not been conceded their former positions or runs.
I presume Mr. Murdock had read the debate which took place. I think my hon. friend asked me whether anything was said with regard to the pension, and in reply I said that pensions had not been mentioned, and Mr. Murdock says in this letter:
The question of pensions or of conserving the pension rights of the employees who had been on strike and who were by the settlement to be returned to service was not even considered as a factor in determining the basis of settlement. Representatives of labour and labouring men, generally, recognize the fact that pension schemes, provident fund arrangements and relief associations, inaugurated, fostered and maintained by railroad companies or large employers of labour, without the employees co-operative sanction to the formation of such concerns are usually found to be nothing more or less than a pre-arranged and contemplated outlay or investment on the part of the employer to test the loyalty of the men to themselves, as individuals, and to each other, in the event of just such trying negotiations as jireceded the strike of July 18 last.
Organizations of labour in train and yard service have not considered it as a part of their legitimate sphere of effort to make representation to railroad companies or railroad officials as to the basis upon which pension allowances should be inaugurated or maintained, and in the case of the Grand Trunk strike and settlement the question was not given serious consideration by the employees. Any action that the Grand Trunk Railway Company saw fit to take in reference to the pension rights of employees prior to the Grand Trunk strike, they had an absolute right to take and maintain, and they are ap-parentlv disposed to exercise the same rights and privileges which, they formerly enjoyed in this respect.
'From every consistent and logical standpoint upon which the question of pension might be considered, it should surely be recognized that the mere fact of an employee leaving the service for a period of two weeks and thereby breaking a continued service of many years should not be sufficient to _ debar him from all rights to a pension fund, if that pension fund had been inaugurated and was maintained for the purpose of conserving in old age the rights of an employee who had given to the company many years of faithful service.
The Grand Trunk Railway Company's present attitude demonstrates conclusively that the estimate placed on the average railway company's pension fund has been well founded.
And now comes the conclusion, and it is to this in particular that I invite the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite.
In conclusion, I would suggest that the present attitude of Grand Trunk officials who have violated indiscriminately the first two articles of the terms of settlement is deplorable, but if I might be permitted to do so,
I would suggest that some of the hon. gentlemen at Ottawa who are taking such an apparently deep interest in this situation, are, to use the expression attributed to you on page 3480 of 'Hansard,' under date of February 10, 'barking up the wrong tree.'
The agreement made when the strike was called off was under the circumstances equitable, and amply sufficient to conserve the rights and interests of all concerned, public, employer and employee. The deplorable conditions that have existed and that exist at the present time are wholly and solely chargeable to Grand Trunk officials disregard for contract obligations except as expediency suggests.
I trust that the information given above will be looked upon as satisfactorily answering the questions asked in your letter of February 7, at least to some extent.
In conclusion, it might not be amiss for me to advise you in case that I should be looked upon as politically biased, that I was raised in a family Liberal in politics always, but that I have personally voted for the past 18 years as opportunity afforded with the Conservative party. I believe, however, in giving credit where credit is due, and have been deeply disappointed to find that many eminent gentlemen like yourself are apparently disposed to place the responsibility for the failure or Grand Trunk officials to carry out their agreement on the shoulders of some one else. I remain, very truly yours,


JAMES MURDOCK,
[Stage Direction]
Vice-president B. of R. T.
In view of these several communications which speak for themselves it is not necessary for me to add anything further. It has been shown pretty conclusively that my hon friend (Mr. Northrup) has no ground for the charges he makes m this amendment. It has been proven that as a matter of fact instead of being deserving of criticism and blame on the occasions to which he refers, the government is entitled to credit. If my hon. friend will consider the matter fairly, and if he will consider what is more important, namely, the significance of the discussion of labour matters in this House, he will, I believe, feel that it is at least due to the present situation that he should withdraw this amendemnt. I can say with confidence to hon. gentlemen opposite that in administering the Department of Labour I have tried as between labour and capital to be absolutely impartial; I have tried above everything else to keep the labour movement and labour questions out of party politics altogether, and I think hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House will asree that such is the only attitude that can
William Lyon Mackenzie King: properly be taken if the cause of industrial peace is to be effectively furthered. Any attempt to make party capital or other capital out of an industrial situation is an extremely dangerous thing. In dealing with these labour questions and the strife between capital and labour you are dealing with a two-edged sword, and as these conflicts are likely to continue and to become more gigantic as the years go on, the only attitude which can in the long run be of service to working men or to capital is that the parliament of Canada should stand for the people of this country as a whole, see that fair play and justice are maintained as between the different parties and that no fear or favour be shown to one side or the other.


Oliver James Wilcox: As a number of my constituents are interested in the question now before the House I desire to make a remark or two. I entirely concur in the motion presented by my hon. friend from East Hastings. I believe that the men have not been properly treated by the Grand Trunk Railway Company ; I believe that the men have been deceived as a result of the agreement arrived at. In the city of Windsor which is one of the terminals of the Grand Trunk, out of 12 conductors who went out on strike one has returned to work and 11 are still without their positions. I know, as a matter of fact that not one of those men is guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct. I do not criticise the Minister of Labour for endeavouring to bring about a settlement between the men and the company; I think that was the proper thing for him to do, as I understand that the Department of Labour was created to assist the great toiling masses of this country in just such cases as this. Now, clause 1 of this agreement which was arrived at when my hon. friend went to Montreal at the request of the men, provides as follows:
Shei.,company win Put **<>k as soon as possible the men other than those who have been or may be found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct, the understanding j-emg that there is to be no coercion or intimidation used towards the new men.
The minister knew that under the provisions of that clause the men had absolutely no assurance that they 'would be given their positions in any definite time. The minister was quite willing that the men should accept that provision, which they refused to do. In a telegram dated Ottawa; 2nd of August, and addressed to S. N. Berry, vice-president of the Order of Railway Conductors, Windsor hotel, Montreal, the minister said:
Mr. Hays has given Sir Frederick Borden and myself an undertaking that the men will within three months from this date be taken 183*
back into service, and within that time be placed in their former positions.
I had occasion about that time to meet about 300 of the men from Detroit and Windsor who met in the city of Windsor. They had nothing but words of praise for the minister up to that time for the part which he and the government had ..taken in this matter; but it is because he failed to see that the provisions of the agreement were carried into effect that they complain to-day. The minister has quoted a number cf resolutions of boards of trade and communications from representatives of the men. all of which were addressed to him before the three months had expired within which the men were to be taken back to work. The ' Labour Gazette ' makes this statement:
A strike of the employees of the Grand Trunk railway system in train and yard services occurred on the evening of July 18, at 9.30 o'clock, as the result of a failure on the part of the employees concerned to agree wi, the company upon the rates of wages and rules which should govern their employment. The strike in question continued from the date above mentioned until the evening of August 2, at 7 o'clock, when it was announced that through government intervention terms of settlement had been agreed upon, as a result of which the strike was at once declared off and the employees again reported for duty.
The fact is that the men had a just cause to strike, and I believe the public sentiment of this country was with the men. '
From the reports in question it appeared that the demand which was presented to the Grand Trunk Railway Company in January, 1910, for a new schedule of agreement with the employees in train and yard services, was part of a general move by the railway conductors, baggagemen, brakemen and yardmen to secure the adoption of standard rates of pay and rules of employment obtaining on the principal railway systems of the eastern states, and of eastern Canada.
It would seem reasonable that the Grand Trank railway employees would expect the same rates of wages as those of the Canadian Pacific railway. It would be reason-aV!e to aisume that a man engaged as a conductor or a brakeman or in any other position upon the Grand Trunk railway system should be entitled to the same rates ot pay as a man in a similar position on the Canadian Pacific railway; and the men formally_ made their complaint to the company asking for a standardized scale of wages, and Mr. Hays refused it, on the ground that the earnings of the road should fee standardized before the company could pay similar wages. He also stated that at seme future time he might be able to pay the employees of the Grand Trunk system the same rates of wages as the Canadian

Pacific railway paid. The third reason given was this:
The management will pay the same standard. of wages as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as soon as the Grand Trunk Railway Company, through its relation with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, is in a position to participate in the higher rates obtaining on traffic in the Northwest, by reason of the completion of that road and the obtaining of through rail connections between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which should be accomplished within two years.
I have always had the idea that the object of the government of Canada in constructing the Grand Trunk Pacific railway was to cheapen the rates of this country. It was to be a road which would be in competition with other roads in Canada and for that reason would be the means of lessening the rates. So I do not think either the men or the government or the public of Canada or any one else, took that reason very seriously. I can tell the minister that there- are employees in the city of Windsor who have not yet received the positions to which they are entitled under tire terms of the agreement which was entered into with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and which provided that they wore to be taken back in three months. It was through their trust in the honour of the Department of Labour that the men were willing to accept that condition; but I am of opinion that in that agreement the minister ran up the white flag, fhat he did not stand by the men. The voice was the voice of Jacob, but the hand was the hand of Esau. The men were looking for bread, but the minister handed them a stone. To-day they have not their positions, and it seems to me that they are justified in taking the position they do, in condemning the minister and his department for not giving to them that service which they had a" right to expect from those supposed to be working in their interests.
Amendment (Mr. Northrup) negatived on division.


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

[Stage Direction]
Maintenance and repair to government steamers and ice-breakers, $1,000,000.
Hou.  W. L.@: ip. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries). The amount voted last year was $710,000, and the amount asked for next year is $1,000,000, but this is really not an increase in the expenditure, but results from our intention to pay under this vote a number of amounts which Were last year charged to other accounts. We had Mr. WILCOX.
in the service paid under this vote 11 ships, namely, the 'Aberdeen' the 'Champlain,' the 'Druid,' the 'Earl Grey',' the 'Lady Laurier,' the 'Lansdowne,' the 'Minto,' the ' Montcalm,' the 'Nelson,' the ' Quadra ' and the ' Stanley.' Besides these there are several which were paid out of other votes. Let me
give a list:
The ' Brandt'	$ 8,466 99
The ' Rouville '	 11,950 89
The ' Frontenac,' charged to the St. Lawrence service ..	19,119 99
The ' Lambton,' paid out of
construction	 9,213	62
The ' Maisonneuve/ out of
maintenance	
8,745	64The ' Newington '	
25,641	75The ' Reserve '	
8,139	79The ' Scout '	
12,577	73The ' Simcoe '	
23,410	00The ' Shamrock '	
10,247	35
The ' Verclieres,' paid out of
construction	
8,925	98The ' Montmagny '	
25,000	00The ' Lady Grey,' out of the St. Lawrence service	
60.000	00


Mr. CROSBY.: The appropriations will,
I suppose, be that much less this year in these other votes?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: YTes.


Adam Brown Crosby: How many boats have been in commission this year on the Nova Scotia coast, and what have they been doing? I understood that one of them at least would patrol the coast of Nova Scotia, which would be considerable advantage to the fishermen along that coast in their winter fishing; but I may have been mistaken. If one of these boats were to patrol the coast between Halifax and Canso that would be a great encouragement to our fishermen in the winter season. It will not suffice to have the boat remain in harbour until called 'for, because she might then very often be too late to be of any use. I would therefore urge on the government to have one of those boats set apart to patrol the coast in order to take care of our fisheries. It is a very rough coast. These boats are comfortable, well manned, well fitted for that purpose. If some were kept in commission it would be a great advantage to our fishermen. I have seen it stated that the United States have ten of tlieir revenue boats patrolling tlieir Atlantic coast during the winter, and in this connection a statement was published showing the number of lives and the amount of property-saved by this service. I regret I have not these facts under my hand at the present time. If some such a service were established on our own coast our fishermen would carry on their work with much less danger and with much greater confidence.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Some years ago, we had only one boat carrying on the lighthouse and buoy service at Halifax, but of late

we have had two, the 'Lady Laurier' and the 'Aberdeen.' Last fall, however, the 'Aberdeen' had to undergo some repairs to her boilers, and a new boat, the 'Montmagny,' was brought down from Quebec to replace her during the winter. This is a very strong and well equipped boat, and I think it must be giving satisfaction. These boats look after the lighthouse and buoy service primarily; but they have general instructions also to render assistance to the fishermen in ease of dangerous storms. Besides, we have a small boat known as 'The 33' which was at Canso. A very serious storm prevailed there for some days, and it was feared that some of the fishermen who had left for the Banks might be overtaken. No loss of life occurred, but it was thought well that we should provide for a similar case, and so we kept 'The 33' in commission.
' Air. SINCLAIR. I desire, on behalf of my constituents, to thank the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the prompt way in which he responded to the call made by "myself last fall that 'The 33' should be put on the service at Canso. The winter fishing has hot been very extensively carried on in Nova Scotia, but it has been carried on to some extent for some years past. It is one of the most profitable branches of our fishery, for prices are good at that season and the haddock are on the coast. It was danger ous, however, because of the sudden squalls and snowstorms that arise in November and December, and even later. On the 6th of January last year, a serious situation was found to have arisen as a result of which a few of the fishermen lost their lives off Canso and Whitehead in one of, these sudden squalls. A number of the boats were driven out to sea. But the marine department fitted out their boats at Halifax, and these scoured the water for two or three days and picked up most of the boats. These were in a sinking condition with ice and helpless. But, by the prompt services afforded by the department from Halifax, the lives of most of the men were saved. At the dommencement oft this season, the request was made of the department to provide protection by keeping a boat under steam and ready in case of sudden storm to go to the fishing grounds and help the fleet there. 'The 33' did that work during the past year and did it well, on two or three occasions, I am glad to say, rendering good assistance. The vessels engaged in the fishery protection service might very well be employed in this way during winter where winter fishing is carried on. It would give the men a great deal more confidence to go out into these dangerous waters so that they would go out on many days when they would not go without this protection. Most of these vessels are partly idle, and some of them entirely out of commission during the winter ; but I believe
that some of the officers are under pay, and so it would not cost a great deal of money to keep them in commission at certain ports on the coast where winter fishing is carried on. I hope the winter fishing will increase, and that it will be established at various places on the coast. In that case, this protection would be very important. I understand that similar service has been afforded in the United States during the past two or three years with good results in rescuing vessels in distress on the stormy coass of the New England States. This work could be done on the coast of Canada, especially the Atlantic coast, not only for the benefit of the fishermen, but for the coasters. I only rose mainly to thank the minister for the prompt way in which the department responded to the request of the fishermen of Canso last year, and I trust that the policy of the department will be to continue this work.


Adam Brown Crosby: There is no doubt that whenever an application is made to the department, they have been very prompt in sending assistance to fishermen. I have not a word of complaint to utter on that point. On the western .part of the coast of Nova Scotia, that is, Halifax and west of Halifax, the craft that go fishing are better equipped, more of the schooner rig, better prepared to take care of themselves, than the vessels that fish from points east of Halifax, particularly from my hon. friend's (Mr. Sinclair's) riding. I have not a word to say with regard to the promptness of the Marine and Fisheries boats in getting out, they are always ready and anxious to be of help, but I believe the time has come iu the interest of the fishing industry, which is increasing rapidly and becoming very profitable, that such a patrol as has been suggested should be maintained. The boats employed in the industry are not of a class to withstand a heavy sea or to remain long in the open. The establishment of a patrol system would not cost a great deal, and as the member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) stated, the additional cost would be slight compared with the encouragement to the fishermen. As the coast is a dangerous one, good comfortable boats should be employed for patrol purposes, and I urge on the minister to try and establish such a system during the Jiext season.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Some time ago we were in formed that some fishing vessels had been caught in the ice in Lunenburg harbour. We immediately despatched the ' Stanley ' to break the ice to release them in order that they might carry on their work. They were released, but it cost the government something as the ' Stanley ' met with an accident, I thank my hon. friend for his expressions with regard to the wish of the department to do all in their power

to help the fishermen. That has always been our policy and we will continue to do everything in our power.


Mr. JAMESON.: Would the minister state what has been done to improve the life saving service in the Bay of Fnndy?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have now two boats there instead of one, the * Stanley ' and the ' Lansdowne.' They are attached to the port of St, John, but they have instructions to place themselves at the disposal of the fishermen anywhere when required for their protection.


Clarence Jameson: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) said that a request he .made to the minister last year received prompt attention and I have no doubt the suggestion I am about to make will be similarly treated. Winter fishing has been prosecuted in the Bay of Fundy for many years, .many people are interested and high class boats are used in carrying on this very valuable industry. Although the boats are of a high class, it is impossible to guard against the perils of the sea, and in a number of cases recently, fishermen have been blown off the shore and have experienced great hardships attended in one or two instances with loss of life. I would suggest to the minister that as he has two of these ships in St. John, it would be advisable to transfer one across the bay to the eastern side and to station her at Digby where she would be available on short notice to the fishermen of Annapolis, Digby and Yarmouth counties. In that way a great deal of valuable time would be saved. With the boat at St. John it would be necessary to telegraph to that port and there would be considerable delay before she would reach the scene of the disaster. We cannot overestimate the courage and endurance of the men prosecuting the winter fisheries; it is practically their only means of securing a livelihood, and they have to -battle against great hardships and difficulties and are to-day doing a very flourishing business. The ship could be safely accommodated at Digby as the port is open the year round, and it would not cost more than to maintain the ship at St. John.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The two ships now in St. John are supposed to be attached mainly to the New Brunswick side. Unfortunately,
I find that there has been a system in the department foT many years by which the Bay of Fundy is divided into two parts for the lighthouse and buoy service. The Nova Scotia side is supposed to be kept up by the vessels from Halifax and the New Brunswick side by the vessels located at St, John. The department is considering the question whether it would not be


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: advisable to put the Bay of Fundy entirely under the control of the St. John division. The control of the western part of Nova Scotia, and the eastern part of that province will he looked after *by the boats located at Halifax. We have always divided the lighthouses situated on the Nova Scotia side from those on the New Brunswick side and we have had them looked after by the boats from Halifax. Of course, that is a drawback from the departmental point of view and if the committee should be of opinion that it would be better to re-divide the agencies it would *be in accordance with the views which I hold. I do not know that there will be any feeling against it in the different provinces. I do not know what the people in Halifax would say if we should give the supervision of the lighthouse on the Nova Scotia side to the agency _ in New Brunswick. If that could be done it would, to a great extent, meet the views which have been expressed by the hon. member for Digby.


Clarence Jameson: I cannot see what difficulty the minister would have to face. The fact that the agency at Halifax has been in control of certain work in the Bay of Fundy on the Nova Scotia side would seem to indicate a system which it would be better to get away from. Halifax is very remote from the Bay of Fundy as compared with St. John. St. John and Digby are both on the Bay of Fundy facing each other and ships from these ports will be able to cover the bay veTy expeditiously. I do not wish to refer to any matter which will suggest an unpleasant reminiscence but I remember that when the nuestion with regard . to the loss of the ' Hestia ' was up the St. John agency had charge of the ships and there was considerable loss of time. I am sure that if one of these vessels had been stationed at Digby a great deal of time would have been saved. I think the minister will find he will be able to accomplish very admirably the work which he has in hand by making the change that I suggest. I hope the minister will take it into his serious consideration and that it will not be lost sight of because sometimes these matters which are brought up in the House, although they are very favourably received at the time, if we do not get a very solid expression from the minister, are apt to be side-tracked later on. We have not on this side of the House the same advantage that hon. gentlemen have who occupy seats on the other side with regard to approaching ministers. The only opnortunity we have to approach a minister is on a formal occasion like' this when estimates are up, or when we bring some I matter up in the House, and we have to

depend on the statement which the minister makes rather than upon any political [DOT]pull or influence as supporters of the government. If the minister desires to improve the efficiency of the department there should be no reason why this suggestion should not be carried out.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have an agency in New Brunswick which controls the Bay of Fundy on the New Brunswick side and also looks after the lights and buoys on the north shore of New Brunswick. It is very far away and it is very difficult to carry out the work we have to do there. If we came to an arrangement such as that suggested we would, of course, have to transfer the supervision of the lights on the north shore of New Brunswick to the agency in Prince Edward Islandl The agent in Prince Edward Island has charge of the lights in Northumberland strait on the island side, and he might more easily look after the lights on the New Brunswick side than the agent at St. John. As to the question of the Bay of Fundy, I am very glad that my hon. friend seems to agree with the views that I have expressed as to the possibility of putting the whole of the Bay of Fundy under the agency of St. John. If that meets with the general approval of the committee I would be very glad to take it into my serious consideration. My hon. friend says that this is the only occasion when hon. members can approach the minister. Let me tell him that the minister is always open to conviction and open to representation in every case and that all the members of the House wijl always be welcome to discuss with him public questions and especially any question which appertains to the administration of the department with which he is now concerned.


Clarence Jameson: I am glad to hear it. Will the minister just say what committee he refers to when he speaks of the committee consenting to this?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This committee.


Clarence Jameson: I do not think there is anv trouble here.


Adam Brown Crosby: If I understand my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson), his desire is to have a boat placed at Digby during the winter season?


Clarence Jameson: Yes, that is it.


Adam Brown Crosby: I do not know that it will be an advantage to take the supervision of the lighthouses of Nova Scotia from the agency at Halifax and place the supervision of the whole of the western part of the province under the agency of St. John. My hon. friend wants to get a boat at Digby and no doubt he would like
to have it come from St. John. I do not think it would make any difference to him whether it came from Halifax or St. John during the winter season. It would be of no advantage to Digby if the supervision of the western part of Nova Scotia were placed under the agency at St. John, if they did not send a boat over to Digby.
I apprehend no difficulty about the whole of Nova Scotia being fairly well looked after from the port of Halifax. There is no place in the Dominion where the Department of Marine and Fisheries has more accommodation than in Flalifax and it does not cost very much either. There can be no reason to suggest that Digby would be any better off by the fact of the agency for the western part of Nova Scotia being transferred from Halifax to St. John if they did not get a boat at Digby. I quite agree with my hon. friend that it would * be well if the minister could see his way clear to place a boat at Digby because quite a large fishing business is done there. Its geographical situation is rather peculiar and sometimes in the great Bay of Fundy there are difficulties to overcome. These boats are always ready to render any assistance in the saving of life and property and it would be a great advantage to have one of them at Digby during the winter. I think the minister should consider how he could _ meet the views of my hon. friend from Digby whose request would also apply to the counties of Annapolis and Yarmouth, the county of Yarmouth being a very important one in the fishing business. I think that the placing of a boat at Digby during the winter season would meet the desire of my hon. friend from Digby.


Clarence Jameson: Yes, it is a central point.


Adam Brown Crosby: Therefore, I do not think there would be any great necessity for changing the agency at all.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think my hon. friend will admit that the lighthouses on the Bay of Fundy can be better looked after from St. John than Halifax.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would not like to admit that without consideration. The coal is purchased from the Dominion Coal Company, and there is no place where you can get your supplies so easily as in Halifax, and no place so pleasant to come to and to remain in. Before the minister makes a change of that kind I would like him to take into serious consideration the disadvantage it would be to those who have been furnishing supplies for years. It seems to me that the demand made by the hon. member for Digby might be endorsed by the hon. members for Annapolis and Yarmouth. I can see no reason why, in the

winter time, a boat short aot be placed in the vicinity of Digby ,j render aid to shipping that might require it. I am quite sure that if the Halifax agency has a spare boat she would cheerfully be sent to Digby for the winter season.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The department has not reached a decision with regard to the change, and I was simply wishing to get an expression from the committee with regard to it. I will take into serious consideration what the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) has said.


Clarence Jameson: 
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These two ships are mainly devoted to the lighthouse and buoy service on the New Brunswick side of the Bay of Fundy down as far as Grand Man an. They must be located at St. John for the present. Digby is connected with the Halifax agency, and those two boats are under the control of the St. John agency. When we come to the consideration of the question of dividing the agencies the suggestion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) will be considered.


Clarence Jameson: Are we to conclude from the remarks of the minister that if it is not possible for him to make some such change as he suggests it will not be possible to place one of these boats at Digby? The hon. member for Guysborough was pleased to say that the minister had acceded cheerfully and promptly to a request he made last winter for a vessel for the purpose of Mr. CROSBY.
assisting in saving life and property when such assistance was needed. I made a similar request to the minister on behalf of the fishermen of western Nova Scotia and the Bay of Fundy. If the minister can not have one of the vessels at St. John transferred to Digby will he make provision that some other vessel should be placed there? The hon. member (Mr. Crosby) has suggested that a boat for this service might be found at Halifax, and while I do not know how many boats are available there, yet, as the Bay of Fundy portion of Nova Scotia is under control of the Halifax agency the minister might be able to supply the needs of the people from that point. I appeal to the minister to have a boat stationed at Digby during the winter season so that the fishermen on that coast may have reasonable assurance that in the event of an accident they will at least have a chance for their lives.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The situation on the Bay of Fundy is not the same as at Canso. On the Bay of Fundy, as my hon. friend is aware, we had formerly only one boat. We have two now; so that if anything should happen to the fishermen there, it would be only necessary to acquaint the agency at St. John of the fact, and these boats would be available. While they are primarily for the buoy and lighthouse service, they have instructions also to look after the protection of the fishermen. As St. John is not very far from Digby, I do not think there is the same difficulty there that there is at Oanso, which is so distant from Halifax that it was considered advisable that a small boat should be placed there. If I saw the same necessity of placing a boat at Digby, I would certainly do it immediately; but in view of the iaot that on the opposite side of the bay there are two boats which can be called upon at a moment's notice, I think the fishermen operating in the vicinity of Digby are sufficiently protected.


Mr JAMESON.: How many boats are at Halifax?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Two.


Clarence Jameson: As I feared at the outset, I am afraid the minister does not take very kindly to the suggestion I made, and it is perhaps as well that we should under stand where we are in this matter. I do not agree with the minister that the fishermen on the Nova Scotia side of the Bay of Fundy are sufficiently protected by the boats at St. John, which is 45 miles from Digby. I do not know that these boats steam over nine knots an hour, and would iliean several hours delay, and every person familiar with the conditions of fishing in the Bay of Fundy knows that such a delay might mean the loss of the lives of the people exposed to danger. The minis-

ter knows that the Bay of Fundy is a very tempestuous piece of -water, and I would earnestly urge him to have one boat stationed on the Nova Scotia side of the bay if he can do so without disarranging the service of the very important branch which these boats are supposed to look after. I do not think the people of this country are concerned about the expenditure of a few dollars or a few thousand dollars when it comes to the saving of the lives of the inhabitants of this country. I believe that our fishermen are worthy of every care and attention that the governmem can bestow upon them. It is the duty of the department, apart altogether from the convenience of the service, to render these people all the assistance they can, and not to be niggardly in the matter of expenditure for keeping up boats for life-saving purposes. I cannot urge this too strongly on the minister. In view of the fact that he has made provision for the eastern part of the province, and the fact that he has two boats at St. John and two at Halifax, I think he might under the circumstances furnish one for the Nova Scotia side of the Bay of Fundy where there is more winter fishing than in all the rest of Nova Scotia. I thought this matter should be placed before the committee, and I trust that the minister will be able to comply with the request that I have made.
Examination of masters and mates, $11,400.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This vote provides for the maintenance of a staff of examiners for the holding of examinations for masters and mates at various points throughout the Dominion. The amount to be voted this year is the same as that of last year.


Adam Brown Crosby: I notice in the Auditor General's Report that a very small amount is paid to the examiner at Halifax. As we have now a technical college there, the Dominion government might provide a substantial amount for an examiner and a teacher in that college. I have no doubt that a good arrangement could be made with the local legislature. I have always thought that the Dominion government should pay at least 25 per cent of the upkeep of those technical colleges, for the reason that navigatioin is a branch of education in which the Dominion government should be particularly interested. I do not think there is anybody in Halifax at present teaching navigation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is one in the technical college.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is the Dominion government making any arrangement to -assist that teaching?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The same education will be given at the naval college.


Adam Brown Crosby: You may teach seamanship without teaching navigation, but if you are going to teach navigation at the naval college, that would obviate the difficulty.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The training that is going to be given at the naval college will give an opportunity to the young men there to become educated in everything that they may require later on, after they have finished their service, if they should want to join the mercantile marine. It happens very often in England, and I suppose will happen here also. Outside of that, it is proposed to provide for schools of navigation at certain places for the purpose of giving lectures to masters and mates. We have not got as many masters and mates as we should have.


Adam Brown Crosby: I do not know that the merchant marine men are taught in the navy schools in Britain. Am I to understand that a man serving on board a merchant ship may apply to the naval college and be educated there?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He would have to enter as a cadet.


Adam Brown Crosby: Aly hon. friend knows well that the mates on merchant marine ships, and those who aspire to be captains would not be satisfied to enter a naval college as cadets. What is required is some means by which our marine men may be educated in that line of navigation.
Rewards saving life, including life saving stations, $96,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is an increase of $56,000 in this item for the purposes of building some new life saving stations. We intend to build several new stations, which will cost $19,000. Then we are asking for $25,000 for motor boats and for the purpose of putting motor engines into some of our existing boats. The estimated price of a motor is $720. We are including in this vote the sum of $12,000 for the upkeep of the St. Paul and Sable Island stations, which are really life saving stations. These were formerly paid out of the vote for maintenance.


Adam Brown Crosby: Where will the new stations be?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: At Victoria Beach, Nova Scotia, Grosse Isle, A'lagdalen Islands, Wolfe Island, Parkers Cove, Amherst, Cranberry head and Mud Island. It may be found advisable, when the commander has made his report, to make some changes.


Adam Brown Crosby: How far apart are Victoria Beach and Parkers Cove?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Ten miles.


Air. JAAIESON.: I would suggest that there should be another station further

down on Digby Neck or that the minister should take one of those proposed motor boats and put it down there. I think there is a station at Westport, and a long stretch of 45 miles to Victoria Beach. It is but 10 miles to Parkers Cove from Victoria Beach, so that there is an inequality there. If it be desirable to have a continuity of service covering the whole coast, better make a more equitable distribution. There is a place called Centreville about 15 miles below Victoria Beach, which would make it about midway between Westport and Parkers Cove, it might be possible to get. some place -which would suit better, but I think Centreville would be very suitable. Only a few months ago some fishermen were blown out from there clear across the Bay of Fundy to the New Brunswick coast, and were rescued only when in the last stages of exhaustion. A year or two ago several men were drowned near there simply because life saving appliances were not at hand. If the minister is going to put up these stations along the coast, he should do so with some regard to uniformity so that the coast will be covered and the fisherm'en given a fair degree of protection. It will not do to have life-saving stations within 10 miles of each other and then have a long stretch of 45 miles without any protection.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We are not absolutely committed to these particular places, and I shall not fail to call attention of Commander Thompson to the representations made by my hon. friend.
Expenses of schools of navigation, $8,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would like to have the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) take into consideration means of establishing at some central place in Nova Scotia, say Halifax, as I suggested before, a technical college, an institution in which our men could be educated in navigation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have a school at Halifax. In fact, we maintain schools at Halifax, Yarmouth, Canso, North Sydney, Midland, Collingwood, Vancouver and Victoria. It is proposed also to establish schools at Lunenburg, St. John, Canso, Quebec, Montreal, Kingston and Toronto. These, with the ones already established, will bring the expenses of salaries up to $3,500. Capt. Lugard is in charge at Halifax.


Adam Brown Crosby: What salary does he receive?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: For taking charge of the school, $250; but as my horn friend knows, he is also examiner of masters and mates and takes charge of the investigation into wrecks. My hon. friend is aware that he Mr. JAMESON.	[DOT]
is an absolutely well qualified man to take charge of this school.


Adam Brown Crosby: Oh, yes. I have not a word to say against Capt. Lugard. But I think the school is not being carried on as well as it might be. That is not finding fault with Capt. Lugard, because he is not given sufficient salary to enable him to keep the school. Besides, he has to make examinations all over the province, I think?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: That is the reason I suggested something more. As the minister is aware, we are looking for masters and mates for our mercantile marine, and means should be taken to encourage young men to receive an education. I suggest that some one else should be appointed to help Capt. Lugard so that the work may go on even while he is absent. I am glad that schools are to be established at Lunenburg and Canso. Nevertheless, I think there should be a technical school at Halifax so that men can receive a thorough education to fit them to take charge of any kind of ship in any part of the world.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who is in charge of the school at Collingwood?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: George C. Coles.


Clarence Jameson: Last year, when a similar item was before the committee, I drew the attention of the minister to the desirability of establishing one of these schools of navigation at Digby. I pointed out that there were a number of young men, very estimable young men, who would like the opportunity of taking a course in navi-, gation, but had not the means to leave home and take up residence in Yarmouth for that purpose. The minister will see that imposes considerable expense on a young man to leave home and locate in a town 70 or 80 miles distant where he must pay his living expenses while he takes his educational course. I see by the report of the Auditor General that the expenses of these schools of navigation last year amounted to $1,828.58. I think the minister took a vote of $8,000 last year for this purpose. Seeing that the committee and parliament were so generous to the minister, and seeing that there is such crving need for the extension of the system, I do not see why so little was done as to call for only this small expenditure. The minister said last year that he would take into consideration the suggestion I made to open a school of navigation at the port of Digby. It would seem that he did not find a special reason for opening that school. Did he ask for any report as to the necessity of the case, or was the matter simply overlooked?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is true, I am sorry to say, the people have not taken advantage of these schools as quickly as I thought they would. I am very anxious to have these schools established in different parts of the country. But the difficulty we experience is to find men to give these lectures. I do not know whether there is anybody in Digby whom we could secure. I will give the matter most earnest consideration, and will see to it that Digby is not forgotten.


Adam Brown Crosby: I believe there are a number of competent men who could be got at Halifax, Lunenburg, and all over the province. But these men cannot be secured for a few dollars. I see that the minister has been running this part of his department very carefully-I do not say that he is not running the rest in the same way, but I think that a little money spent on these schools would be a great advantage. As I have said, we find it difficult to get masters nnd mates. Very often we have vessels in Halifax for whom it is very difficult to get men with certificates. If the minister will take the matter up and not be too careful in the expenditure, I think he could succeed. I think parliament would be better pleased to have this $8,000 spent than to have so much of it remain in the public treasury while we know that not as much is being accomplished as should be accomplished.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not our fault. The people do not seem to take advantage of these schools. Let me give an instance. Lately I tried to open a school in Montreal, but, though that is so large a centre, only two or three came to attend the course which was given there. We are trying to popularize the system we have introduced in respect to these courses of navigation, and I would be glad if the members would take up the question in their constituencies, and in every case where it is found there are people willing to follow the courses I would be glad to spend the money necessary to establish them.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would be glad at any time to assist the minister at any time in that way. I am sure that in our province we could get many men competent and willing to do the instructing although, of course, that class of work should be well paid.


Clarence Jameson: How often are the lessons given and how many students would be necessary for the establishment of a class?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no fixed number of students or number of lessons. The lecturer goes to a place, advertises the lectures, we pay the rent of the Toom and supply the necessary instruments and
the students go there to hear the lectures. Generally the lecturer stays in each place about three months, after which time it is expected that those who have been following the courses, will be sufficiently qualified to pass their examination as mates or (masters. The lectures are given about three times a week.
Mr.	JAMESON.	How	many	would	be
necessary for the opening of a	school?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We are not very particular in that respect. If there are five or ten people we would be glad to send a lecturer. If my hon. friend thinks that he can in Digby get ten men I will take the necessary steps to send a man there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were lectures given in Collingwood last year?
Mr.	BRODEUR.	Yes.Mr.	SPROULE.	How	much	money	is
paid to each lecturer?
Mr.	BRODEUR.	$250.


Clarence Jameson: I do not want the minister to set a pace that we cannot live up to in the small towns. He told us if there were 5 or 10 students he would be willing to open a school. I cannot guarantee him that there will be ten or nine in Digby, but if he would place the number of students at 5 to start, I think there would be no difficulty in getting that number at Digby and increasing the number as time went on. Of course if after the school was started, there were not enough students to, make it worth while continuing it, it could easily be dropped. As only $2,000 were spent last year out of a vote of $8,000, it would be well, where a few could be got together, to afford them an opportunity of hearing the lectures.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I expect that in such a town as Digby, we would have not far from ten students. I shall report these facts to the captain in charge of the School for Navigation and urge upon him the advisability of putting Digby on the list of places where schools are maintained.
Registration of shipping, $2,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is required to pay the expense of keeping a complete list of all vessels registered in Canada.
Removal of obstructions in navigable waters, $20,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is required to remove any wrecks or obstructions found in navigable waters. Immediately after a wreck is reported we bring the matter to the attention of the owner of the vessel and he is called on to remove the wreck. If he does not, we call for tenders and
5S27

give the contract for the removal to the lowest tenderer.


Adam Brown Crosby: It seems unfair that the Canadian owner who loses his vessel in a position where she is an obstruction to navigation, should be compelled to pay for her removal, while a foreign owner under similar circumstances is not required to do so, the department hearing the cost of removal; If a foreigner cornea into bur waters and by some accident loses his vessel and it becomes an obstruction to navigation, the Department of Marine and Fisheries has to remove it and there is no way of making him pay a cent, whereas, if the vessel owner is living in Canada, the department may go to him and say: You must remove this vessel or we will remove it and charge you for it. I do not think that is a very good law, and I think that both should be put on the same footing. The man who owns a ship in Canada should not be compelled to pay for the removal of the obstruction when the foreigner cannot be compelled to assume that responsibility.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The expense which is incurred for the removal of a vessel is taken from the wreck itself, if an obstruction to navigation is caused by the presence of the wrecked vessel, a claim is made upon the vessel itself so that in that case foreigners are on the same footing as Canadians are. If a foreigner should come into this country we might collect from him, but in most eases we succeeded in having wrecks removed by paying a very small sum provided the wreck becomes the property of the man who removes it. We had a law' passed last year for the purpose of giving greater power than we had before and which will have thfe effect of saving the department a considerable expenditure that w'e formerly had to bear. Foreigners and Canadians are exactly on the same footing.


Adam Brown Crosby: Of course, you do not interfere with a ship that is not an obstruction to navigation. There are not so very many men, foreigners or Canadians, who would leave a ship that is V'orth anything, if she is worth anything, they are going to sell her. It is only in cases where a ship becomes of no value whatever and is an obstruction to navigation that the department intervenes. My hon. friend knows very well that he cannot go to a United States ship owner and say:	You left one
of your vessels in Sydney harbour, or some other place. I want you to come back here and take heT out, or I will take her out and make you pay for it. He would find it very hard to collect the money. On the other hand, if a ship is owned by a person in Canada, he may go to him and say:	I want you to remove that wreck.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If the owner does not remove it, he removes it and charges the expense to the owner. Where any craft becomes an obstruction to navigation it is the duty of the Marine Department to remove it and get all they can out of it. I do not think it is fair that they should come back on the person who happens to be the registered ow'ner. Somebody may have a mortgage or somebody may have collected the insurance while the registered ow'ner w'ould be the man that the Department of Marine and Fisheries would come on for the cost of removing the ship.
Winter mail service, $7,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for a boat service for carrying the mails between Prince Edward Island and the mainlands at times w'hen the winter steamers are held up by ice and cannot make a crossing. Each boat has a coxsw'ain and five men. There are also boat house keepers employed on both sides of the straits. The expenditure depends on the severity of the winter, and it is, therefore, necessary to provide for meeting the cost of the service. This sum has never yet been expended. I do not think that we spent over $300 last year.


Clarence Jameson: This has been a very severe winter, and I understand this service has been in operation. My hon. friend from Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Fraser), who is not present, would like to have something to say with respect to this item, and if the minister would reserve that right when his estimates are up for further consideration, I think he would appreciate it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He may bring up the question on any item.
Salaries and expenses of cattle inspection, $5,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you have this here? Does it not come under the Department of Agriculture?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for the purpose of looking after the inspection of cattle on ships. We have regulations providing the space which shall be given to cattle on board ship, and how they shall be fed and treated during the voyage. This service appertains to the Department of Marine and Fisheries rather than to the Department of Agriculture. This is not for the inspection of the cattle, properly speaking, but to see that there are cattle men on board, and that the regulations are carried tout. We have cattle inspectors1 at Montreal and St. John.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then this does not properly describe it because it is not to inspect cattle, but to inspect the equipment for carrying the cattle.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, that would be more proper.

To continue the subsidy for wrecking plant, in Quebec, maritime provinces and British Columbia, $30,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This amount is paid for the purpose of fulfilling the contracts which we have with three companies that maintain wrecking plants-the Davie Company on the St. Lawrence, $10,000; the Dominion Coal Company at Sydney, $10,000, on the Atlantic, and the British Columbia Salvage Company on the Pacific Coast.
To provide for the maintenance of vessels employed in patrolling the waters in the northern portion of Canada, also for establishing and maintaining police and customs ports in the mainland or islands, as may be deemed necessary from time to time, $59,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The ' Arctic,' under Captain Bernier, is engaged in this service. Captain Bernier's instructions were to try and make the northwest passage and before he left he expressed the belief that he would be successful. He will go to the mouth of the Mackenzie river, where it is supposed that American fishermen are carrying on whale-fishing operations, and he will collect fees from them.


Clarence Jameson: Have customs ports been actually established by him in these northern waters?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A customs port was established on the north shore of Hudson bay some years ago. In other cases Captain Bernier collects duty. on the goods he finds in the ships and makes them take out fishing licenses.


Clarence Jameson: What revenue has so far been derived from this service?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Last year he brought , back $500. It is not so much the amount of money as the assertion of Canadian authority. As there might be dispute some day about these islands being part of Canada, we thought we should assert our sovereignty.


Clarence Jameson: No one will object to proper expenditure for the purpose of asserting the rights of Canada i,n these northern waters, but my reason for ashing about the revenue was to enable us to determine if possible how much actual work had been done in the way of bringing poachers to account. The minister has not told us how many American vessels have been overhauled and how many fines have been imposed. I do not know that the attempt to make the northwest passage will in any way strengthen the claims of Canada in these northern waters and islands, though possibly it may. It may also be that it will jeopardize the ship and puasiuly the lives of the crew, but the minister will have his own opinion as to that. I am informed that Americans are conducting fishing *operations in that territory and that they
have in many eases evaded the * Arctic. ' Of course, whether the one ship can prosecute a voyage of discovery and at the same time be in any way seriously effective in preventing poachers is another matter.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The question of making the northwest passage was left largely to Captain Bernier's own judgment. Of course it would be ridiculous for us to force him to make it if he found it w^s impracticable or exceedingly dangerous. It is of great importance that he should assert the rights of Canada in this northern territory.


Clarence Jameson: Hear, near.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I believe that the fact that Captain Bernier took possession of these northern islands last year in the most formal manner will in the future serve the interests of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be desirable if Captain Bernier had any authority, but that is very questionable. It is five minutes past twelve and I think it is time to adjourn.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.06 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, March 22, 1911.