[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 40), to incorporate the Great West Permanent Loan Company.-Mr. A. Haggart.
Bill (No. 41), respecting the Tilsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company.- Mr. Schell.
Bill (No. 42), respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company.

Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 43), respecting the Hudson's Bay and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 44), to incorporate the Canadian
Liverpool and Western Railway Company. -Mr. Girard.

['I cannot answer as to that, but I understand the report is in the hands of the printer.']
Hon.   WM@: PATERSON moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, before you put that motion I again must trespass on the time of the House for a few moments to refer to the question of what I might call the delinquencies of Canadian railways in connection with their capitalization. I wish to point out, in view of the wide powers that have been given to the Canadian Pacific Railway in the matter of capital that when such powers are given, the service accorded to the people ought to be considered, and I think I will

bring it down. I contend that it would not be wrong, in view of the facts I have given, to recall and reconsider that order in council, calling upon this great railway to show that it cannot raise the money it requires for the extension of its line other than by the issue of stock at 100 when its stock is bringing 160 or 170 in the open market. I have not a word of criticism to pass on the Canadian Pacific as a railway proposition. We are all proud of it. It has opened up the country and will do a great deal for the country. But a railway is something that concerns the people; it is part of the administration of the country, and it ought to seek to serve the people quite as much as to make its investments attractive to the capitalists of the world. It is all very well to speak of maintaining a reputation in the money markets of the world, but it is also important to do justice to the Canadian people. In that connection I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals whether or not the provision in the original charter of the Canadian Pacific Railway, under which we are not to interfere with their freight rates as long as they do not exceed ten per cent, has been commuted. I was told by a previous Minister of Justice in this House that that clause had been commuted, but I am not sure as to that, and I would like to know the facts now or later at the minister's convenience. I know that the feeling in the Canadian west is in favour of regulating the issue of securities by these railways, and we are only beginning to realize that this is the keynote of the regulation of freight rates. I have already told the House, and I tell them again, that the reason the great capitalists of Europe neglect American railway securities is that they distrust them. Within a few years these securities have heen sent back to the Americans, and the trust companies and savings banks who had loaned money on these shares have had to take them over. The investors of the United States are not taking them, and the people of Europe refuse to take them. Why? Because these railways have been over-capitalized. We read in the papers that the American roads are moving to exclude the Canadian Pacific from their territory on the ground that the Canadian Pacific carries freights at less rates than they can-I am a little doubtful about that-due to the fact that the American railways have such enormous fixed charges through over-capitalization. So we see there is real danger in over-capitalization, and the only way to take charge of the traffic rates is to take charge of the issue of capital. I leave this subject for the present, but I intend to return to it until we have some assurance that the regulation of the capital of railways is a matter of public concern that must pass some form Mr. W. P. MACLEAN.	*
of public inspection with a view to making the railway charges as low as possible.


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I will not detain the House with any lengthy remarks, for the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and I discussed the matter pretty fully the other day. I am afraid I should have to repeat what I said then. But, even though it be a repetition, I may say that the question of rates and the question of service, as to both freight and passengers, have been handed over to the Railway Commissioners, and I stand to my opinion that, having adopted this course, we should follow it until it proves a failure-which I think it will never prove. I think that the Board of Railway Commissioners have done a work as good as any like body in the world, perhaps better. As to the order in council to which the hon. gentleman refers, I will have pleasure in bringing it down. I overlooked it.



Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: If the discussion which has gone on is not to be continued- and, so far as I am concerned, I will reserve my remarks for another occasion when my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) proposes to bring it up-I would like to mention two matters. The Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) yesterday gave an explanation- or what he seemed to consider an explanation-of the extraordinary and unusual delay that has taken place in the printing of the evidence taken before Mr. Justice Cassels. He told us, what we already knew, that one volume of about 325 or 350 pages had been printed or distributed early in October. He promised another volume next week, and the third volume in two or three weeks from now-I have forgotten the exact date. He told us also that a fourth volume would be out at some time in the future, which he did not undertake to define. Now, I want to tell my hon. friend (Mr. Murphy) that I regard his explanation as the most extraordinary statement I ever heard in this House in regard to the printing of a public document of so much moment as the one to which I have alluded.
Let me point out to him why I regard his explanation as extraordinary. Every day we have debates in this House from three to twelve or one o'clock, which debate takes up more space in print than a single day's evidence before Judge Cassels. That debate is printed and ready for examination by any hon. member in this House by ten o'clock on the following morning. Yet my hon. friend comes to this House, when evidence taken in September last has been withheld from us in a printed shape for four months, and seems to imagine that his statement is an explanation which the House ought

to accept. I say that that evidence, with ordinary diligence such as is applied in the printing of Hansard, could have been ready for distribution the very next day after it was given, yet four months after that time we are told in a very philosophical way that we will get part of it some time next week, another part in three or four weeks, and another some day in the future, which the hon. member does not name. My hon. friend said that the delay is partly due to the fact that a portion of the evidence was taken in French and there was some delay in translation. If my hon. friend will apply the analogy of Hansard to that, he will find that Hansard is translated into French and printed and is not more than ten days behind the English edition. The translation need not cause a delay of over a week or two at the outside. My hon. friend had better look into the matter and give some reason why the distribution of the evidence is delayed. I am not disposed to accept that which he is pleased to call an explanation; and I shall venture to treat this matter as of sufficient importance to engage the attention in a considerable debate at no distant day, unless we have an investigation made into this delay in the Printing Bureau.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State).: I do not know that at the moment I can add anything to the information given yesterday. Like other ministers in charge of departments, I am dependent for information upon the officers who are charged with the actual carrying out of the work. In the main I think it will be found that the work at the Printing Bureau is done with as much expedition as is possible in work of that character. Speaking with the diffidence and lack of experience of a new member, may I say that I do not see the analogy between the printing and the issue of Hansard and the getting out of something altogether outside the regular line of work, such as the collection of evidence and the issuing of it in pamphlet form. If there be any means of expediting the work, I shall see that such means are adopted.


THE INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS TREATY.
Robert Laird Borden: With respect to the dispatch which was read in the House yesterday by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, I wish to make a few observations: The dispatch is as follows:
London, January 29, 1909.
I am in receipt of your telegram of January 28, and from your telegram of January 9, I gather that your responsible advisers have the full text of the treaty before them.
According to press reports there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the presentation of the treaty to the Dominion parliament.
this country the treaty-making power is with the Ring, acting on the advice of his responsible ministers, who in cases of treaties which affect the Dominion, acts of course in full consultation and accord with the government of the_ Dominion concerned.
In the United States the treaty-making power is with the advice and consent of the Senate, and until the Senate of the United States of America approve of any treaty it is not the practice to publish or present to parliament either in this country or in Canada, or to publish in the United States or to present to congress. The fact that the Senate ot the United States see the treaty before the parliament of the Dominion, but not before government of the Dominion, is therefore en-tireiy due to the terms of the constitution of the United States.
I am in hopes that your responsible advisers will clearly exMain this to parliament, and will point out that the relation between the parliament of the Dominion and the government of the Dominion in this respect is practically analogous to that between the Imperial parliament and the government of His Majesty the King.
(Sgd.) CREWE.
There seems to have been a misconception created m Great Britain, and evidently the same impression is in the mind of the Colonial Secretary, that some remarks which have been made in this House were directed against the action of the imperial authorities, and that the government of Canada was not held responsible by this- parliament tor any action taken in connection with this treaty, bo far as any remarks of mine may have created any such impression, I desire to say that they have been absolutely misunderstood. In respect of a question of this character, I hold the government of Canada responsible to the parliament of Canada for its policy and action, whether in relation to negotiations with the United States or in relation to upholding the rights of this country m any communication or negotiation between the government of Canada and that ot Great Britain.
I appreciate what the Secretary of State for the Colonies has said resrard-ing the practice by which the Senate of the United States deals with treaties in secret session. Before the arrival of his dispatch I looked at the United States authorities and I found that the practice in the United States is exactly as he states. But it is only a practice. I have under my hand the constitution of the United States, and that constitution imposes no obligation on the Senate of the United States to deal with treaties in secret session:
Art. 2. Sec. 2 of the Constitution of the United States, as contained in the Principles of Constitutional Law by Principal Cooley, is as follows:-
The presidents have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make

liament of these four treaties in 1865, in 1870, in 1871 and in 1873 ? Mr. Todd does not point out that any unfortunate results were observed as arising from the communication of those treaties to parliament on those occasions. I venture to think that the communication of this treaty to parliament in the meantime would have been attended with no detriment' to the public interest, and no embarrassment to the executive, and would have been a more desirable course to follow than that which has been pursued. I sincerely trust that the treaty may be laid upon the table of parliament at a very early day. I do not know what length of time may elapse before the Senate of the United States may come to a conclusion upon the subject. So far as my information goes they have not yet ratified the treaty. Am I right in that understanding ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I understand it has met with constant opposition in the Senate.


Robert Laird Borden: So at the present time we do not know whether or when it will be ratified. Of course my right hon. friend will understand that it might take a very long time. It might not be determined by the Senate this year, it might not be determined until next year, _ it might not be determined until the following year.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps not at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, are we for ever to remain in ignorance of the terms of this treaty ? Is that the result ? It seems to me an undesirable and unfortunate result, and one which should not necessarily follow from observing diplomatic usage; because in the four instances which were adduced by Mr. Todd up to 1887, the number of which might be increased no doubt by further research, we find several treaties communicated to parliament before ratification, and we have not observed that any detriment to the public interest has resulted from pursuing that course. Under the circumstances I conceived it to be my duty to make my views known to parliament and to the country, as I had introduced the matter in the first instance.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no fault to find with the remarks of my hon. friend, nor with the spirit which has inspired them. In my opinion, however, he has not rightly anprehended the spirit of the communication which I laid before the House yesterday, coming from the Earl of Crewe, the Colonial Secretary. The spirit of the communication is not to make it clear to this country that the Canadian government ought to be held responsible to the people, and that they are either to be blamed or commended for the treaty they have negotiated. That responsibility we Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
fully assume. The Canadian government was represented in the negotiation of that treaty by a gentleman appointed by ourselves as one of the commissioners, namely, Mr. Gibbons, of London, who has been for some years chairman of the Waterways Commission, and whom we considered, from his experience in that capacity, was eminently qualified to look after Canadian interests. I may say at once that we accept full responsibility for the treaty. If blame is to be attached to it, we would be responsible; if credit is to be attached to it, we should be equally the beneficiaries. The despatch of the Earl of Crewe was the result of an inquiry made by His Excellency the Governor General to have the treaty placed at once before parliament, and therefore before the Canadian people. The answer of the Earl of Crewe has been commented upon by my hon. friend a moment ago. My hon. friend has, I think, brought in soms matters which are not immediately connected with the subject in hand. He has, for instance, suggested the question whether the treaty-making power in this instance should be supplemented by the parliament of Canada, or whether in such a matter the prerogative of the Crown is paramount. My interpretation of parliamentary law in this matter has always been, that in all treaties except treaties of commerce and treaties affecting the revenue, the paramount treatymaking power is vested in His Majesty.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not question that, my observations were directed to the practice rather than to the power.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the argument of my hon. friend dealt with the treaty-making power. In my humble judgment the treaty-making power is vested in the King, except in matters affecting the revenue. My hon. friend also brought forward an instance to the effect that if the treaty involved a cession of territory, the paramount power resided in parliament. That is the proposition of my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend is quite right; I did take that position as one supported by considerable authority.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, although supported by considerable authority, my hon. friend conceded also that the question was not free from doubt. As I understand the quotation of m* hon. friend from such an eminent authority as Mr. Gladstone, it went to show that he argued that the treaty of the sovereign is paramount and that parliament has no authority in the matter. Then, it will depend upon the terms of the treaty as to whether or not the treaty, to become effective, has to be supplemented by the action of parliament or whether it is complete by the exercise of the power of the King. In my opinion this treaty is such that it is complete by the signature of the

sovereign. Whether or not the treaty is wise or unwise, at the present time, it is legal, in my humble judgment. If it were declared that the treaty had to be supplemented by the action of parliament, then parliament would have to pronounce upon it. If, on the other hand, the power of the King is complete, then it will be open to parliament to censure or approve the treaty as the case might be within the exercise of its power in that respect. But that is a question beyond the issue. The main question that was introduced to the House by my hon. friend on a former occasion was as to whether the treaty should he communicated to the people. For my part, I agree altogether with my hon. friend. I see no reason whatever, the moment the treaty has been signed, and even before it is ratified by the sovereign, why it should not be communicated to parliament. I am at one with my hon. friend as to that. It has not been the practice to do so. I am very glad that my hon. friend has brought to my attention the authority of Todd upon the subject, showing that what has been the usage of parliament has been departed from in three cases.


Robert Laird Borden: Four.


Wilfrid Laurier: In the four cases which are cited the usage of parliament in this respect has not been followed. I must say that I was not aware of this, and I shall take the opportunity of looking over the authorities myself and' again call the attention of the Colonial Office to them. I repeat what I said a moment ago that for my part I see no reason at all why, the moment the treaty has been signed by the plenipotentiaries, it should not be communicated to the parties interested. I might observe to my hon. friend that while the treaty has been submitted to the Senate of the United States, according to the terms of the constitution, it has not been communicated to the House of Representatives.


Robert Laird Borden: No, certainly not.


Wilfrid Laurier: Therefore, in that respect the Americans have themselves accepted the usage that the treaty is not to be communicated to the public until it has been ratified, but we must recognize that parliamentary usage must develop with the times. In former days when the press had not the power that it has at this moment it was quite consistent that a treaty should not be communicated to the people until it had been ratified by His Majesty the King. But in these later days when the press has acquired such power in the national life of every country, I think it would be not a disadvantage but an advantage to the country itself to know what are the provisions of the treaty in which it is interested before it is ratified. If the 21
parliamentary usage were to be changed in that respect it would be an improvement, and it would give more satisfaction to the people of Canada. I repeat that I have no fault to find with my hon. friend, but that on the other hand I agree with him and I shall look at the authorities to which he has called my attention and then communicate with the Colonial Office with reference to the matter.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: Mr. Speaker, in support of the position taken by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), I may say a few words in reference to this interesting question. The paramount power to make a treaty is with the Crown, provided the treaty does not interfere with a subject's allegiance to His Majesty or deprive him of any property. The doctrine was laid down and discussed in this House again and again during the debate on the Washington treaty, and upon several other occasions. The doctrine was also laid down in a case which was decided in reference to South Africa. South Africa at one time was acquired by the British forces. After remaining two or three years in possession of the British it was ceded by an Act of the sovereign by the exercise of his paramount power. An action was brought by a subject owning property in the South African Republic on the ground that he was deprived of his allegiance by the Act of his sovereign. The court held that he was not deprived of his allegiance because the possession which was acquired did not form part or parcel of the empire and the Crown had the right to dispose of it. But at the same time, the Privy Council upheld the doctrine that no act depriving a subject of his allegiance or depriving him of any part of his property which was part and parcel of the British empire, without the consent of the parliament of the country, was legal. I hold that to be an incontrovertible doctrine. The sovereign has the paramount power to exercise the right of disposition with respect to any property provided it does not interfere with the allegiance of a subject or take a portion of the empire and give it to another. This treaty cannot do so. I suppose it does not deprive any subject of his allegiance or property and it is therefore in the paramount power of the sovereign. But, the modern doctrine is this: Parliament claims the right now, having acquired the right by the practice to which my hon. friend has referred and in respect to which he has quoted authorities, of being a party to the treaty. We take the ground that everything affecting the interests of the colony or the Dominion, it being within the British empire, must receive our consideration. We claim that 1 right and we must have it. I think that



under the constitution, the right of the Crown is undoubted if it does not interfere with our allegiance or deprive us of our property, but the modern constitutional doctrine which we have acquired by practice. is that any treaty affecting our interests shall be submitted to the parliament of this country for its consideration and approval.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply
Department of Agriculture-.Salaries (including G. P. O'Halloran at $6,000) $322,100. Contingencies, $13,500.
Mr. SPROULE.: What accounts for the large increase in this item?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: 195 clerks have been brought from the outside service into the inside service and the increase is entirely due to that, with the exception of the statutory increases.


Mr. BARR.: Were any new officials appointed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no increase otherwise than by bringing in the Experimental Farm branch, the Statistical branch, the Seed branch, the Veterinary and Live Stock branch, the Dairy branch, and the Archives, as provided in the Act of last session.


John Barr: Have the salaries been increased all along the line?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are 13 who by the reorganization of the inside service get increases.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: What is the total of the salaries for each of the different branches of the department?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Experimental Farm, Ottawa, $31,700; Public Health, $6,450; Health of animals, $21,250; Live Stock, $12,100; Seed division, $24,900; Dairy division, $30,500; Meat and canned foods inspection, $6,250; Cold storage, $3,200; Exhibition, $2,500; Census and statistics, $28,450; Archives, $28,212.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many of these 193 have entered the service as permanent clerks without having passed the Civil Service examination?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Twenty-one clerks who were formerly paid out of Civil government contingencies had passed the Civil Service examination. The others were appointed from the outside service which did not require the Civil Service examination, but it is possible that a few of them had passed the examination


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I want is the percentage of those temporary clerks who are now put into the permanent service with-Mr. .1. G. HAGGART.
out having passed the qualifying examination.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think the hon. gentleman quite understands the situation. These clerks were not temporary clerks, and were not in the Civil Service at all. Though their labours were in Ottawa, they were in outside branches. But, under the Act of last session, they were brought into the inside service, Before that change, they were not paid as civil servaiits, but were paid out .of lump votes, as, for instance, the vote for the Archives, the vote for the Dairy Branch, and so on. But there were temporary clerks who were in the Civil Service under the operation of the old Civil Service Act. These were paid out of civil government contingencies, which was a lump vote under civil government. But, under the old Act, they were required to pass the qualifying examination. There were 21 of them in my department, and they all had passed the qualifying examination and held their certificates. But the rest of this total number of 193 were not in that category, they were not in the Civil Service at all, though they were in the employ of the country, and had not been required to pass the examination, but had been appointed on their merits. These are now brought into the inside service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was judging from the beading of the list, ' Outside and temporary.' But if all these 21 have passed the examiners, how was it that they were temporary clerks?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. gentleman observed the old Civil Service, no doubt he was aware that there were many permanent ' temporary ' clerks. Though appointed as ' temporary ' clerks, some of them have been in the department for fifteen or twenty years. They were paid out of a vote, which the hon. gentleman no doubt will remember seeing in the old estimates, for ' clerical assistance,' which came under civil government contingencies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but my recollection is that these were not obliged to pass the qualifying examination.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I believe there were instances in the old service of people being appointed to temporary positions without passing the qualifying examination. This must have been done by some means, which, I confess, I do not understand, for I have always understood that the old Act did require such an appointee to be one who had passed the qualifying examination. As a matter of fact, the 21 in my department have passed that examination.


John Graham Haggart: Surely the minister is mistaken. For instance, in the Railway Department, there are many specially em-

ployed, such as professional men-engineers and others. These are what may be called ' temporary ' permanent clerks.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: But they are not paid out of a vote for clerical assistance under civil government contingencies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has not been quite as frank with me as my question deserved. I did not ask how many were paid out of civil government contingencies, but how many there were. I put the question in the form I did, because, last session, the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding), when explaining this Act, told the House that there were a large number of temporary clerks who might be regarded as permanent, many of them having been twelve, fifteen or even twenty years in the government's employ, and the majority, if I understood correctly, had not passed the qualifying examination. These he proposed should be put into the Civil Service at once. I desire to ascertain how many of those in this list have been put on in that way. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is dealing with those paid out of civil government contingencies, but there 'are a good many others not accounted for.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I tried to explain that these others were paid out of lump votes, such as I have described, Archives, Exhibition branch, Dairy branch, Seed branch, and so on. These were permanent employees in the service of the country, but they were not civil servants.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And were not required to pass the qualifying examination?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. But, according to my understanding of the law, those paid out of civil government contingencies had to pass the qualifying examination.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The change with regard to this 193 employees means that the amount for salaries here is increased from $84,000 to $322,000. Is there a corresponding reduction in the branches from whose votes these employees were formerly paid?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, there has been a corresponding reduction in these votes. For instance, in Archives, the hon. gentleman will find that there is a reduction of $32,000. The salaries, as a matter of fact, came to $28,212, so that we have reduced them by nearly $4,000. In census and statistics, there is a reduction of $23,500. Now the salaries transferred into the civil government amount to $28,450, which is a little under $5,000 more than the difference. We have started a new system of monthly crop reports, for the carrying on of which I need $5,000 more. The whole reduction in salaries is $28,500 but I have added under the census service $5,000 which diminishes the reduction from $28,500 to $23,500. Take 21}
the experimental farm, my hon. friend will see there a reduction of $32,000. The salary reductions were $31,700. We have therefore-reduced the vote $300 more than the amount transferred to civil government and so I could go on through all these votes.


Mr. CROTHERS.: Take the item, first division, subdivision A, on page 24, $34,850, so that we may see just how the Civil Service Act of last year works out. It would be interesting to know the salary that each of these paid clerks got in the outside service last year and what it is proposed to pay this year. There were eight brought in from the outside. What salaries were they getting when they were in the outside service?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall give the list. Dr. Montizambert, who is in charge of the Public Health and Quarantine, has $4,000, and Mr. Saunders, the director of the Experimental Farm has $4,000.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Give the salaries they had last year and what they are getting this year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In these two cases the salaries are exactly the same in each year. They .had been getting $4,000 for many years back.


Mr. PERLEY.: How is it their salaries were not increased ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If my hon. friend had been listening, he would have heard me say that there are thirty-five in the service whose salaries are not increased by the classification or the proposed Bill and these are amongst them. Mr. Archibald Blue, head of the Statistical Branch has $4,000 and had the same last year. Dr. J. G. Rutherford, Chief Veterinarian, $4,000 last year and $4,000 next year. Mr. J. J. Rud-dick, Dairy Commissioner had $3,500 last year and the current year. Next year, by the statutory increase under the Act he will .have $3,600. Dr. Doughtv. Archivist last year and the current year $3,200. Next year with the statutory increase $3,300. J. F. Roy, Assistant Archivist, $3,000 last year, and the current year, and $3,100 next year by the statutory increase. A. L. Jarv'S Secretary and Acting Deputy, $2,600 last year, and $2,800 under the reorganization which took effect on the 1st September. Mr. Jarvis was at $2,600 in the old Civil Service, but by the reorganization he was put into the first subdivision at $2,a00. By the Civil Service Act, having been at the maximum of his class for some years, he was elligible and legally had the right to the statutory increase of $100, which would make him $2,900 since the 1st September. During the coming fiscal year he will be entitled again to the statutory increase of another $100, and therefore we are providing that amount 1 for the coming fiscal year. G. H. Clarke,

seed commissioner, $2,800 last year and the current year, and we are providing $2,950. He will he eligible for the statutory increase only. P. E. Ritchie, registrar of copyrights and trademarks and administrator of the Gold and Silver Marks Act, was chief clerk at $2,050. He is put into the first subdivision at $2,800, and in the course of the next fiscal year will have the statutory increase of $100. We therefore provide $2,900. These are the ten clerks, of which eight were formerly in the outside service.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: When the deputies of the other departments receive $5,000, why should the deputy minister of Agriculture get $6,000 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is also Deputy commissioner of patents, and parliament decided last year to give him as such an extra $1,000.


Mr. NANTEL.: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I would like some explanation from the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the increase of salary to his deputy. I see that this gentleman was increased to $6,000, while the salary of the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue was increased from $4,000 to $5,000. Why this difference in favour of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture ? It is alleged that this officer fills several positions. Even if it were true, he could not give to those duties more time than he can dispose of. When his salary was $5,000, was it not considered a sufficient salary, especially when the other deputy ministers, except the Deputy Minister of Justice and the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, can only receive that amount ?
This gentleman was receiving $5,000 a year, and now he is being paid $6,000. It seems to me as if he was treated with greater generosity than others. When a man receives a salary sufficient for a respectable living he should not be increased in that way.
There are a great many employees in the different, departments who are not so highly paid, and who do not receive any such increases. The salary of many of our judges is not so high as that. In Montreal, for instance, the Circuit Court judges are only paid $3,000 and we refused them an increase. I say it again, I find it strange that the government should have increased the salary of this deputy minister from $5,000 to $6,000, and I am awaiting the explanations of the minister.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I am quite willing to discuss this question anew if the hon. member from Terrebonne desires, but this increase has been agreed upon last year. Therefore, it is not a new increase. It was made last year, when we voted the estimates of the fiscal Mr. FISHER.
year. This item is only the continuation of the same salary paid last year to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member says that there are some judges who are not so highly paid. Judges of the Superior Court in Montreal are paid more than that.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) I said the Circuit Court judges.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: (Translation.) I may tell the hon. member that the duties of this deputy minister are of a very special character. As Patents Commissioner he has judiciary functions to perform. Some very important cases are brought before him very often. He has to decide upon issues in which sometimes are involved millions of dollars. To fill this position it requires a very competent man, and who possesses at least a knowledge as sure and as learned as any of the best judges of the Superior Court of Quebec. This question has been fully discussed last session, and the House has agreed to pay that salary to this deputy minister. I am not, therefore, asking any more than the continuation of the same salary.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) But, nevertheless, he has received an increase of $1,000 this year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: (Translation.) No, not at all. He was paid $6,000 during the current year; that is to say, since the law passed during the last session has been in operation.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Would the minister state the net additions to his staff during the past year ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not give the number positively for the past year, I have been dealing with the current fiscal year only There is only one addition during the current fiscal year.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does this appropriation contemplate any additions ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, we will have to have one more official in the Archives Branch and provision is made for that. He will be in subdivision ' A J of the second division, a) special translator, who will be appointed under the Civil Service Act.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Will there be a promotion ?	1


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No ; he will have to come in from the outside as there is no one in the branch competent for that work.


Mr. BLAIN.: Would the minister give approximately the amount of increase P


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not like to speak at a guess, but would repeat in general terms -
that there are no increases except the statutory increases under the Act. The lump

sum increase is due to the bringing in of clerks from the outside service.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Could the minister give a statement of the number of officials and clerks in his department devoting their time entirely to agriculture ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I suppose my hon. friend would not wish to include in that category the clerical branches, such as the accountant's branch, although they are largely engaged in work connected with agriculture. Perhaps it would be better if I should give him the number of officials in the non-agricultural branches and let him subtract that from the total. That statement would be about as follows :	i
Branch	Number of Clerks.		
1st Division	2nd Division	3rd DivisionArchives (including provision for one appointment) 	
...	2	12	20Census and Statistics ....	3	6	22*Copyright and Trade Marks	1	2	5Patents Branch	1	19	20Public Health (two em-	
*And one messenger.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What about exhibitions ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: One stenographer in the deputy's office attends to the correspondence of that branch, but the rest of the exhibition branch are still in the outside service.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I see by the details at page 23 that the minister is apparently asking an appropriation to pay the salaries of 269 officials, which would be an increase of 16 over the number of last year, including the outside servants who have been brought in. If any manufacturing or mercantile institution in Canada ran its business in this way, increasing its staff with a falling revenue, it would be in the bankruptcy courts in twelve months.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: While there is an apparent increase it is not a real increase. Several of these votes are there in consequence of promotions. I anticipate in the coming fiscal year to promote some to higher divisions, and I have to make provision for their salaries. There are two vacancies by death and these are not included in the 193 brought in. I want a translator in the archives and I also require an assistant entomologist and botanist at the experimental farm. Dr. Fletcher, who was entomologist and botanist, has unfortunately passed away, and I will take this opportunity of saying that in his death Canada has lost one of the most efficient public servants of the country. His untimely demise is most deplorable from every point of view, and it is practically impossible to fill his place. I am making provision here for the bringing in of two men to fill the joint position held by Dr. Fletcher, and I hope there may be a little enlargement of the work. I have no hesitation in saying that if that work is to be continued and extended as it ought to be in the interests of agriculture in this country, it will require two men to take the place of that lamented and most efficient officer. The work of the department is growing all the time and men must be found to do it. The farmers of Canada are constantly complaining, and even hon. gentlemen opposite frequently complain, that I do not do more work for the agriculture of the country. I am trying to meet that in the most efficient and profitable way to the agricultural industry and the additions that are here provided for are necessary to continue and increase the work of the department.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) The hon. minister, when answering to my question a moment ago about the salary of the patents' commissioner, said that this employee was filling a quasi-judiciary charge, that he had to give his decision upon very important cases. I will ask if the commissioner is a lawyer?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: (Translation.) Yes, Mr. O'Halloran, who is deputy minister of the Department of Agriculture, is a lawyer, and he was very prominent at the bar at Montreal.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Then, it is a lawyer who fills the charge of deputy minister of Agriculture?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, he is a lawyer.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I have no complaint to make of the officials in the patent office who are very courteous and very obliging, hut it seems to me that they sometimes get the cart before the horse. When an application for a patent goes in, instead of first deciding on the patent ability of the invention they deal with certain informalities in thfe papers. I think the first question to be decided is whether the invention is patentable, and if there is any little informality in the papers they can then be returned. The present system causes great delay and expense and finally the invention may be decided not to be patentable at all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not very expert in the process of law, but I believe it would lead to very grave irregularities and possi-

bly injury to the applicants for patents if the suggestion of the hon. gentleman were carried out. If a patent were to be issued and there were irregularities in the papers there would certainly be a lawsuit to annul the patent. After having been in the hands of the examiners for a month or six weeks it would be very much more difficult to correct informalities than to have them corrected at once. To make a patent valid, it is absolutely necessary that all the conditions provided by the law shall be followed with exactitude. It would involve the department in a great deal of repetition of work and it would endanger the future of the patent if the suggestion of the hon. gentleman were carried out. The present practice obtains in all patent departments of all countries as well as in Canada, and it is the result of the experience of 40 odd years in issuing patents.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The informality could be corrected before the patent issue and then there could be no question of the validity of the patent afterwards.


Mr. HUGHES.: There are advertisements appearing in the farmers' magazines under very peculiar circumstances concerning the distribution of thoroughbred horses. Some time ago a gentleman in Victoria county had a memorandum sent to him asking him to apply for one of these animals when it would be furnished free, and all fees would go into his own pocket. I wrote to the department to ascertain the facts and I received a very satisfactory reply, but I would like to know if the minister has any further information to communicate with reference to this.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is a matter which the department officially knows nothing about. These advertisements are not issued by the department nor with any recommendation or guarantee from the department. I understand that some of my officers know these people, and they have said, entirely unofficially, that they believe them to be perfectly honest and honourable people. More than that I cannot say. My hon. friend will quite understand that it would be impossible for the department to aid private enterprise in this way, and this is entirely and absolutely a private enterprise which the department has nothing to do in any shape or form. I have nothing further to say than I have already said with regard to the people concerned in it. Personally I know nothing.
Department of Labour-Salaries, $27,100; contingencies, $1,450.


Hon. R. LEMIEUX (Minister of Labour).: There is an increase of $5,450 in the total amount asked for. First, there is an increase of $1,000 to the deputy head, and an increase of $100 for the secretary of the Mr. FISHER
department. By the way, I may say that since the election of Mr. Mackenzie King as a member of this House, Mr. Acland, the secretary of the department, has been promoted as deputy minister, and a new secretary will be appointed in a few days. There have been some new appointments which, together with the statutory increases, make up the balance of the increase. The Department of Labour has become more important since the operation of the new Compulsory Investigations Act, and more work is thrown upon it.
Printing and Stationery, including printing of 'Labour Gazette,' allowances to correspondents, administration of Conciliation and Labour Act, travelling expenses, &c., and $500 to be paid W. J. Glover as accountant, $30,700.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is the same vote as we took last year. The printing of the Labour Gazette, we expect, will absorb $14,200; allowance for correspondents, $5,000; accountant, $500; stationery, $1,800; travelling expenses, $4,000; printing for the department, $2,500; miscellaneous, $2,600. The Labour Gazette is printed by the Printing Bureau, and the estimate is based on a possible issue of 14,000 conies per month. The Labour Gazette is sent to all the institutions in the country, to every member of the House, to our ordinary subscribers* and is sold to the various labour unions. As regards allowances for correspondents, for which we ask $5,100, we have forty correspondents whom we pay $100 per year. We have one legal correspondence who is charged with the duty of making legal reports. We have secured for this service a very eminent lawyer, recommended by the Minister of Justice, whose name I forget at the moment. He receives $300 a year to report specially on labour cases that come before the several courts. We have correspondents in the principal centres of the Dominion. This year we may go a little further. We have been asked by some important centres, especially in the west, to appoint correspondents for those places; but as we had fixed a certain number for the various cities and towns which were entitled to have correspondents, we were debarred from appointing new ones. But when the reorganization of the department takes place, I feel sure that the new minister will extend his favour to some other cities and towns.


Mr. RHODES.: In regard to these correspondents, does the service they perform depend entirely upon their own discretion, or are they called upon to contribute certain articles?


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the hon. gentleman will look at the last issue of the Labour Gazette, he will see what the work of the correspondents is. They have to report on the special conditions of the labour market of the several centres where they are locat-

ed. They have to inform the Minister of Labour of the scale of wages paid, and the changes that take place, and also report on the accidents that occur. Their work is framed by the department. Especially do they perform the work of statists, that is to say, they gather what we call labour statistics.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the department define the answers which the correspondents are to give?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I notice, for example, that the correspondent at Amherst, N.S., is A. D. Ross. May I ask how it came about that Mr. Ross was appointed?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I could not single him out of the 48 and answer the hon. gentleman. The labour correspondents, as a rule, are appointed at the suggestion of the labour unions of the district where they reside. We generally take the best equipped man for that work.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This correspondent would not have been appointed at the instance of the labour union of our county because he is the editor of the Liberal paper in Amherst and has absolutely no knowledge of the labor question beyond what any ordinary individual might have. My remarks in respect to this correspondent are not made in any spirit of factious opposition, but I desire to find out if the department is endeavoring to get the men who are best adapted to make a report upon labour conditions. I would say with all deference that it would occur to me that there are many other men in that district who are much more competent to deal with labour conditions than the gentleman whose name I see here, although that gentleman is a very admirable man within his own particular sphere-that of newspaper work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In some districts I have been taken to task by my hon. friends because I have appointed some Tory editors.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no objection to this gentleman's politics. I merely mention the fact that his .sphere is newspaper work.. There is no reason why he should give a report upon labour conditions in any better manner than any other individual. In fact he has no special knowledge of the labour conditions, and it would occur to me that if the correspondents throughout the Dominion are chosen from the same field as this man, the usefulness of the Labour Gazette must be very materially impaired.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall not make a plea for the Labour Gazette; it speaks for itself. In the last two or three years it has been considerably improved. This is evidenced by the requests that I receive from every part of the country for the free gift of the
Labour Gazette. Of course, subscribers have to pay for it. Generally speaking our correspondents are very fair.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not questioning the fairness of this correspondent. I believe he is a gentleman who would do the very best with the knowledge that comes to his hand, but he is not a man who is qualified to give a good report upon labour conditions in the country because he has no special knowledge of them.


Mr. MONK.: Who are the correspondents employed by the department in Montreal?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The corespondents employed in the province of Quebec are as follows: Quebec City, P. J. Jobin, and E. Little; Three Rivers, Joseph J. Ryan; Sherbrooke, H. Logie; St. Hyacinthe, V. V. Pha-neuf; St. John's, A. D. Pepin; Montreal, G. Audet; Maisonneuve, E. Pelletier; Hull, R. Laferriere. As regards the special condition of the labour market and labour affairs generally speaking in Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg, the deputy minister and secretary of the department deal chiefly with these large cities although we have our special correspondents there also. But, as they are the chief industrial centres the department has a knowledge of the local conditions at these points.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the total amount you pay to these local correspondents?


Rodolphe Lemieux: One hundred dollars a year each; we have 48 in the Dominion and one legal correspondent for the law reports.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the correspondence published in the Labour Gazette?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Mr. BARNARD.: I would like to ask the minister if Mr. Ditchburn of Victoria was recommended by the Trades and Labour people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I could not answer my hon. friend. He must have been recommended by the Labour Union. The minister of Inland Revenue of that time was certainly asked for his advice on that point.


George Henry Barnard: Following the lines of my hon. friend of the right (Mr. Rhodes) I might inform the minister that Mr. Ditch-burn was the campaign secretary and has been conducting work in Victoria for the last eighteen months on the Liberal side.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course, my hon. friend would not expect that a correspondent of the Labour Gazette who receives $100 a year would not take part in the campaign although they are not selected because they are campaigners. Is not Mr. Ditchburn a journalist?


George Henry Barnard: He belongs to the typographical union.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is a man of some ability, if I remember well.


George Henry Barnard: I do not deny that for a moment; he managed to make a very good fight.


Mr. BURRELL.: I notice the name of A. B. Docksteader as correspondent in Nelson. Is that the gentleman who ran in the Liberal interest in the last provincial campaign? Although I admit, as the minister says, the salary is very small, and the minister is anxious to get good correspondents, it is very singular that they have all very strong Liberal proclivities. Their labour sentiments are very strongly tinged with labour liberalism, so called.
Miscellaneous, Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, $16,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The amount required for the purpose of administering this Act is uncertain depending on the number of compulsory investigations which take place during the year. During the first year of [DOT] the operation of the Act the expenditure amounted to $19,233. During the second year it is likely that the expenditure will reach $16,000, and we take this figure as the amount which may likely be spent. The amount is not very large when we consider the service rendered to the country by the administration of the Act.


Mr. AMES.: This money, I suppose, is paid largely in fees to persons who consent to act as arbitrators in these various industrial disputes?


Rodolphe Lemieux: As my hon. friend knows the board appointed under the Investigation Act is composed of three persons, one appointed by the emnloyers, one appointed by the employees, and the third selected by these two, or, if they do not agree, by the minister himself. The Act provides that the chairman shall receive $20 for each day's sitting and the other members $15. If they sit only half a day they receive only about half of that amount. We have been surprised, in view of the number of investigations that have taken place, that the amount has not exceeded $19,000 the first year and $16,000 last year. We generally had as chairman of the board men of a very high type, like Professor Adam Shortt, who was anxious in each case that a settlement should take place, and therefore took great pains to see that matters were expedited in a proper spirit and concluded within a reasonable time. Really, it is remarkable that while last year we had so many investigations they did not cost more than $16,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does the department pay all the arbitrators?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I want to ask my hon. friend, as this Act has been in operation for some Mr. BARNARD.
time, if the labouring classes themselves are quite satisfied with it as it stands to-day. I have heard a good deal of dissatisfaction expressed over certain dispositions of the Act, and these complaints must have reached the Department of Labour. It would be well that we should be informed as to what these complaints are. In consequence, what are the amendments which have become necessary? What amendments does the government intend to place before the House this session? and how soon shall we see those amendments?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has brought to the attention of the House the views expressed by some of the labour unions concerning the operation of this Act. Generally speaking, the Act has worked well; it has been but little criticised by either the labour unions or the employers. In fact out of fifty-one cases submitted to boards of arbitration, there was only one case in which the findings were not accepted by both parties. The complaint made against the Act by some of the labour unions is that the onus of applying for a board, in the case of a strike or a lockout, should not be always on the party which threaten to strike, but on the party which really causes the strike. Let me explain by referring to the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and its employees. We were told by the labour representatives, a few weeks ago, that the strikers would have preferred that the department should appoint a board at the request of the Canadian Pacific and not at the request of the men. They contended that if a strike was threatened, it was due to the fact that the company had given notice that changes would be made in the schedule of wages and in the character of the work. The men say: We apply for a board, and, if later, we do not accept the! findings of the board, the public is prejudiced against us. On this question, will you allow me to read a very sensible article published by a newspaper not friendly to the government, but in this matter nonpolitical, and a paper which, I am pleased to say, generally takes very high ground on these questions of capital and labour. I read from the Montreal 'Gazette' of Tuesday, January 19, that is, just after the interview of the representatives of the labour unions with the right hon. leader of the government and myself:


THE LEMIEUX LAW.
[Stage Direction]
The complaint is made of the Lemieux Act by the labour unions that the cumbersome machinery employed in the first stage of bringing the Act into force gives the employer an advantage, the incidental delay enabling him to prepare for a strike.
The case is well put by the Montreal ' Gazette.'

In other words, the unions complain that the keen edge has been removed from the axe, and it is no longer possible in the particular trades and industries coming under the Act to take the employer by surprise and force him to grant unreasonable demands. In setting up this complaint sight is lost of the fact that the primary aim of the Act was not to assist either the employer or the employee, but to protect the innocent third party-the public, which, in the case of a cessation of transportation facilities, or of coal supply, &c., really suffers the greatest actual loss and inconvenience. Similarly the intent of the Act is that when a decision is rendered by the arbitrators the force of public opinion will compel the parties to accept it as a settlement. A specific instance in which delay is alleged to have worked to the disadvantage of the union is the recent strike of the Canadian Pacific machinists. It was alleged that the company was given an opportunity of preparing for a strike, and the loss of the battle is ascribed to this fact. This is plainly erroneous. The defeat of the men was due to lack of public sympathy, and public sympathy was wanting because the company consented-
Very reluctantly, I may add.
-to accept the decision of the arbitrators notwithstanding that it had withdrawn its representative from the board, and that his place had been filled bv an appointee of the Minister of Labour. The public objects to strikes which interfere with its convenience, and only tolerates them when it believes the men are in the right, and that no other method exists of securing fair treatment. The leaders of the machinists should have recognized this. They did not, and n'ovv seek to place the blame for their lack of common sense upon a factor that was not apparent until they had been offered their opportunity and refused it. Boiled down, the complaint of the labour leaders is really that they are not given a heads-we-win-tails-the-employer-loses standing. That is all this citation of the case of the C.P.R. machinists can mean. If the arbitrators had rendered a decision in favour of the men, and the company had refused to accept it, utilizing the delay for preparations which had finally resulted in the defeat of the men, and the ignoring of the award of the board, one could understand its use as an illustration of a grievance against the Act. The union leaders lose sight of the fact that the decision of the board is meant to reflect public opinion, that when an employer accepts such a position he bows. to public opinion, and that when they seek an amendment to the law it is public opinion and not the employer they would place at a disadvantage. To grant such a request would be equivalent to destroying any little value, the Act possesses.
Of course, this is from the Montreal ' Gazette,' and dealing with the case which my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) had in mind. In it the complaint which the labour leaders had expressed is well put. This is the only real grievance put before the Minister of Labour as regards the operation of the Act. Speaking for the department and for the government, I may say that we do not intend, after two years operation, and successful operation, of the Act, to amend it this year. It is better that the Act should be fully understood by the country, and should be allowed to operate during one or two years more, and then, if necessary, the House can make changes. For the present, I do not believe that it would be in the interests of either employers or employees to change the law. On the whole, I say again, the Act has worked well, and the country has benefited by it.
William Findlay Maclean: Let me put the view of the men as I understand it, and as I have learned it from my communication with those in my own constituency where there are a large number of Canadian Pacific Railway employees. They say that if they are dissatisfied with their conditions, before they can strike they must ask for a board, and then, if they refuse to accept the decision of the board, they are charged with bad faith. But, as I say, they are compelled under the law to ask for a board before they can strike. When the decision is given, if they do not wish to accept it, they have the right to strike. It may have been their intention from the very first to strike, yet they are misrepresented by the public as men first asking for an arbitration and then refusing to abide by it. Some way must be found to better their position; for, while the minister says that the Act must be tried out and receive further consideration, I am convinced that the railway employees all over the country are dissatisfied with the Act in this respect _ of which I speak, and contend that it is unjust to them. Especially severe was the criticism by this same newspaper, the Montreal ' Gazette,' that they had asked for a board, and then refused to abide by its decision. It is hard to get the people to understand that the first thing the men must do, before going on strike, is to ask for a board. Then, if not satisfied with the board, they should still have the right to refuse to work, and inasmuch as the men are placed in an unfair position by having first to ask for a board, the minister should find some way to improve their position. The men also urge that if an employer proposes to change the rate of wages or the other conditions, he ought to be compelled to ask for a board also. That, perhaps, would be putting the boot on the other leg. The men have a substantial grievance and the minister has not heard the last of it. Some protection must be given them agaipst the unfair insinuation, constantly made, that when they ask for a board, they are not willing to abide by its decision. They cannot help asking for a board, and they do not want their right to strike to be taken away by being compelled to do this. ^


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As this is a question which affects a very large and important

element in my constituency, I would ask the minister to answer fully the question of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) as to what complaints have been received by him from the labour organizations in various parts of the country. As I understood him, the only complaint which so far has reached his ears is the one voiced in an editorial which appeared in the Montreal ' Gazette.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will understand that we receive a large number of letters containing suggestions and observations of various kinds and some times complaints. But all the complaints we have received will be found boiled down in the article just alluded to. The other day the leaders of the labour unions met the "rime Minister and myself. These men were the spokesmen of the labour congress which met at Halifax, and they stated the only complaints they had to lay before the government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Did that application come from the Trade and Labour Congress which met in Halifax in September last?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, and the complaints were expressed by Mr. O'Donaghue, who is the legal representative of the labour unions. He came with my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) and Mr. Simpson, of Toronto. These gentlemen were special delegates and had several resolutions of the Trade and Labour Congress which they laid before us.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. minister appears to conclude that, boiled down, the grievances presented by the delegates of the Trade and Labour Congress are similar to those given in the Montreal ' Gazette.' Did the minister receive a communication from the grand council of the Provincial Workmen's Association of Nova Scotia, which met in convention in Halifax in April, 1908? If I remember rightly. There was passed a resolution at that meeting, composed of delegates representing all the mine organizations of Nova Scotia, to the effect that the council was unanimous in requesting a repeal of the Lemieux Act in so far as it affected the province of Nova Scotia. And I was advised by the secretary of the Provincial Workmen's Association for the county of Cumberland that such resolution had been forwarded to the department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have some recollection of having received a remonstrance from that quarter. We had some complaints from that district, but I cannot remember their nature. Of course, we receive many letters and communications, but, speaking generally, the complaints of the labour unions may be reduced into the one I mentioned a moment ago and which was given expres-Mr. RHODES.
sion in an article in the Montreal 'Gazette.' I might mention that when the Bill came before the House, the railway employees strongly opposed it. They said that their brotherhood was a very superior organization and had its own methods of settling disputes with the railway companies and they preferred these to the Board of Conciliation. But the spirit of the Act is to protect, not so much the employer or the employee as the public, and we believe that in the case of public utilities, such as transportation companies, the public should have the benefit of compulsory investigation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I quite understand that the Department of Labour must receive many letters from individuals and that many of these would come from perhaps irresponsible parties. But it would seem to me that a resolution, under the seal of the grand council of a labour organization, representing the whole province, calling for an absolute repeal of the Act in so far as it affects that province, is one that the minister should not ignore, inasmuch as it should indicate to the department that there was something radically wrong in the working of the Act. I am not prepared to speak off-hand with respect to the Act itself, but I do know that the miners of Nova Scotia consider they are labouring under a very serious disadvantage because of its operation. They say precisely what President Gompers of the American Federation of Labour says respecting injunctions, namely, that the injunctions take from organized labour the only implement they have for obtaining redress of their wrongs. The miners of Nova Scotia point to many defects in the Act. In the first place, if a board of conciliation is called for by the men, they choose one arbitrator and the management chooses another.
These two meet and if they cannot agree then a third arbitrator must, under the wording of the Act, be chosen by the Labour Department. The labour men in my county object very strongly to that provision of the Act because they say it leaves a string upon the arbitration board, one end of which is in the hands of the Labour Department, and they say that the Act would be very materially improved if this third man were to be chosen by a judge of the Supreme Court rather, than by the Labour Department. In this way they claim that the third arbitrator would be chosen absolutely free from any influence or connivance on the part of the Labour Department. They suggest that another amendment would improve the Act. There is no compulsory means of causing a board of conciliation to view the workings of a mine for instance. We know that very frequently boards of conciliation are composed of men who although they may be able lawyers, or

professors of note, have no practical knowledge of the working of a mine, and in one or two instances, if I am correctly advised, the board has refused to go and view the workings. The union in my county suggests that a provision be inserted in the Act that either one party or the other can compel the board to go and view the workings.
A third amendment suggested and it seems to me most reasonable, is that if one party to the dispute fails to appear, as has happened in some cases, then the verdict shall go to the party who has called for the board and who appears, in precisely the same manner as does the verdict in a civil suit, if the defence does not appear there shall be a verdict by default.
A fourth amendment, and it is of vital importance to the man who earns his bread by the sweat of his brow, is a change in the fees allowed witnesses. Under the present Act the fees allowed for witnesses are about one-third of what the men would earn if they were enabled to do their day's work instead of having to appear before the board.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the fee paid by the courts.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so but it is a grievance nevertheless. It is all very well to say that this is the fee paid in the courts and that would perhaps apply if this were under the provincial government. Nevertheless it is a grievance that these men receive only a dollar and a half a day when if working they would receive $4 or $5 a day.
i regret that I cannot now place the case of the miners before the minister as I hope to later on; I mention these matters simply to indicate to the minister that there is a feeling in my county and throughout Nova Scotia of resentment towards this Act and a feeling that it is a means of undue oppression.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am very glad to have the benefit of my hon. friend's views as he has summarized them.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am simply voicing the views of the miners in my constituency. I have offered no expression of my own opinion whatever.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad my hon. friend has summarized their views in the way he has. I have noted his remarks and now that he has summarized the suggested amendments it comes to my memory that the miners of Nova Scotia who were interested in three or four different boards which were constituted expressed those grievances. But my hon. friend will realize that later in the session the question of
labour will be discussed more fully and then we will take up these objections. I must say that we can hardly have this Act in operation in all of the provinces except one.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The request of the miners of Nova Scotia that this Act shall not apply to that province is not quite so bad as it appears because when the Act was first introduced in this House there was a clause which said that it should not apply to any province which had an Act similar in its tenor to this one, and there was some discussion at that time as to whether it should apply to Nova Scotia. In passing through committee that clause was struck out. We have a Conciliation Act there and I am inclined to think that the workmen regard it as the more workable Act and better adapted to their requirements than the Lemieux Act, so-called.
' Mr. BURRELL. Whether the operations of this Act are satisfactory or not, I think the point raised by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is perfectly in order, namely that a large body of employees, those engaged on the railways, are by no means favourably impressed with the operations of the Act. In my province a large proportion of the railway employees are by no means satisfied with the way the Act works, and if I recall the facts aright I believe that this was brought to the attention of the government at the time the Act first came before the House. I think a resolution was offered by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) to the effect that the Railway Act which the men considered was sufficient^ to enable them to adjust their differences with their employers should be left to cover their case. I have heard that expression volunteered very freely throughout the west and would ask the minister if it is not true that the railway employees are by no means showering compliments upon the ministers but are rather registering complaints.
Some resolutions reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When may the House expect the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries ? There are many reasons why we would like to have the report as soon as possible. What is the cause of the delay and how soon will the report be ready ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot answer as to that, but I understand the report is in the hands of the printer.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at six o'clock.
[Stage Direction]


Monday, February 8, 1909.