FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 61) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).
Bill (No. 63) respecting the Manitoba and North-western Railway Company of Canada. -Mr Cash.
Bill (No. 64) respecting the Ottawa Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Ethier.

Mr.   A.@: MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 65) to amend the Winding-Up Act, R. S., 1906, c. 144. He said: I may say that I went to see the Minister of Justice a couple of times for the purpose of getting remedied an oversight in this Act. As I was not able to see him, I introduce this Bill for that purpose. The amendment is rendered necessary by the creation of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. When the Manitoba Court of Appeal was established, it was necessary to amend the Winding-up Act and others so as to provide for apealing to this Court of Appeal from the order of a single judge, instead of to what was called the Court en Bane. That provision was made by 7-8 Edward VII. chapter 74; but there was an oversight, I think, in paragraph (c) of section 106, not making provision for an appeal from the Court of Appeal in Manitoba to the Supreme Court of Canada. This Bill is to remedy that oversight.


Mr. MURPHY.: Does the Bill apply only to the Court of Appeal of Manitoba?


Mr. MEIGHEN.: That is all.


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


Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	At whose request and by what authority have the battery soldiers at Kingston been employed in producing films for a five cent moving picture theatre ?
2.	Has any money been paid for such services? If so, how much and to whom?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	At the request of the Kalem Company, manufacturers of moving picture films, authority was granted by the O. C. Eastern Ontario Command, who saw no objection to the men taking part in these pictures.
2.	All the men taking part did so voluntarily, and were paid 75 cents each time they turned out, which was on half holidays and during their spare time.
The money was paid to the men direct by the Kalem Company each afternoon they turned out. Some $65 to $75 was paid to the men but the exact amounts are not known.


EMPLOYMENT OF J. NAPOLEON AUCTIL.
Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	Has the government in its employment J. Napoleon Auctil, of Riviere du Loup sta-
[DOT] tion?
2.	If so, from what time has he been employed by the government? What are his duties and salary?
3.	What are his qualifications for the employment he is now engaged in?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) His employment with the railway has been continuous since 26th April, last,
(b)	His duties are inspecting the construction of the machine shop, boiler house and chimney, brick store and office building, addition to freight shed and addition to engine house at Riviere du Loup. His salary is $3 per day.
3.	His services have been quite satisfactory.


LAKE NIPISSING IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Ha9 the canal of Lake Nipissing improvements to Monetteville been completed? If not, why has it been delayed?
2.	If completed, what tonnage has passed through the canal during season of 1909?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1 and 2. Not yet completed; delay mainly due to unfavourable conditions for economical work on account of continuous high water during past season and also to consideration being given to possibility of controlling Lake Nipissing water level, which is now under study and which would govern depth of cuts to be completed.


NAPANEE RIVER DREDGING.
Mr. URIAH WILSON:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to do any dredging during the coming season in the Napanee river?
2.	Is the government aware that the said Napanee river is in a very bad state for navigation purposes owing to the inefficiency of the dredging of the past season?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Until the large number of applications, which are before the department, for dredging during the next season have been carefully considered, it is impossible to say whether or not it will be possible to do any dredging next season in the Napanee river.
2.	The district engineer reports that the present condition of the Napanee river is not due to the inefficiency of the dredging performed during the past season by the department, but rather to the extreme low stage of water in Lake Ontario and the Bay of Quinte which governs the depth of the Napanee river; the difference between the level in September last, when the work was performed, and to-day, or up to the close of navigation, is 14 inches.


DAM AT LONG SAULT RAPIDS.
Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Has an application been made by any persons or persons, or corporation for permission to dam the St. Lawrence river at Long Sault rapids, for power purposes?

2.	If so, what is the name of the person or corporation making such application?
3.	Has a report been made by the International Waterways Commission re proposed dam?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to grant such privilege?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Application has been made for permission to construct a dam at Long Sault rapids, for power purposes.
2.	St. Lawrence Power Company, Limited.
3.	No.
4.	The government has not yet considered the application.


ST. LAURENT, MANITOBA, PIERS.
Mr. STAPLES:: 1.	Has the government spent any moneys on a wharf at St. Laurent, on Lake Manitoba? If so, when, and how much?
2.	At whose request was the expenditure made, and what is the nature of the work done, and the object for doing it?
3.	Are the moneys expended, if any, of value to the public?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to complete the undertaking? If so, when?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Expenditure for construction and repairs of piers, exclusive of dredging, in 1903, 1904, 1906 and 1909: $15,988.87.
2.	(a) Petitions received from residents of St. Laurent and surrounding district and. from Winnipeg Board of Trade, (b) Con-' struction of guide piers and dredging of a channel and basin inside of these piers, (c) The object was to afford greater facilities for traffic and transportation on Lake Manitoba and develop traffic by way of said lake and the connected lakes to the north. It was expected, at the time, that this place would be the main shipping point at the south end of Lake Manitoba and that the Canadian Northern railway would build a spur from their main line, which passes close by; the erection of freezers by the fishing industry was contemplated and it was also thought that the Manitoba Gypsum Company would make this their shipping point.
3.	The work that has already been done is in excellent condition and is sufficient to provide for any shipping on Lake Manitoba.
4.	Further expenditure at this point will be considered should the shipping increase to such an extent as to warrant same. .


DISTRIBUTION OF SEED GRAIN.
Mr. LAKE:: 1.	Who are the present holders of homesteads for the northwest and southwest quarters of sections 24, township 38, range 10, west of 3rd meridian?
2.	Was seed grain supplied to any of these men? If so, to whom, and how much to each?


Mr. J. D. REID.: 


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Northwest l section 24, township 38, range 10, west 3rd meridian, Thomas Warwick; southwest i no entry at present. Allan R. Mudie allowed 30 days from 25th November, 1909, to make entry. Entry not reported up to date of last return received from Saskatoon agency which is dated 23rd November.
2.	No.



FREE MAIL DELIVERY.

Mr. ARMSTRONG:: Are there any cities in Canada in which free mail delivery has been established, and in which the distribution office has been closed? If so, what are the names of the cities ?


Mr. FIELDING:: In all cities where letter carrier delivery has been established it has been the practice to close all post offices, except the head office, within the city limits and continue them as sub-post offices. As sub-post offices they do not deliver mail to the public, but all mail matter for the different neighbourhoods is deposited in a letter box placed at the door and collected by the department and sent to the head office. All other post office' business, such as registering letters, issuing money orders, taking savings bank deposits! and sale of stamps is carried on by sub-post offices. The delivery of mail formerly undertaken by these offices is, of course, carried on by the letter carriers.



GOVERNMENT WEIGHER AT MONTREAL.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has a government weigher been appointed at the port of Montreal?


William Stevens Fielding: A weighmaster has been appointed under the Inspection and Sale Act, but his powers are confined to grain.



FRANCO-CANADIAN TREATY.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Referring to the ratification of the Franco-Canadian treaty, is the Canadian government now prepared to establish a similar treaty between Canada and the German empire?


William Stevens Fielding: The ratification of the Franco-Canadian convention has not yet taken place. The question of treaties with other countries is under consideration.



NATIONAL RESOURCES COMMISSION.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What are the names of the chairman and members of the commission appointed to conserve our national resources, and what salaries, if any, are paid to them?


William Stevens Fielding: The Hon. Clifford Sif-ton is chairman. The other members are as follows:
The Hon. Benjamin Rogers, of Alberton, Prince Edward Island; Professor Howard Murray, B.A., of Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Mr. Frank Davison, of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia; Mr. Cecil C. Jones, M.A., Ph.D., LL.D., chancellor of University of New Brunswick, of Fredericton, New Brunswick; Mr. William B. Snowball, lumber merchant, of Chatham, New Brunswick; Mr. Henri S. Beland, M.D., M.P., of St. Joseph de Beauce, Quebec; Mr. Frederick Debartzch Monk, K.C., D.C.L., M.P., of Montreal, Quebec; Doctor J. W. Robertson, C.M.G., director of Macdonald Agricultural College, of Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec; Monseigneur J. C. K. La-fiamme, superior and rector of University of Laval, of Quebec, Quebec; Sir Sanford Fleming, K.C.M.G., LL.D., M.I.C.E., chancellor of Queens University, of Ottawa, Ontario; the Hon. Senator William Cameron Edwards, of Ottawa, Ontario; Mr. Edmund Boyd Osier, M.P., of Toronto, Ontario; Mr. Charles Arthur McCool, lumber merchant, of Ottawa, Ontario; Mr. J. F. Mackay, journalist, of Toronto, Ontario; Professor Bernhard Fernow, of Toronto, Ontario; the Reverend George Bryce, M.A., D.D., LL.D., F.R.S.C., of the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Doctor W. J. Rutherford, Deputy Minister of Agficulture and member of the faculty of the University of Saskatchewan, of Regina, Saskatchewan; Professor H. M. Troy, M.A., D.Sc., LL.D., president of University of Alberta, of Edmonton, Alberta; Mr. John Hendry, lumber merchant, of Vancouver, British Columbia; and the following who are members ex-officio: the Hon. Sydney Fisher, of Ottawa, Minister of Agriculture; the Hon. Frank Oliver, of Ottawa, Minister of the Interior; the Hon. William Templeman, of Ottawa, Minister of Mines; the Hon. Francis L. Haszard, of Charlottetown, Premier of the province of Prince Edward Island; Attorney General of the province of Nova Scotia; the Hon. Ward Chipman Hazen Grimmer, of Fredericton, Surveyor General of the province of New Brunswick; the Hon. Jules Allard, of Quebec, Minister of Lands and Forests of the province of Quebec; the Hon. Frank Cochrane, of Toronto, Minister of Lands and Mines of the province of Ontario; the Hon. Hugh Armstrong, of Winnipeg, Provincial Treasurer of the province of Manitoba; the Hon. James Alexander Calder, of Regina, Commissioner of Education and Provincial Treasurer of the province of Saskatchewan; the Hon. Alexander Cameron Rutherford, of Edmonton, Premier and President of the Executive Council of the province of Alberta; the Hon. Frederick John Fulton, of
Victoria, Chief Commissioner of Lands of the province of British Columbia.
Under the provisions of section 9, chapter 27, 8-9 Edward VII., no fees or emoluments of any kind shall be received by the chairman or other members of the commission. Their expenses are paid.



LEVEL CROSSINGS PROTECTION.

Mr. STANFIELD:: Has the railway department received Ml. John Murphy's report on electric devices, electric bells, &c., for the better protection of level crossings? If so, will the minister lay copy of same on the table of the House?


George Perry Graham: The department has not received any such report from Mr. John Murphy.



CANADIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION.

Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	How many commissions have been appointed to inquire into the condition of the Canadian fisheries since 1896?
2.	Of whom did they, respectively, consist, what was the date of appointments and date of completion of duties of each?
3.	What special branches of the fishery and what territory did each, respectively, deal with?
4.	In what instances were reports'made?
5.	In what instances were reports made and evidence taken, printed, and in such cases how many copies were printed?
6.	How many copies of the respective reports and evidence, if printed, were distributed, by whom and among whom?
7.	In what instances were recommendations made to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries by said reports?
8.	In what instances were the recommendations as made, carried out?
9.	What was the cost of the respective commissions?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR:: 1.	Nine.
2,	3 and 9. On the 27th September, 1898, the following persons were appointed to inquire into the condition and requirements of the Canadian Lobster Fishery: Professor E. E. Prince, Moses H. Nickerson, Wm. Whitman, H. C. V. LeVatte, S. E. Gallant, Patrick Sweeney, Robert Lindsay, Archibald Currie and Donald Campbell. The commission reported April 25, 1899. It cost $7,437.24.
On January 25, 1902, the following commissioners were appointed to inquire into the salmon fishery of British Columbia: Professor E. E. Prince, G. R. Maxwell, Aulay Morrison and Ralph Smith. Interim report March 4, 1902. Cost of commission, $878.70.
(Note.-George Riley was appointed to fill vacancy caused by death of G. R. Maxwell by order in council January 9, 1903.

Commission never finally reported and was ultimately superseded by another commission in 1905.)
On November 14, 1903, the following commissioners were appointed to inquire into the conditions and requirements of the herring and sardine fisheries and industry, in the Bay of Fundy and tributary waters, and of the lobster fishery of the western portion of the Bay of Fundy and St. Mary's Bay, as well as the dogfish pest: R. N. Venning, Col. J. J. Tucker, A. J. S. Copp, R. E. Armstrong and E. C. Bowers. Their final report was dated March 3, 1905.
These commissioners, together with Reverend J. S. Turbide, were at the same time empowered to investigate the conditions and requirements of the lobster fishery and the dogfish pest, at the Magdalen Islands, and they also finally reported in this connection on the 3rd March, 1905. Cost of both commissions, $3,943.11.
On April 11, 1904, Professor E. E. Prince and B. Morais were appointed a commission to inquire into the salmon and lobster fishery, as well as the dogfish pest, of Gloucester county, New Brunswick. Their report was dated May 5, 1904. Commission cost $389.32.
On July 22, 1905, the following commissioners were appointed to investigate the conditions and requirements of the fisheries of Georgian bay: Professor E. E. Prince, John Bimie and James J. Noble. They reported on February 16, 1909. The cost of the commission was $21,546.99.
(Note.-The powers of this commission were extended by order in council 14th August, 1906, so as to include the fisheries of Lake Erie; but owing to the subsequent appointment of the International Fisheries Commission, it did not report in regard thereto.)
On July 22, 1905, the following persons were appointed a commission to inquire into the condition and requirements of the fisheries of British Columbia:	Professor
E. E. Prince, Campbell Sweeney, J. C. Brown, Richard Hall, Reverend G. W. Taylor and J. P. Babcock. They reported on July 24, 1907. The cost of the commission was $16,934.06.
On June 4, 1908, Professor E. E. Prince and S. F. Morrison were appointed a commission to investigate the condition and requirements of the shad fishery of Minas Basin and adjacent rivers and Bay of Fundy waters, and Simon Melanson was added to the commission when investigating the New Brunswick waters affected. The commission reported on February 6, 1909. It cost $2,651.07.
On March 16, 1909, Professor E. E. Prince, T. L. Metcalfe and D. F. Reid were appointed a commission to inquire into the condition and requirements of the fisheries of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta,


Mr. BRODEUR.: and on September 3, 1909, J. B. Hugg was appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Metcalfe, on his appointment to the Bench.
Interim report submitted December 2,
1909.	Work of commission not yet completed. Cost to date $1,070.85.
On June 25, 1909, Commander W. Wake-ham was appointed a commissioner to inquire into the condition and requirements of the Canadian lobster fishery.
His report has not yet been submitted. Cost to date $1,375.97.
4.	In all.
5.	The reports of the Lobster Commission of 1898, the British Columbia Commission of 1905 and the Georgian Bay Commission of 1905, were printed. 4,500, 1,500 and 1,200 respectively, but no evidence printed in any case.
6.	A number of copies were sent to the inspectors of fisheries of the districts affected for distribution among those interested and all applicants to the department were supplied with copies.
7.	In all.
8.	The recommendations of the Lobster Commission of 1898 were practically all carried out. The recommendations of the commission appointed 14th November, 1903, so far as the lobster fishery of the Bay of Fundy and St. Mary's bay and of the Magdalen islands is concerned, were carried out. In the^ case of the British Columbia Commission appointed on July 22, 1905, the recommendations were carried out. The recommendations of the Georgian bay, the Shad and Manitoba Commission are under consideration.



MOBILIZATION EQUIPMENT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Is the government aware that in the imperial army the fullest details as to mobilization equipment is carefully tabulated, periodically promulgated through army orders, and that copies thereof may be procured by the public either directly or through any bookseller ?
2.	Was not the establishing of a similar system contemplated in Canada by paragraph 250 of the Regulations for Canadian Ordnance services, Part 1?
3.	Have the mobilization store tables, required under this paragraph to be issued for the regulating of the details of mobilization stores, been yet prepared and promulgated through general orders? If not, why not?
4.	In view of the English practice, and of its apparent adoption by Canadian Regulations, why should such information have been refused to this House by the Minister of Militia and Defence, on December 2, 1909, on the ground of the publication thereof not being in the public interest?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: pense of establishing a mess in camp, which is necessarily a smaller and much more expensive one than in quarters (a fair estimate of .the additional expense would be $1 per diem), and to make up for the extra wear and tear on clothing, which for the men at least forms part of their emoluments. They are usually employed for much longer hours than the regimental officers of the active militia, and they have to do more entertaining.



HEATING AND LIGHTING CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	When contracts are awarded for the construction of public buildings, is due care exercised that heating systems and electric wiring are installed concurrently with the main construction?
2.	Is it the case that many such buildings are otherwise completed for some time before lighting and heating contracts are awarded, or even called for? If so, does the government consider the same a sound practice?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: 1.	Yes.
2.	It is the case that heating and lighting contracts have been let separately from the main contract, but the practice now is to include both these in the main contract.



ORDNANCE CORPS LODGING ALLOWANCES - ORDNANCE LANDS - LEASE TO OTTAWA COLLEGIATE.

Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	What amount of money is now being paid out monthly to all ranks of the Ordnance Corps at Ottawa as lodging allowances and upon what amount do such allowances represent interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum?
2.	Is the property upon which the Ottawa Collegiate Institute stands Ordnance lands? If so, what are the terms of the lease thereof from the Crown?
3.	(a) May possession of such lands be resumed by the Crown if required for military purposes; (b) has the Collegiate building been, somewhat recently, further extended? If so, when?
4.	If the growth of the Ordnance services has necessitated the hiring of space as an overflow storehouse, why was not the possession of the unoccupied land resumed, previous to the extension, to provide for such increasing requirements?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	The monthly amount for lodging allowance paid to all ranks of the Canadian Ordnance Corps stationed at Ottawa is $416.95, making an annual cost of $5,000.
2	The building, with the exception of the northern ends of the centre and eastern wings, which encroach some 30 and


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: 15 feet, respectively, upon the adjacent ordnance property, stands on land belonging to the Collegiate Institute. The land thus encroached on forms part of a strip, some 45 feet x 312 feet, of ordnance property, adjoining the northern boundary of the Collegiate Institute property, which is leased to the institute for a period of 99 years from the 1st June, 1900, being a continuation of a previous lease granted the institute in 1871, at an annual rental of $1, on the condition that the government can assume possession of the whole or any part thereof at any time if required for military purposes.
3.	(a) Answered by No. 2; (b) Yes; last year.
4.	The recent addition to the Collegiate building is not on ordnance property.



CANADIAN SOUTH AFRICAN CONTINGENTS-EXPENDITURES BY CANADIAN AND IMPERIAL GOVERNMENTS.

Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	What forces and at wliat periods were dispatched from Canada to South Africa during the Boer war?
2.	What part of the expenditure in each case was undertaken by Canada, and what by the British government?
3.	What was the total amount paid by the Canadian government, and what by the British government, for the Canadian contingents?


Frederick William Borden: Corps.
Date of Embarkation.
First Contingent-
2nd (Special Service) Battalion, Royal
Canadian Regiment	
Second Contingent-
Canadian Mounted Rifles, two bat- f
talions	-[
Three batteries of Field Artillery.. I
The Strathcona Horse	
Canadian Mounted Rifles, (2nd Regt)..
10th Canadian Field Hospital Co....
South African Constabulary	
Canadian Mounted Rifles, (3rd Regt.)	f
it	n	(4th	Regt.	)Jii	n	(5th	Regt.)	|ii	ii	(6th	Regt.)	I
Oct. 30, '99
Jan. 21, '00 I. 27, '00 Feb. 21, '00 Mar. 16, '00 Jan. 14, '01 ii 23, '01 Mar. 28, '01 May 8, '02 ,i 17, '02 ,i 23, '02
2.	With regard to the first and second contingents, Canada equipped, transported to South Africa and paid them up to the time of arrival in that country, the British government paid and maintained them while in South Africa, and transported them home.
With regard to the third, fourth, fifth and sixth contingents, the British government paid all expenses.
As regards the Strathcona Horse and the South African Constabulary, the expenses

were borne in the case of the former partly by Lord Strathcona and partly by the British government, in the case of the latter by the government of Cape Colony.
3.	The total amount paid by the Canadian government was $1,972,255.20. The government is not aware of the total amount expended by the British government in this connection.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-EXPENDITURES FOR TERMINALS.

Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	What has already been paid by the government for terminals in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, and at what points ?
2.	What is the estimated total cost to the government of these terminals at each point?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	(a) So far as the eastern division is concerned nothing has been paid for terminals, except $2,187.50 per month paid to the Canadian Northern railway being the government's proportion of rental for terminal facilities at Winnipeg under the agreement of March 1, 1907. (See Cap. 52, ED. VII., 6-7).
(b) The government pay no sum for terminals on the western division (Winnipeg to Prince Rupert) of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. They merely guarantee the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company's bonds to the extent of $13,000 per mile on the prairie section' and to the extent of 75 per cent of the cost of the 'mountain section.'
2.	No estimate has been made of the total cost of terminals.



QUEBEC BRIDGE.

Mr. FOSTER:: 1. What is the total cost to the government to date of the Quebec bridge, and what is the approximate sum required to complete it?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1. (a) The total cost to date, to the government is $6,905,852.35; including subsidies paid of $374,353.33.
(b) A contract has been awarded to M. P. Davis for the substructure of two pneumatic caissons; two abutments; two anchor piers; one intermediate pier which will be all required, if the ultimate decision is for a cantilever bridge, at $2,448,475. If the decision is that a suspension bridge is to be built, the abutment, centre pier, and anchor pier, will not be required; but anchorage piers for the cables will be required. No estimate for the latter has been made pending requirement for same.
There is a provision for withdrawing the items named. The cost of the two pneumatic caissons is $2,000,800, and will be required as planned whatever type of bridge superstructure is ultimately decided upon.
Pending such decision it' is not in the public interest to give the estimate of cost of superstructure.



TEMPORARY LOANS.

Mr. FOSTER:: Have any temporary loans been made by the government since the beginning of this session? If so, where and on what conditions?


William Stevens Fielding: No temporary loans have been obtained by the government since the beginning of the session. The cable despatches in the press recently no doubt arose from arrangements that were being made for obtaining a temporary loan at an early date.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: 1. How many carloads of wheat have been transported over the National Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Fort William or Port Arthur up to November, 30 1909?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1. Ten car loads.
BREAKWATER AT GULLIVER'S COVE. Mr. JAMESON:
1.	Have any petitions been received by the government or by the Department of Public Works from the residents of Gulliver's Cove, Digby county, asking for the construction of a breakwater?
2.	If so, when were the same received, from whom, and what action was taken thereon?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) A petition signed by the residents
cf Gulliver's Cove was transmitted to the department by Mr. A. J. S. Copp, M.P., on April 18, 1901.	(b) A report was secured
from the resident engineer, estimating the cost of the proposed breakwater at $12,000.



NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE BARRACKS AT CALGARY.

Mr. MCCARTHY:: 1.	Have any applications been received by the government for the transfer to any railway corporation or corporations, or person, of the grounds now occupied by the Northwest Mounted Police in connection with their barracks at the city of Calgary?
2.	If so, from whom have such applications been received for the transfer of the same, on what date, and for what portion of said property ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Grand Trunk Pacific railway, on March 23, 1909. Sufficient area for a terminal.



FRANKING PRIVILEGE IN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:: 1.	What employee, if any, is responsible for the franking of free mail matter dispatched from the Department of Justice?
2.	What are the several franks, if more
than one, recognized as indicating that the missives to which they are affixed are entitled to he sent by the Department of Justice free of Canadian postage?	.,
3.	What official, if any, is charged with the supervision of the franking privilege in this department, and the duty of cheeking improper use of any frank?


Hon.  A. B.@: AYLE8WORTH:
1.	The deputy minister.
2.	Those of the minister and Solicitor General and of the deputy minister.
3.	The deputy minister.
DRY DOCK ON THE TRENT CANAL. Mr. HUGHES:
Is it the intention of the government to construct a dry dock on the Trent canal at Eenelon Falls, or Buckom, or Burleigh, or some similar point on the canal where the lift is such that the dock could be unwatered without any cost of pumping?


George Perry Graham: The matter has not been considered by the government.



SUBSIDIES TO CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY.

Mr. RALPH SMITH:: 1.	Does the Canadian Northern Railway
Company own or in any way control any of the following railway companies: the Ontario and Rainy River Railway Company, the Port Arthur, Duluth & Western Railway Company, the Manitoba and South Eastern Railway Company, the Minnesota and Manitoba Railway Company, the Minnesota and Ontario Bridge Company, the Saskatchewan North Western Railway Company, the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway Company, the Alberta Midland Railway Company, the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company?	.
2.	What subsidies either in land, money, or by way of guarantee of securities have been granted to any of the railway companies mentioned in question on account of the main or branch lines or both, of the said companies, either by the Dominion government, or the provincial governments of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, or any municipality through which their lines run?
3.	How much of these subsidies have been
earned to date?	,	.
4.	How many miles west of Edmonton is there a line of railway constructed and in operation by the Canadian Northern Railway Company?
5.	Has any work other than location survey work been done west of this point up to date? If so, how much and of what nature?


Mr. OLIVER.: 6.	If any, will it eventually form part of the proposed line to Vancouver?
7.	When was the location plan of the route of the Canadian Northern railway between Edmonton and Vancouver, by way of the Yellow Head Pass, approved by the Minister of Railways and the Board of Railway Commissioners?
8.	Has any application been made since to change or in any way alter this location plan?
9.	To what extent, if any, has the government of Manitoba exercised its right of control of freight rates under section 8 of schedule B of the Act 1 Edward VII, chapter 53?
10.	Has this section of said Act had any effect in reducing freight rates in the province of Manitoba?


George Perry Graham: This is a voluminous question and the answers would be voluminous. If the hon. gentleman will let it stand, I will investigate.



QUARANTINE FRONTIER INSPECTORS.

Mr. WM. H. SHARPE:: Referring to page D-73. volume 1, of the Auditor General's Report, where Dr. A. Bradford, Dr. L. J. Carter, Dr. J. D. Duncan, Dr.
R. S. Thornton, Dr. M. Wallace, Dr. J. May, Dr. T. D. McKenty, Dr. J. C. Little, Dr.
D. Henderson, and Dr. L. B. Scott are described as inspectors, and were inspectors from March 14 to August 15, 1908, each having drawn $508.00, what were their duties, and how many reports did each send in to the government ?
Mr. FIELDING '(for Minister of Agriculture). Quarantine frontier inspectors of persons entering from the United States during the prevalence of an epidemic of small-pox south of the line. Dr. Bradford,
5; Dr. Carter, 5; Dr. Duncan, 5; Dr. Thornton, 1; Dr. Wallace, 5; Dr. May, 2; Dr. McKenty, 5; Dr. Little, 5; Dr. Henderson,
4; Dr. Scott, 4.



ALCOHOLIC GOODS IN SCOTT ACT COUNTIES.

Mr. DANIEL.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would ask the Minister of Railways if he will place on the table of the House the instructions which have been given to the employees of the Intercolonial railway with regard to the handling of alcoholic goods taken into Scott Act counties. He will remember that the Supreme Court of New Brunswick gave a decision to the effect that so far as that amendment to the Canadian Temperance Act was concerned, if did not apply to the Intercolonial, and the minister I believe has given some instructions to the employees. It is to obtain a copy of these instructions that I ask the minister to place them on the table of the House.


George Perry Graham: As my hon. friend says, a difficulty arose, and certain instructions .

were given to the Intercolonial management of the Intercolonial railway which, I think, have obviated the difficulty. It is questionable whether my hon. friend ought to ask for instructions passing between the management of a railway and its employees, or whether they ought to be laid on the table. However, if he will move for the documents, I will consider it carefully. The same request has been made to me half a dozen times by other people who appear interested, and I am informed that the purpose sought to be attained has been accomplished by the instructions given at that time. I thought if that was the case, then the object of laying the correspondence on the table, or even of giving it to the public, was not obvious. However, if my hon. friend will move for the correspondence. I will look into it, and will give him a further answer.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On order for House again in committee on Bill (No. 41) to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. LENNOX.: I do not see the Minister of Agriculture present. The other day he asked this order to stand, and probably he desires it to stand yet. I am ready to go on.


William Stevens Fielding: I would be obliged if the hon. gentleman would permit it to stand until the return of the Minister of Agriculture. It would be a convenience.



INTEREST ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Order called for resuming the adjourned debate op the proposed motion of Mr. Miller for the second reading of Bill (No. 8) to amend the Interest Act.
Mr. MILLER.: I ask the permission of the House to withdraw this Bill, having given notice of the introduction of another Bill to the same purpose. I move that the order be discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On order for second reading of Bill (No. 18) to amend the Bank Act.
Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE.: I move that this order be discharged as the purpose of the Bill is covered by another proposed Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.   A.@: VERVILLE (Maissoneuve) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 21) respecting the hours of labour on public works. He said: In moving the second reading of this Bill, I do not propose to go at length
into details, inasmuch as a discussion took place last year when this Bill was before the House. At that time it was proven conclusively that the hours of labour ought to be shortened. Of course, during that discussion it developed that some hon. members were in favour of the measure, and some were opposed to it; others stated that they had not had time to give to the Bill the careful study which a measure of its importance deserved. I think, Sir, that if the hon. members of this House gave as much care and as keen study to this Bill as some of them give to Bills of private interest, this measure would already have been enacted into law. Now during the discussion last year it was stated that by shorten! ng the hours from 10 to 8, or from 9 to 8, we would probably diminish production by one-fifth. At that time the Minister of Labour, then the Postmaster General, stated that he had not studied the measure, but he believed that it would have the effect of reducing production by one-fifth. It was proven clearly by those who spoke in favour of the Bill that such was not the case. It was also shown on that occasion that the deputy Minister of Labour had made investigations in British Columbia, and recommended the adoption of an eight hour law for the miners. It was also proven that in Alberta they had adopted an eight hour day, and that a commission had been appointed in other provinces to study the question.
Of course, it may be said, that we should leave this question to the different provinces to discuss and pass laws upon. I claim that this government must be a model employer, that we should start at the head and pass a law on this subject so that we can at least study the question from observing its operation. During the discussion last year some hon. members of this House said that long hours of labour had no effect mentally or physically upon man. Is it reasonable to believe that long hours of labour, especially in some of our large industries, will not have a detrimental effect, morally, physically and otherwise, on our working people? The question of the rate of wages has nothing whatever to do with the Bill before the House. Some hon. gentlemen say that if you shorten the hours of labour organized labour will want more money. I want to know if this House has anything to do with that question. Let the working people ask what they think is right and let them discuss it with their employers. The hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Girard), when we were discussing this question last year, remarked that fifteen hours of labour was not any too long for farm hands. I claim that there is a vast difference between working on a farm, or in the open air, and working in the large industries of the country. Then, some one made the statement that the best way to

solve the problem was to abolish day work altogether and let everybody work by the hour and work as long as he chose. Are we in this twentieth century going to allow every man to work as many hours as he likes? Are we not supposed to protect the weak members of society? That is why ten, and nine hour laws have been passed in different states of the United States., Last year, while this discussion was on, one hon. member of the House-I believe it was the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson-made the statement that this was class legislation. I would like to know what kind of legislation we generally pass if it is not class legislation. It is all class, legislation. There are classes of one kind and classes of another kind, but we never specify it as being class legislation unless it is legislation in the interests of labour. It was stated that I wanted to make a lion of myself by posing as a defender of labour in this House. I have nothing to fear and I have nothing to hide in connection with my conduct and the labour movement in this country or in this House, tinder these conditions it is absolutely unfair to bring such a charge against me. To command the respect of my fellow workers in this country it is not necessary, as some hon. members have asserted, to bring a measure of this kind before the House and I am not actuated by any such motive. If I have brought this measure before the House it is because I am perfectly convinced that it is absolutely necessary for this and every other parliament to study this question and study it at as early a date as possible in order to bring relief to those who are labouring to-day under trying conditions. It was stated further that the country is not quite ready for a measure of this kind. The question was also asked: Why should we give more leisure to the men who are working for the government than to others, and why should we be asked to adopt legislation of this kind in the interest of government employees any more than for any body else? That will be fopnd on the * Hansard ' of last year. I believe that it was the hon. member for Halton who used these words. I am a young man, I am not as old a parliamentarian as my hon. friend, but I studied the rules of this House when I came here and I saw that it was impossible under the British North America Act for any body to present legislation in respect to this subject except it had reference to the men who were working for the government. When it is asked:	How is
it possible to grant an eight hour day on one side of the street and a ten hour day on the other, I reply that this parliament has nothing to do with that. All we have to do is to consider whether it is necessary to have a shorter day. I shall not take up the time of the house by quoting., from magazines and books, but I could present Mr. VERVILLE.
a great deal of evidence to prove that there is an almost universal call for a shorten working day. It was stated that it will demoralize production. Are we willing to admit that it will demoralize production especiallv when it was proven last year that we could produce as much with a shorter day than we can under present conditions? Then, there is the question of the unemployed, and it will be admitted by all that we want to make more work so that those who are now unemployed may have something to do. But, it may bq said, if you agree that we can produce as much in a short hour day as in a long one, how is it possible that we are going to give work to the unemployed? I answer by giving greater purchasing power to a man than he has at the present time. Is it not reasonable to believe that if a man is not working his purchasing power is diminished, while if you give a man a chance to work it will create a demand for larger production because he will have more means and therefore greater purchasing power. If you give more leisure time to those who now work such long hours you will give them a chance to better their condition. Is it not a fact that as soon as we improve our condition we are anxious to get a little better living. This is a perfectly legitimate 'desire on the part of everybody and therefore by improving the conditions of the workingman you are increasing his purchasing power and consequently increasing the need of greater production. Over production? During the great financial depression of last year, or the year before, it was said in the papers and in other places that labour was to a certain extent responsible for that great financial depression? I would like to ask any member of this House if the workers were not as steady at their work then as they were before? They were, but notwithstanding that we had depression. When depression comes over-production comes as a result of it. During the depression to which I have referred the stores were full of goods from top to bottom and every man in the country was wearing as many clothes as he was before. There was over-production because there were too many hours of labour in the . different industries. With the improved methods and machinery that we now have at our disposal there is liable to be overproduction, especially during good times when, in the large industries, people are sometimes working night and day. They believe they will make money by doing this. But, if they believe that they can make more money by increasing the hours of work they make the greatest mistake of their lives, because they are over-producing, and when the market is full of goods they are obliged to close our doors. If they close the door of an industry for two or three months the purchasing power of men

who are idle for a space of time is not the same as it would be if they were working steadily. The shortening of the hours of labour would to some extent solve the difficult problem of the unemployed. I am ready to thank the government for having appointed a Minister of Labour who can devote all his time and energy to the study of labour questions, and the fact that the labour people of this country have asked for the creation of such a portfolio for years and years past shows the necessity for it. When the Minister of Labour takes part in the debate to-day I hope he will he able to assure us that the eight hour day movement will be recognized by the government. Now, a couple of years since the hon. member for Hants brought before the House a resolution asking this government to aid in the prevention of the white plague. Is it not well known to the medical men of this country that it is in the large industrial establishments that the white plague starts, and very often finishes? Would not one of the best means of preventing the white plague be to give the workingmen of Canada a chance to breathe the pure air of Heaven? How often is it that you see labour men go to the country for a few weeks or even a few days in the summer, by the lake shore, or the sea shore or in the forest; it is very seldom indeed they can afford to get a day's vacation. If we shorten the hours of labour we will enable the working people to enjoy some of the privileges which Providence has placed at the disposal of human beings, and I am sure hon. gentlemen will agree with me that this is all the more important in regard to factories where female and child labour is' employed. Further, I think that if any gentleman in this House study the conditions of labour in America and Europe as well as in Canada, they will come to the conclusion that ninety per cent of the people are not clothed as they ought to be. I shall practice what I preach and be brief in my remarks, and in conclusion, I hope that the Minister of Labour will have something to say in favour of this measure, and that it will not be pushed along on the road to the cemetery as a good many similar measures have been. I beg to move the second reading of this Bill.
_ Mr. A. C. MACDONELL (South Toronto), i agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ver-ville) that this is an extremely important measure, but at the same time I have to remark that the hon. gentleman himself has not been wonderfully active in promoting the best interests of the Bill. I made a short examination of the previous fates of this Bill and I find that it was first introduced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Verville) on the 11th of December, 1906, when he said:
The object of the Bill is to establish an eight hour day upon all public works throughout the country. It is not my intention to discuss the merits of the Bill at the present time as they will be discussed on the second reading. The Bill as it stands has no effect on wages to be paid on public works.
Then the Bill was read the first time, and the last time for that session. The Bill was again introduced by the hon. gentleman on the 14th of February, 1908, when it was read a first time, and that was the end of it. Then we come to last session when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Verville)-the Bill having been introduced previously-on the 27th of April, 1909, very shortly before the close of the session, moved:
That order 35 of the Public Bills and Orders for the second reading of Bill (No. 22) respecting hours of labour on public works be now called for the purpose of it being discharged on the Order Paper.


Mr. AMES.: Why does the hon. gentleman wish the order discharged?


Mr. VERVILLE.: Because its discharge will enable me to bring the matter before the House this session in another form. The question as to the hours of labour on public works is, I consider, of considerable importance at the present time.
The Bill then made its exit for the third time and was not again introduced as a Bill or in any other form that session. Now, Mr. Speaker, this question is before the people of this country as it is before the people of the neighbouring republic, and as a humble member of this House I think parliament should dispose of it in some businesslike manner. The American Congress has been dealing with this question for a great many years, and Bills have been introduced and discussed. I have in my hand a copy of what I think was the last Bill introduced during the , session of 1904, and I see by a recent utterance of the president of the United States that he has declared his intention of in some way having the matter dealt with at the approaching session of Congress. One reason why I say this present Bill should be dealt with by parliament is that if you look at its contents you will find that its name is a misnomer. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Verville) has persistently called it 'an Act respecting the hours of labour on public works,' but as the Bill is submitted to the House it contains provisions of the most drastic nature. It is not a Bill regulating the hours of labour upon public works of the country, and if it were I think there are many hon. gentlemen in this House who would be willing to go some distance to regulate the hours of labour which the government would permit on its works or which it would allow its contractors to exact. I believe that such a proposition would be favourably considered by a great many members in this House, but the Bill sub-

mitted by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ver-ville) is not designed to earry out that object. As a matter of fact this Bill as it is worded-as any gentleman of the legal profession will see if he reads it-would prohibit the government or the contractors for the government from going into the markets of the world to purchase any material whatsoever which was produced under a system which required the workmen who produced it to work more than eight hours a day. The government might make a contract to purchase uniforms in one department or to purchase groceries in another department, and if any of the work on any of the component parts of any articles the government so purchased were not confined to an eight hour day, then the whole contract would be void, and no matter how much value was given to the government under it, the contractor would not be able to recover one dollar, and the result would be disastrous. In other words, the Bill before the House would void and vitiate every contract the government might make for the purchase of materials, provided that any of the articles so purchased had been turned out of a shop or factory in which work of more than eight hours a day had been exacted. Now, that is altogether impossible and not at all in the interest of those who are asking for this legislation. The American Act has been drawn with much more care. That Act on more than one occasion has gone to a select committee of the Houae of Bepresentatives, and an immense mass of testimony has been taken by that committee on the prospective operation of the Act. There have been at least, as I have found, two commissions on the subject. The report of the last commission, appointed during the year 1904, I hold in my hand. It is entitled:
Eight Hours on Government Work-Hearing before the Commission on Labour of the House of Representatives on the Bill H.E. 4064, intituled, a Bill Limiting the Hours of Daily Service of Labourers and Mechanics Employed upon Work done for the United States, or for any Territory, or for the District of Columbia or for Other Purposes.
The Bill is a very much more modified form of legislation of this nature than the Bill before this House. I will not burden the House by reading it, as it is somewhat lengthy. After dealing with the main features of the legislation intended to be enacted, it provides that the Act shall not extend to the following matters:
Nothing in this Act shall apply to contracts for transportation by land or water, or for the transmission of intelligence, or for such materials or articles as may usually be bought in open market, whether made to conform I to particular specifications or not, or for the | purchase of supplies by the government, whe-


Mr. A. C. MACDONELL.: tlier manufactured to conform to particular specifications or not. The proper officer on behalf of the United States, and territory, or the district of Columbia may waive the provisions and stipulations in this -Act during time of war or a time when war is imminent, or in any other case when in the opinion of the inspector or any other officer in charge any great emergency exists. No penalties shall be imposed for any violation of such provision in such contract due to any emergency caused by fire, famine, or flood, by danger to life or to property, or by other extraordinary event or condition.
The American Bill also gives the contractor the right of appeal first, to the head of the department under which the work is being done- and, secondly, to the executive government or to one of the courts of the country. So that in the American Act there are not only various exceptions, which seem to me, at first sight, to be reasonable, but also provision for an appeal in case any person considers himself aggrieved under the operation of the Act. The matter in my opinion is entirely for the government to deal with. Perhaps the hon. gentleman who has introduced the Bill may indulge the hope that it will have a better fate than the resolution which was introduced into this House a few days ago by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). Be that as it may, the government should, in my opinion, grapple with this question. We all in this House sympathize with labouring men. At the same time, this is a matter that has to be proceeded with cautiously and prudently, or it will revolutionize the condition of the country. It is a matter on which, in my opinion, this House is not well enough informed at the present time to deal with. The American Congress on more than one occasion found it convenient to refer the question to a select committee to obtain evidence and make recommendations thereon. On the other side of the line they are still in that stage; and it seems to me that if this matter were dealt with in a similar way, so that the various interests affected might get their views before parliament or a committee of parliament, a Bill might de drafted which would in a reasonable way meet the demands, so far as they are just, along this line. If the government chooses to refer the Bill to a committee, before whom all parties and all interests affected will be heard and considered, I for one will back them up. It is not going too far, at this stage in our history, I think, to advance the matter to that extent. If that were done, the matter, in some concrete form and intelligible manner, could be brought before the House and dealt with. It is not in such shape, in my opinion, at present. The Bill is altogether an impossible one; but the practice might be carried into certain of the public works of the country, with proper safeguards, after having the

hearing I suggest. If that were done, it seems to me we would have the matter advanced, and no harm could come to any interest. It is not an expensive matter. The committee could be confined to hearing evidence on this point, and could report at this session.


Mr.  J. W.@: EDWaRDS (Frontenac). There are one or two features of the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Yerville) to which, in the interest of the people I represent, I wish to draw attention. The proposition to reduce the hours of labour on government works to eight hours a day will, in my estimation, undoubtedly have an effect on other labourers. I can imagine that as soon as the system was introduced on government work, labourers working on other jobs would in a short time be agitating for an eight hour day also. That seems to me only reasonable. But the point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House is that this will undoubtedly affect the agricultural classes. It is well known that one of the great problems in Ontario and the older provinces is that of getting farm labour. We also know that it is utterly impossible to have an eight hour day on the farm. It seems to me, therefore, that the passage of a Bill of this kind could not fail to have the effect of increasing the difficulty which farmers now experience in obtaining the labour they need so very much.
As regards the plea made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville), on which he grew particularly eloquent, that of giving opportunity to the labouring men to breathe the pure air of heaven, I might say that his argument only applied to a part of the population, because, according to the principle laid down very clearly and decisively by the Minister of Finance not later than yesterday, none but Grits, so far as government work is concerned, need apply, so that the pure air of heaven, though it might be given to Grit labourers under this Bill, would still be denied to any who happened to be of the Tory persuasion.
Another feature to which I would call attention is this. This measure must inevitably interfere with labour in large manufacturing concerns. Suppose it should pass and be applied to government contracts, if the government contracted with a large cement firm for some thousands of barrels of cement, is it not likely that the men employed by that firm would make a demand that they should be given the eight hour day, inasmuch as the work they were doing was to supply a government contract? That is all I have to say in connection with this Bill except this, that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. yerville) that a man will do as much in eight hours as in nine. Carry that out to its logical conclusion, and it will mean that 39
a man will do just as much in one day as in two. In any event there is a feeling throughout the country that men employed in government work, do not kill themselves, that they take things comparatively easy, and there is also the impression that in many cases men are employed on government works a few months before the elections, and employed solely to get their votes. I might refer, as an instance of this, to the facts in connection with the construction of the Newmarket canal, on which the number of men employed was very considerably increased just previous to the last election. In conclusion I would repeat that the passage of a measure such as this would make the obtaining of farm labour still more difficult than it is to-day, and that is my chief reason for addressing the House on the subject.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington).: This is a public Bill which will have a very direct influence on a very large number of people in this country should it become law, and while, generally ' speaking, I am in favour of any proposal tending to shorten the hours of labour. I am afraid that my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) has gone rather far in the measure he has introduced. During the past four or five years I have given this matter much consideration. I have discussed it to some extent with various representative bodies in my riding; and so far as the Bill is limited in its application to public works, in the strictest sense of the term-the erection of buildings or works of that nature-I think we might fairly give the system a trial and see what would be its effects. It would practically apply only to the building trades. I cannot see that any great harm would follow. In the city of Guelph where I reside, in all the building trades now they have the nine hour day. It is not so many years since they had the ten hour day, and the nine hour day has come about without legislation, and I do not think that it has injuriously affected the hours of labour in the factories or on the farms in that county. In that respect I do not think the Bill will have any such effect as my hon. friend fears, but as has been pointed out by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell), it goes much further than government contracts and will embrace every kind of contract. One can well understand what difficulty would be created should the Bill pass in its present form. Take a contract for the supply of clothing or furniture to the government. A manufacturer tenders and is awarded the contract. That contract will not occupy his whole staff, probably only a small portion, and, under this Bilk that contractor would have one portion of his men working eight hours and another nine or ten hours. I can see difficulties of that kind, but I would like to see the Bill


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: The promoter of this Bill wants to reduce the hours of labour from ten to eight. But suppose I am a government contractor and this Bill becomes law, and I am paying my men $2 a day for a ten hour day. Under the provisions of this Bill, I would have to shorten the day to eight hours and I would reduce my wages to $1.60 per day. How would the hon. gentleman meet a case of that kind?


Alphonse Verville: I do not believe that we have any right to deal with the question of wages. There is nothing in the Bill that speaks of wages. If it should become law, it would be up to the employer to pay whatever he believed right, and it would be up to the men to insist on being paid what they deemed just.


Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) in introducing this Bill. I have read also the hon. member's remarks on introducing a similar Bill last session. The hon. member has gone to a good deal of trouble in carrying out research upon this question, and in bringing before the House facts concerning the hours of labour. In the province of British Columbia, in the year 1901, we dealt to some extent with this question in relation to the mines. Then, as now, there was the struggle between the two great parties interested, the employer on one side and the workmen on the other. But we were fortunate in that we introduced then an eight-hour law, and I am glad Mr. GUTHRIE.
to be able to testify here that the results of the operation of that law have been eminently satisfactory. I can state from personal knowledge that, up to_ the introduction of the Eight Hour Bill, in that portion of the country with which I am most familiar, the mining district of the Kootenay, only a small percentage of the labouring men owned their homes, or, apparently, took any interest in their homes. Any one familiar with that district at that time is aware that the homes of miners were usually shacks and the occupants paid little attention to the improvement of the surroundings, or of the home itself. Since the introduction of this eight hour law, that has been greatly changed. A large number of miners have purchased and now own their own homes and are active in improving their surroundings. They have a certain amount	of daylight at home, which,
under old conditions, they could not have. With the ten hour day in the mines,	it meant practically	twelve
hours, as any one will understand. Men had to rise long before daylight in the morning to get to their work, and they usually did not return until after dark. It was generally said, and very truly, that the men hardly saw their families in daylight from one end of the year to the other. Since the introduction of the eight hour law that has been changed. The effect has been a marked change in the men of the mining district, as I have described. That is an argument that ought to be of weight with the House. Surely, in this advanced age,-with our great improvements in machinery and our rapid advance in -many lines of economic improvement, the labouring men should have some share in these improvements and the benefits to be derived from them. It has been said that the adoption of such a measure as is here proposed would lead to shortening the hours of labour in other avocations, and it is inferred that it would be detrimental to the agricultural interests. I venture to think the conditions of work in agriculture are altogether different from those of the classes of labour to which this measure is intended to apply. Their harvest makes special demands upon those engaged in agriculture, and during certain seasons they naturally work from daylight till dark. But, during a considerable portion of the year, they have time for recreation and improving their minds. This Bill, if I understand it aright, is meant primarily to apply to those engaged in labour under factory conditions or in the building trades. I have listened with pleasure to the arguments of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell). Speaking as a layman, it seems to me that the hon. member's argument carries considerable weight. It is right and wise that, in a case of this kind,

we should carefully consider all the circumstances and get all the light possible. I would not undertake to dispute the arguments advanced by the hon. member for South Toronto and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who are, of course, well informed on the legal aspects of this question. On the contrary, I think it would be in the interest of the Bill itself that we should move very carefully. Should any mistake be made, instead of advancing the interests of labour, which, of course, is the object sought by the introducer of the Bill, the very purpose in view might be defeated. Therefore, I think the suggestion made by these gentlemen was a very wi-se one-that we should carefully weigh all the facts in this case, so that when we place a measure of this kind on the statute-book it may be one that we are sure will be of advantage to working men generally and will be accepted by all fair-minded men as promoting the best interest of all classes.


Mr. JOSEPH TURCOTTE (Quebec).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, the matter which has been brought to the attention of the House suggests a few remarks. In the first place, I notice that this Bill which, on a previous occasion, was submitted to the House but at the time did not reach the committee stage, is this year introduced earlier. That is an improvement which I am happy to note and which, I think, portends a better outcome to this proposed legislation.
It has been contended by opponents of the measure that its enforcement would be objectionable. For instance, it has been alleged that, should this Bill be carried, it would result in serious inconvenience to contractors on government public works now under contract, as said contractors could no longer expect a ten-hour day on the part of their men, but only an eight-hour day. They would thus find themselves in a disadvantageous position, since they would get only eight hours' work for ten hours pay. That may be so, but let me say that there are precedents to legislation of this kind, and I have no hestitation in saving that to my mind this is a desirable change.
We have in the civil service, for instance, men whose work is pretty much, if not entirely, the same as that carried on by men engaged in commercial and industrial pursuits; nevertheless, we find that their hours of work are different, that their day's work is much shorter than in the case of people doing such outside work. Now, who, thinks of complaining of this? Nobody, to my knowledge. True, the government official may be called upon to do more work, to show greater efficiency, to expend greater energy, to bring greater powers to bear on his work, and that may justify the requirement of shorter hours from him. We are satisfied with shorter hours from our government officials, but we require from them greater concentration of the mind and more rapid work.
Now, I think that this precedent to be found in the management of the various departments, might well have its counterpart in manual occupations. For I understand that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) voices here the views of the working classes in general, of men in all the various trades and handicrafts. Considering that an exception is made in favour of the civil servant, why should not a similar measure of relief be extended to that class of people who, while getting a living through what is actually manual labour, are performing duties quite similar to those of some public servants. As a matter of fact, I take it that there is a close connection between the mental work carried on in various departments, and the manual labour effected on behalf of those same departments.
I understand that this Bill is not taken excention to on strictly technical grounds; at any rate, I am not aware of any con-. tention to that effect. Now, is such legislation desirable? That is a moot question under many skies. Experiments have been made and in some cases have turned out favourably, as stated by the honourable member who preceded me. Why should we not undertake ourselves some 'such tests? I stated a precedent, there are others. It is known that the men in the service of the Department of Marine at Quebec work nine hours a day in summer and eight hours in winter. Of course, there is a cut in the wages in winter time. That is a practical application of the system advocated by the hon. member for Maisonneuve. In all business and industrial establishments in Quebec, the working hours are from seven or eight o'clock in the morning to five or six o clock in the evening. However, in the government workshops the men work eight hours only, and nobody finds fault with the practice. So, I am satisfied that, if no exception can be taken on technical grounds to the stand of the hon. member for Maisonneuve, the government should put his system to a practical test with a view of drawing conclusions. Several hon. members who have spoken previously [DOT] against this proposal, are to my mind more anxious to forward the interests of employers rather than those of the working men. Fundamentally, it is always the same story; the unceasing struggle going on between labour and capital, between the employed and the employer. There are certain views which are held tenaciously by the employer and which the latter strives to uphold. But there is also the viewpoint ,of the workingman, which he is equally entitled to hold, and

which his representatives in this House axe in duty bound to protect as far as possible.	,	, .
I am satisfied this Bill does not contain a single provision inimical to the public interest, on the other hand, it extends relief to a numerous class of our people. Besides, I am satisfied that the hon. member for Maisonneuve when vindicating in this House the rights of labour, is in complete sympathy with the labouring classes. I know that he is a member of some powerful labour associations, _ he having been for some time one of their most prominent and active officers, and when lie raises his voice in this House it is their sentiments he expresses, he is the true exponent of the views of labour.
Now, one more consideration should not be lost sight of. As we are aware, laws should not have for their object to safeguard the interests of one class exclusively, and I believe that legislation as it is makes rather for the protection of employers. Some attention should be given to the working classes. Should we not do something towards relieving them from over-exertion, and too much misery, should we not strive to improve their moral and physical conditions? Such is the view which I take, and I object to the dilatory proposal made by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), who suggests the opening of a protected investigation, the effect of which would be the postponement of the settlement of this question if not indefinitely, at least to such a date when likely all of us would have disappeared from parliament before having been given in the meantime an opportunty to vote on the question. By referring the Bill to the Committee of the Whole the object we have in view will be attained. There shall we consider it, and subject it to a fair criticism, sufficient at any rate to enlighten the government and justify them in trying an experiment which shall give results of an instructive character. It will always be an easy matter to change the law if experience shows that it is in opposition to public interest. However, as already stated, that experiment has been tried in one department, I mean in the Department of Marine at Quebec, where the men are required to work only eight hours per day at certain seasons, and that experiment has given satisfactory results. They are of a nature to induce us to vote in favour of this Bill, and accordingly lay down as a rule that men employed in public works shall not be required to put in more than eight hours work a day. That is, to my mind, what should be done.


Mr. E. N. RHODES (Cumberland).: I have given more or less attention to the subject of an eight hour day, even before I became a member of this House, and the Mr. TURCOTTE.
result of my reading, together with direct experience of the conditions of labour, have led me into a position of absolute sympathy with the movement of the labour men to secure what is known as a uniform eight hour day. I approve of the principle of an eight hour day, and of the movement which has been inaugurated by organized labour in this and other countries^ to secure an eight hour day. The objections that have been offered to this measure to-day have been largely technical, legal objections. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), while in favour of an eight hour day on government buildings alone, is not in favour of this measure, because he says it goes too far. He, in common with many other hon. gentlemen, go upon the assumption that an eight hour day would mean that you would only get eight-tenths as much work in a given space of time. I think hon. gentlemen forget the fact that for years this eight hour day has been in force in various countries. They have it in British Columbia; in Victoria the eight hour day is practically universal. I have in my hand a very excellent work entitled 'Eight hours for work,' written by Mr. John Rae, M.A., published by MacMillan and Company, and I think this is the work from which the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) obtained the material for his speech last session. At the end of the book, I find a chapter entitled ' The eight hour day in Victoria/ and the author quotes figures tending to show the effect of the introduction of the eight hour day there. If the House will permit me, I would like to'read two short extracts showing the effect of such a day m operation in Victoria. Speaking from the figures, he says:
They show the utter folly of the assumption, so much pressed by the more ignorant advocates of an Eight-hours Bill, that the shortening of the day of labour has the necessary, certain, and uniform effect of abolishing the unemployed.	.
On the whole the reduction of the working day to eight hours has had no very sensible influence on the numbers of the unemployed in Victoria any more than on the rate of wages, and both these circumstances point to the conclusion, to which other and more direct evidence also conducts, that shortening the day has exercised but very inconsiderable effect on the amount of the workmen s production. A shortening of hours has always two immediate effects-it improves the mettle of the masters, and it improves the mettle of the men. The masters set themselves at once to practise economics of various sorts, to make more efficient arrangements of the work, to introduce better machinery or to speed the old, to try the double shift and other expedients to maintain and even augment the production of their works. The men return to their toil in better heart after their ampler rest, reinvigorated both in nerve and muscle, and make up in the result sometimes in part.

sometimes wholly, by the intensity of their labour for the loss of its duration. Victorian experience shows the recoupment almost completely.
One other short paragraph, showing his conclusion as to the effect of the eight hour day in Victoria:
Altogether, the more we examine the subject the more irresistibly is the impression borne in from all sides that there is growing up in Australia, and very largely in consequence of the eight-hours day, a working class which for general morale, intelligence, and industrial efficiency is probably already superior to that of any other branch of our Anglo-Saxon race, and for happiness, cheerfulness, and all-round comfort of life has never had its equal in the world before. For all this advantage, moreover, nobody seems to be a shilling the worse. It is truly remarkable how immaterial apparently has been the cost of the eight-hours day in Victoria. Look for the effects of it where you will, they still ever elude your observation. Wages have not fallen, wages have not risen, production has not fallen except in certain trifling cases; prices have not risen except again in certain trifling instances; trade has not sufiered, profits have not dwindled (or we should have heard croaking), the unemployed have not vanished, not so much as shrunk in any perceptible degree ; the working classes-the great body of the nation-have an hour more to call their own, that is all.
Now, I may say that organized labour has gone to the various provincial legislatures in this country asking for an eight hour day within the province, and they are invariably met'with the reply: We cannot enact an eight hour day for this province, because our employers would be compelled to produce goods under an eight hour day in competition with the employers of other provinces who work under a ten hour day ; and for that reason we cannot grant your demand; were, however, all the other provinces to enact an eight hour day, we would be very happy to grant your demand. The represeentative of organized labour comes to the House of Commons and presents a Bill. Unfortunately, owing to the limitations imposed upon this House by the British North America Act, we aTe not able to enact a comprehensive measure, and, therefore, we sav to the representative of organized labour: You must go back to the provincial legislatures, there is the place to get your legislation. I may say that so far as this Bill is concerned, even if it had the effect which the interpretation placed upon it by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) would produce, I am prepared to vote for it. I believe if that measure were adopted this country would be not one whit worse off economically; while the introduction of an eight hour day throughout the Dominion of Canada would have the effect of bringing up a class of labouring men such as those described by this author in Australia. So strongly do I favour this measure that, in snite of the objections that have been urged against it, I shall be pleased to vote for it as it stands.


Mr. C. A. MAGRATH (Medicine Hat).: I have no intention to take up the time of the House in speaking on this measure I was not present last session when the Bill was discussed; I was not approached in any way for or against it at that time. There is a principle, however, involved in this Bill that we must face, we cannot evade it. I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) and was pleased to hear what he had to say. I endorse what he said; I am a supporter of the principle underlying this Bill and am prepared to vote for it. It is a question we have got to face in this country, and the sooner w'e deal with it in a fair and honourable way the better it will be for the country. There are two features connected with it that appeal to me. We hear much said about the conservation of our natural resources in this country, but the conservation of health is one of the most important things to which we can devote our attention, and this Bill affects health. It also has a bearing on the question of the unemployed. It may effect the profits of some of our industrial concerns, but as between the conservation of health and the diminution of unemployment on the one side and maintaining the profits of capitalists on the other side, I am in favour of it, of looking after the interests of the workinsmen, and allowing a few dividends to be diminished.


Mr. SPROULE.: I made a few observations on this Bill when it was discussed before the House last time, and I wish to repeat them, or some of them now. Looking over the Bill, as far as my judgment enables me to determine, it is quite impracticable. It is a Bill which never could be put into operation without any amount of trouble as the result. Under a portion of the Bill, any institution that was turning out goods which it had contracted to supply the government would be compelled to grant its men an eight hour day. The Bill aims at that, it seems to me, if it aims at anything. If that be the case, it appears to me that it would bring about no end of trouble. But there is another reason why I oppose it. While I think that in many avocations of life eight hours -a day is ample, and more than enough, for any labourer to work, in other lines he can work eight, nine or ten hours, and neither do himself any injustice nor his health any injury. In mining, when a man has to go under ground, eight hours is a fairly long day, but if you are working out in the open

air where you have conditions of a healthgiving nature, open air and good surroundings, and working at an occupation which is not too severe, a ten-hour day is not an unreasonably long day, and I think there is no injustice done either to the individual or to his physical or mental vigour in expecting him to work that length of day. If all could obtain a living by doing the same thing, that is, work eight hours a day, it might strengthen the argument that you should only allow men to work eight hours a day. But, the strain of life is so great and the demands upon the resources of one's labour so exacting that many are obliged to work ten, eleven or twelve hours a day in order to supply themselves and those dependent upon them with the necessaries of life. Suppose that these people were engaged on government work, you would say to them that they shall not be allowed to earn what they could, or what their physical powers would enable them to earn, or what the demands upon their resources would require them to earn. Therefore, they must stint themselves in some lines because of the effect of this Bill. I say it is wrong. Then, there is another feature of it. If you bring the provisions of this Bill into operation in regard to public works, what will be the result? Go to the city of Toronto, or to the town of Col-iingwood, if you like, and there are public works going on; maybe there is a post office or a customs house going up, harbour works going on, or perhaps there is an armoury being built. Labouring men who can get employment on these government works, receive, say $2 a day, and work for only eight hours a day on one of these pubilc work will not labour in any other line in these places, refuse to work 10 hours a day. Therefore you make it almost impossible for men in other lines of life to get labour and have the labourers work the reasonable number of hours which is supposed to bring a fair return to the contractor. They cannot get men. You can go farther. You can go to the farming community around these places. You cannot employ labourers to go out and work on the farm ten and sometimes eleven or twelve hours a day and accent" the same wages as the man who is only working 8 hours a day; or if you can get labourers to take the wages they will only want to work eight hours a day. i know that it is very troublesome for the farmers around rur towns and villages, where there are factories with shorter hours of labour and paying equally as high wages, to obtain labourers. But, there is another phase of the question wdiich has attracted my attention several times. The agricultural classes of Ibis country represent about fifty per cent of the whole population. There are about
3,500,000	people, depending upon agricul-Mr. SPROULE.
tural pursuits for their sustenance and they are obliged to work long hours. No man can successfully run a farm if he is only working eight hours a day. It has been said that they may work longer during the busy season but that most of the time they can take it easy. The up-to-date enterprising farmer is just -as busy with his work every day in the year as he is during harvest and haying. He is always overcrowded with work instead of having too little to do. Therefore, he is obliged to work long hours. He cannot pretend to run his farm and work only eight hours a day. There are farmers who are obliged to work twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen or even sixteen hours a day during the busy season of seeding, haying and harvest. I have known them to do that over and over again and for what? *-to pay for the implements that are made in the factory where, if this Bill becomes law, the men who make these implements will work only eight hours a day. K is an injustice to the farmer. It is unfair, unreasonable and improper, and it will strike at the great agricultural class just as much as it will at any other class of the community. The factories that are turning out threshing machines, binders, reapers, mowers, seeders, and all such agricultural implements will be obliged to give an eight hour day just as soon as this Bill passes. But the farmer cannot have an eight hour day because he is obliged to work longer hours. He has, therefore, to contend with the difficulty that he meets in the hiring of labour, and he is also confronted with the difficulty that he is obliged himself to work very long hours to pay for the productions of men who do not work as many hours in the day as he does. The farmer cannot get men to work for him to-day.
I admit, speaking from the standpoint of medical observation and examination, that there are those who advocate what is called the ideal division of time. What is that?-that humanity shall labour eight hours, sleep eight hours and have eight hours for rest and recreation during the 24 hours of the day and night. Three times eight make twenty-four hours the length f'f the day. That is an ideal division of time, but where, in any capacity of life, can that ideal division of time be carried out? Is it not the fact that the conditions we have to contend with in our individual capacities and our environment determine the number of hours during which we are compelled to work? There is such a great demand upon the production of our labour or what we make out of our labour, in one case than in another. Therefore, we are obliged to work longer hours to supply that demand or else those dependent upon us will suffer. So you find that in the various lines of work many are obliged to work longer hours to support them-

selves and their families, and if they were not permitted to do this they would suffer in consequence. The hon. member for Kootenay said that they had tried the eight hour day' system in British Columbia and that while people predicted trouble from it the system was working all right now. Well,
I was in British Columbia immediately after that law came into force and in every mining district I visited I was told that mining operations were literally paralyzed by it. For two years after its passage the mining operations of that country were a failure and many engaged in the industry had to go out of business. That is bound to be the case until an adjustment takes place between what is paid a man working eight hours this year and what was paid the same man working ten hours the year before. I say you cannot establish to the * mind of any intelligent man that a working man will do as much in eight hours as he will do in a ten hour day. Of course I recognize that a man may work 10 hours in one kind of labour and not be overworked while in other branches a man may work only eight hours and be overworked, if you are going to try to even it up by a levelling system of eight hours a day you are certainly bound to do an injustice to some classes of labour. There are employers of labour in this country who themselves are obliged to work more than eight hours a day and more than 10 hours a day, and if he expects his employees to do as he is doing he is inflicting no injustice upon them. Now, we are apt to be too much afraid to deal with a question of this kind as we think it ought to be dealt with for fear it will work mischief against us when we come before our electors. I like to see a man with enough moral courage to do what he conscientiously believes to be right regardless of consequences. I believe that the men who are supporting this Bill are supporting it from conscientious convictions, but I believe also that if many hon. gentlemen expressed their opinion of this measure as freely as they do on other measures there would be very strong argument advanced against this Bill.


Hon. MACKENZIE KING (Minister of Labour).: I am sure that the. workingma i of this country owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. member (Mr. Verville) for having brought, to the attention of this House a Bill which has occasioned such an interesting discussion on this important subject. The Bill is entitled ' An Act respecting hours of labour on public works,' but the discussion has been almost entirely on the broad question of the hours of labour generally. And so far as that broad question is concerned I have no doubt we all feel that anything that can be done towards shortening the hours of toil for the great masses who
labour, will be of advantage not only to the working classes themselves but to the whole community. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Frontenac in his contention that men cannot produce such effective work by working shorter hours as they can by working excessive hours. The hon. gentleman carried his argument to an extreme when he said that if the reduction of the hours of labour were carried down to the last point it would mean that there would be no work done at all. Well, you can take the reverse of that argument and you can as well contend that if you extend the hours of labour beyond the endurance point, the workingman could not accomplish anything at all because of bodily fatigue. In these days when industrial processes are carried on by great natural powers, by electricity, by water, by steam, the intensity of labour has become tremendously heightened. And, in considering the question of shortening the hours of labour we must bear in mind not only the duration of labour but the intensity of labour as well. One hour's work on a machine that is going at high speed may take more out of a man thani six hours at an occupation where his energies are not taxed to the same strenuous extent. I think I may safely say that the whole history of labour legislation in respect to shortening the hours of labofur bears out the view that on the whole the shortening of the hours has been of immense benefit not only to the working people but to the industries themselves.
This, question of shortening the hours of labour is primarily for the consideration of the provincial legislatures which have within their jurisdiction the enactment of laws respecting the hours of labour, the factory laws, the laws respecting mines, and cognate subjects; but, the discussion of the subject in this parliament is bound to be reflected in future legislation by the provinces and the general expression of opinion in this chamber that the shortening of the hours of labour is a good thing in itself will, we may hope, bear fruit. It has been pointed out that this Bill purports to do one thing, when in fact it does another. That is entitled 'An Act respecting the hours of labour on public works,' but that it goes further and deals with every conceivable kind of contract in which the	government of
Canada can be concerned. It is well that the House should understand that clearly before it pronounces on the measure. I believe myself that while the measure is intended by the hon. member (Mr. Verville) to relate only to public works, as a matter of fact it goes very much further than he intended. So faT as this question has a bearing upon ameliorating the ordinary everyday life of the working people I submit that we should

in this parliament, so far as we have the power-and we have certain powers in regard to contracts let by the government- we should do all that we can to further that end. I believe in the principle that the machine should be the slave of man and not man the slave of the machine; I believe that a man should have not merely an opportunity to live but that he should have an opportunity to live happily; and that he cannot have if he is oppressed by excessive hours of labour. We were told by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) that even if this measure had the effect which the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) said it had, he was prepared to vote for it. Now, the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) said that the measure was altogether impossible and therefore the position of the hon. member for Cumberland amounts to this, that he is prepared to vote for a measure which is altogether impossible. Well, Sir, I am not prepared to vote for any measure of that kind. I do not believe in trying to humbug the working people of this country.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I rise to a question of privilege. I said nothing which could by any stretch of imagination be considered as humbugging the labouring men- of this country, and I obieet to that language coming from the minister. I mean to stand by every word I said in this House with respect to this measure. What I meant was that if this measure has the effect of causing the eight hour'day to be introduced generally, then I am heartily in favour of it, because I believe in the eight hour day as a matter of principle.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am just taking the hon. gentleman's words as I put them down, and as I think a reference to ' Hansard ' will show that he gave them. The words were:
' Even if this measure has the effect which the hon. member for South Toronto says it will have, I am prepared to vote for it.' Every hon. member knows that the hon. member for South Toronto said that the Bill was altogether impossible.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for South Toronto, in describing the measure as impossible, described its effect. Referring to the effect of the Bill, he said that it extended to cases where men had contracted to supply goods to the government. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) referred to the effect, not the characterization of the Bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite prepared to leave it to the House to decide what the hon. member for South Toronto meant when he referred to the Bill as altogether impossible. The impression which I certainly got, not only from that particular remark, but from the whole tenor of his speech, Mr. MACKENZIE KING.
was that he, like myself, was prepared to support a measure which would really do something effective, but that he was not prepared to stand up in this parliament and say that he would support any measure when in his heart of hearts he felt that it would really do no good to the people on whose behalf it was proposed. And, in view of what has been said this afternoon, I feel that we cannot consider too carefully the question as to whether this measure is likely to do what the hon. gentleman who has introduced it hopes that it may do.
In so far as the Bill relates to the hours of labour on public works, I would like to point out that this government has already taken considerable steps towards meeting the object which the promoter of this Bill has in view. In 1900, the Hon. Mr. Mulock, now Sir Wm. Mulock, introduced into this House a resolution in favour of the payment of fair rates of wages to working men engaged on public works and the enforcing of the hours of labour current in the district where the work is carried on. Since that time the government has endeavoured to see that that resolution has been faithfully and fully carried out; and in all its contracts the government has caused to be inserted a clause requiring the contractor.to pay fair rates of wages and to give the workingmen employed by him the hours of labour current in the district where the work is carried on. The government has not relied simply on the safeguard of a general provision of this kind, but has appointed special officers, known as fair-wage officers, whose duty has been to go to the locality where any public work is to be carried on and prepare in advance a schedule of rates of wages and hours of labour, to which the contractor is required to agree before the contract is awarded.


Mr. HUGHES.: May I ask if that is the case on all public works of the government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that it is.


Mr HUGHES.: Quite the contrary. I can give you the cases. For instance, right in the town of Lindsay, on the government work of building the locks there, the men are not paid even the ordinary street wages.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If that is the case, I am unable to understand how the representative of that district has allowed that condition of affairs to go on and never brought it to the attention of the government.


Samuel Hughes: I will answer the hon. gentleman when he is through.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Every member of this House knows, or ought to know, that that resolution was passed, and every member of this House knows, or ought to know, that- it is part of his duty to his constituents to see that if a resolution passed by this House is

not being carried out, the department which is responsible for the work shall be notified and be given the opportunity of looking into the matter; and I say, without fear of contradiction, that during the 8 years that I was deputy minister of the department and the short time that I have been privileged to be the Minister of the Department, no case has been brought to the attention of the department of alleged non-observance of this reso-tion which has not yet been fairly and fully investigated. I would ask hon. gentlemen to look at the annual report of the Department of Labour as presented to this House, in which, at page 132, they will find a statistical table of fair wage schedules prepared by the Department of Labour for departments of the government during the period from July, 1900, to March, 1907, inclusive. In that table they will find that the Department of Labour prepared during that period a total of 1,477 fair-wage schedules which have been inserted in contracts awarded by this government from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The total number prepared altogether is much larger than this. These schedules have not only been inserted in the contracts, but have been published in the 'Labour Gazette', so that the workingmen on whose behalf they have been inserted in the contracts would have an opportunity of seeing them and making sure that they were being paid the rates of wages specified. There have been some cases of contractors failing to pay the rates of wages which the schedules call for, and in all such cases which has been brought to the attention of the department the contractors have been obliged .to pay the difference to the men. The difference has been deducted in the first instance by the department which awarded the contract, and has been paid to the men. So that the government has not been neglectful of the purpose which the hon. mover of this Bill has in mind. But to take the step which he suggests is to go a good way beyond what up to the present time has been thought by this House to be advisable.
The Bill as introduced suggests no regard for existing conditions in any industry unless those conditions happen to be such that the eight hour day is already in force. Before a step of the kind proposed is taken, I think it would be well for this House to be fully informed as to its effect. I fear that if this Bill were passed in its present form, it would give rise to a good many serious complications. The h<jn. member for North Grey asked the hon. mover of the Bill whether in cases in which workingmen were to-dav working 10 hours for a certain wage, if this Bill became law, they would be prepared to work eight hours for eight hours pay or would want 10 hours pay for eight hours work. The reply of the hon. mover of the Bill was that_it was
up to the employer to say what he would pay and up to the men to see what they could get. I do not agree with my hon. friend. It is up to this House to tell all parties concerned what an Act of this kind means when it is on the statute-book, and to leave no doubts in anv man's mind as to what his privileges or his restrictions are under it. For that reason, if for no other, I think it is desirable that the House should have fuller information than it has at present on a measure which is likely to give rise to such serious complications. In the building trade there are a large number of men who have agreements with their employers. These agreements have been the result of negotiations during a long series of years. They have been effected in many instances, only after serious strikes or lock-outs, and they represent understandings between the employers and the men as to the conditions of employment. Some of these agreements are for three years, some for five years and some for other terms, and it seems to me that the effect of this measure upon agreements of that kind is another feature which should receive our most serious attention before we take any final action. If,i for instance, one of its effects would be that contractors would say to their workingmen: We do not wish to enter into an agreement with you, because we may have to change its terms in virtue of this legislation-if that would be one of its effects, it would be most unfortunate indeed. I do not say that such a consequence would necessarily follow, but I think that, on behalf of the workingmen themselves, that contingency should be clearly understood.
It seems to me desirable also that this House should know the extent to which the eight hour or nine hour or ten hour day is already in existence in different parts of the country. I have here a document which contains a mass of information on that subject, prepared by one of the fair wage officers of the Department of Labour. It gives a record of the hours of labour in the building trades and the different other trades in Canada; and I find that in almost every part of the country, there is a difference in the hours of labour, as compared with other localities, depending largely on the circumstances of the locality or of the particular province in which the work is being carried on. In some cases these differences are the result of climatic or other considerations. In some districts men work a shorter day because they can work the whole year round, and in others they work a longer day because they have not the same opportunity throughout the whole year to carry on their calling. Therefore before enacting legislation to determine arbitrarily the hours of work, we should give the men who are to be affected an oppor-

tunity of expressing their views. Under the circumstances, having regard to the desire of the hon. gentleman himself (Mr. Verville), that this Bill be not sent to the cemetery, as has been the fate of other *measures, the best thing we can do is to refer it to a special committee of this House, before which all parties concerned will have an opportunity of being heard. I would suggest therefore to my hon. friend that he should consider the advisability of having this Bill referred to a select committee, and I would suggest this not that the Bill may be side-tracked in any way but, to use the words of my hon. friend, in order to save it from going to the cemetery, as I fear it would, should a vote be taken now, judging by the discussion we have had.
Let me give another reason or two why I think it desirable that this measure should be referred to a special committee. My hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) has spoken about legislation in the United States upon this subject, and he had in his hand a report of one of the select committees of the American House of Representatives. But that is only one of a half a dozen select committees which have dealt with similar measures across the line. As far back as 1862, the government of the United States enacted a measure very similar to the one now proposed, but what was the effect of that legislation? Whatever may have been the reasons which promoted Congress to pass it, this at least was the effect. Year after year the workingmen were continually representing to Congress that the measure was meaningless and useless, and session after session Congress appointed select committees to find out why it was impossible to make the measure what Congress hoped it would be. We would do well to profit by their experience. It would be well to have the reports of the different committees appointed by Congress laid before a special committee of this House so that they might be considered. I might point out further that in Nova Scotia there is at present a commission inquiring into a number of questions affecting the working classes. One is the question of the eight hour day, and it would be very much to the advantage of this House to have the finding of that commission on that subject. Further I think it would be an advantage to the House to have the opportunity of ascertaining what the fair wage officers of the department who have been preparing these schedules during the past eight or ten years, think would be the effect of a measure of this kind. For these reasons I hope my hon. friend will not press this measure but will agree to have it referred to a select committee, in order that all parties, both workingmen and employers, may have the opportunity of being heard, and in order that this House may have a further opportunity of doing some-Mr. MACKENZIE KING
thing on behalf of the workingman in whose interests we are invited to legislate.


Samuel Hughes: By the courtesy of my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) and inasmuch as I shall not be able to be present for some time after eight o'clock, I would ask to be given the opportunity of making a reply to the question of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. King) as to why the member for the district (Victoria and Haliburton) did not report this matter. I might point out to him that the member for the district is not one of his fair wage officers and is not in the pay of the Labour Department, thank Heaven. I might also point out to him that the member for the locality did draw the attention of the House and of the Minister of Labour to the matter last year- not that I objected to it in any sense whatever, because I do not believe in this doctrine of putting that clause in these contracts. On the contrary, I think that a contractor should be at liberty to get his labour at whatever price he can and engage that labour for periods depending on the duties to be performed. But what had these fair wage officers of the hon. gentleman done for the labouring men? A young gentleman has been put at the head of the Labour Department, promoted over the stalwarts of the party who have been doing its work for years-and I am sure the Finance Minister will agree with me in that statement -and I want to point out an insignificant circumstance in connection with this department of his. There was a labour organization in the town I represent, (Lindsay), which became defunct. There were considerable funds in the treasury when it broke up, and under its constitution the officers of that association were empowered to dispose of these funds on following out a certain well disposed procedure. Were they permitted to do so? Oh, no. A gentleman by the name of O'Donoghue-possibly known to the Minister of Labour-appeared on the scene and undertook to take charge. And into whose hands did he seek to put the disposal of these funds? Into the hands of that horny handed son of toil Senator McHugh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the hon. gentleman to which O'Donoghue he refers?


Samuel Hughes: I think there is only one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the hon. member mean


Samuel Hughes: I mean the O'Donoghue. I mean the gentleman who, in season and out of season, has been making himself the tool of the Department of Labour for the benefit of the Liberal party; who grinds axes for that party up and down the country wherever he can. This gentleman appears on the scene. And to whom did he

entrust the disposal of this fund? Why, to that horny-handed son of toil, Senator McHugh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would point out to the hon. member that Mr. O'Donoghue has nothing to do with the Department of Labour.


Mr. J. W. MADDIN (South Cape Breton).: I am in favour of the principle of an eight hour day for the labouring classes. But I would like to point out that while the Bill now before us, on its face and by its title, purports to be an Act respecting the hours of labour on public works, it is an entirely different measure in its effect. The first section of this Bill reads:
Every contract to which the government of Canada is a party, which may involve the employment of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor or subcontractor, or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or a part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be permitted or required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day

And so on. It was pointed out by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) that this Bill was likely to bring about the anomaly of some men in a workshop employed on government work working for eight hours a day while others in the same shop would be working for ten hours, and this, he .said, might breed discontent. I cannot see, from a reading of the Bill, that such a condition could possibly arise. Under the Bill as I read it, the government contractor is not allowed to employ any one, whether on government work or any other work, for a period of more than eight hours in the twenty-four. The Bill does not restrict the hours of labour to eight for those in the employ of the contractors who are on government work, but it says that ' no labourer .... in the employ of the contractor or sub-contractor ' shall be so employed. If after the word ' sub-contractor ' were added ' on the contract ' one could understand that this Bill aimed at making the eight hours applicable to work done on the government contract. But as the Bill stands now, this case might arise: In .some great industrial establishments, sav a steel works, if the owner entered into a contract to furnish steel rails to the government, then, under this /Bill, he could not employ his coachman, or the help round his own home, for more than eight hours a day. It seems to me that, as it stands at present, the Bill is impracticable. Let me point out for a moment the effect it would have, for instance, in the case of a certain- industry in the riding which I have the honour to represent. We have there the work.s of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company which owns a line of steamships which carry iron
ore from Wabana and dolomite and lime- -stone from Bras d'Or Lakes. If this Bill were in force, and the Dominion government should buy some steel rails from the Dominion Iron and Steel Company-they bought $29,000 last year-then when one of the company's boats left Wabana for the port of Sydney with a cargo of iron ore, at the conclusion of an eight hour day they would have to drop anchor or seek the shelter of a port till next morning; or, a vessel coming from Marble Mountain with a cargo of dolomite would be obliged to do the same thing. Thus the Bill is impracticable to the employer and impracticable to the employed. I submit that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) might well act on the suggestion offered by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) and have this Bill referred to a committee with power to alter it and have it made practicable in operation.
Now, with regard to the general principle of an eight hour day, I wish to take issue with my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) who says that it is ridiculous, preposterous, and declares that it cannot be successfully demonstrated to him that a man can accomplish as much work in eight hours as in ten. I may say to the hon. member that the product is not the result alone of the time devoted to the labour but also of the skill and the vitality put into it by the workman. For instance, in the coal mines of Nova Scotia within recent years, they have introduced coal-mining machines which are worked by compressed air at a very high pressure. The air is taken in from the reservoirs at the pit bottom at about 900 pounds pressure to the square inch. It . is conducted through the mines and used on these machines. A man is stretched out on his stomach at full length, grasping the handles of this powerful machine, weighing, perhaps, nine hundred or a thousand or even twelve hundred pounds, working, as I have said, at heavy pressure and pounding with a pick on the working face. There is a recoil that shakes and vibrates every part of the anatomy of the man operating the machine. It has been stated on apparently good authority that a man's working life devoted to the operating of such machinery, even at eight hours per day, is only five or six years on the average. People of high-strung, nervous dispositions operating machinery of this kind would break down more quickly than those less nervously constituted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. member:	Is not that exactly what I said?
In some lines of life eight hours would be *a long day, but in others it would not be a long day.


James William Maddin: That is what the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) said at one point of his remarks. But he said

also that no man could convince him that the same amount of work could be accomplished in eight hours as in ten.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In ordinary lines of work-and I still stick to it.


James William Maddin: However, the research of those who have devoted attention to this matter has led to conclusions on the subject. It has been stated by some manufacturers that they thought it was the last hour that gave them their profit, but they have discovered that it was the last hour that registered their loss-that their workmen had lost the vim and vitality with which they had pursued their labours earlier in the day, and that the last hour was carried on at a loss which seriously interfered with the profits of the employer. There is one instance which I will recommend to the hon. member for East Grey. The Messrs. Holden, of Bradford, England, the largest wool combers in the world, who have mills in France running 72 hours a week and mills in England running 56 hours a week, find that they can comb wool more cheaply in England than in France, though they pay higher wages for the short day in England than for the long day in France, and employ exactly the same machinery in both cases.
As pointed out by the Minister of Labour, this question is not a new one, it has been discussed from time to time in various countries throughout the civilized world. I was surprised to hear the Minister of Labour say that this was a matter upon which the House had very little information, and that consequently the House wTas not in a position to deal intelligently with it. Why, Sir, it is only the other day, in discussing the resolution on technical education, that the Minister of Labour pointed out that his department had taken the greatest care to gather statistics and data with regard to technical education, and that he had at his fingers end this data. I submit that, familiar as he is with the history of the eight hour question from 1862 in the United States, and for the last ten years since he has been Deputy Minister of Labour in Canada, with the knowledge tnac. this proposed legislation was first introduced into this House on the 11th of December, 1906, almost three years ago to-day. one would have thought that his department would have the necessary information to enable this House to deal intelligently with the subject. The subject has been agitated by labour organizations throughout this country for the last thirty years, and by labour bodies in a very active manner within the last ten or fifteen years. It is a matter with which the Department of Labour should be quite familiar, especially in view of the fact that they have had such ample notice.


James William Maddin: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the government has introduced in public contracts a fair wages schedule insisting that the hours of labour on government contracts shall be those current at the place of employment, and this was granted at the request of organized labour. Now, it is not sufficient for this government to say, when labour asks for an eight hour day: Oh, never mind that, we will think it over, and we will gather information; we gave you a fair wages schedule and insisted on current hours of labour under government contracts. Why, Mr. Speaker, what contractor could hope to obtain anything else but current hours of labour under his contract? If a contractor undertakes to erect a public work at Vancouver or at Sydney, can he hope to obtain any other than the current hours of labour at Vancouver or at Sydney, and would it not follow that those would naturally be the hours of labour, whether they were embodied in the government contract or not? The same with regard to a fair wages schedule. The wages that obtain in Victoria and obtain in Sydney are well known to the trades in those places, and contractors seeking for workingmen in those places will find it difficult to get such labour at a lesser schedule, even if there were no fair wages schedule in government contracts.	_
With regard to the applicability of this Bill in its present form, I do not feel like supporting it in all its details. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that from the point of view of that part of Nova Scotia from which I come, it would not be in the best interests of labour, nor would it be in the best interests of the industries there to adopt this Bill in its present form. This government bought from the different coal mines of Nova Scotia last year, for the use of the Intercolonial alone, coal to the value of nearly $1,750,000. I must say that whilst practically an eight hour day obtains amongst the miners of that province who are employed at the working face, it would be impracticable, almost physically impossible, for any of the coal mining companies in Nova Scotia to furnish coal to the government under the provisions of section 1 of this Bill as it stands at present.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


James William Maddin: Some reference was made during the course of this debate to the suggestion that this Bill savoured of class legislation, that it was unfair to the farmer who was obliged to work very long hours. My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) took occasion to say that farmers, to his knowledge worked twelve, fourteen and sixteen hours per day. That will be con-

ceded by any one familiar with the duties of the farmers, but when it is borne in mind that the farmer is not thusly engaged every working day in the year, one will at once note an important difference. During wet weather, whilst a good many of the farmers find employment indoors for most of their time, there is nothing to prevent, and nothing does prevent large numbers of farmers from folding their arms, sitting at the window, and looking out upon their broad acres while they are making from $20 to $50 a day. Then again, during the winter months, after the farmer has harvested the products of the soil and has laid away for himself a caddy of Macdonald's tobacco, a chest of tea and other things necessary for a severe winter, he is in an entirely different position from the man who is at the beck and call of his master for ten hours during every working day throughout the whole year. Furthermore, the farmer is his own master and on such days as he does not feel like working, or is ill, he may either work for a short time or lie off at his own discretion for the rest of the day. His crops require to be harvested and of necessity they must be got in immediately, but during the intervals between seed time and harvest and harvest and seed time he has ample time to recuperate and ample leisure for all the purposes of an ordinary man's life.
This legislation is altogether experimental in so far as this Bill is concerned. It is proposed by the Bill to have an eight hour day applied to work on government contracts. This, I submit is an experimental piece of legislation which should be undertaken by the government. Whether or not it would be wise for this country to introduce this legislation generally is a matter which inquiry would reveal. But the experiment has been tried in other countries and has been found to be successful. There are objections! raised to it but whether these objections are of such a substantial character as would warrant this government in turning down legislation of this kind remains to be seen. The question may be raised as to how this measure would affect competition in certain classes of manufactured goods. A manufacturer, for instance, says: I cannot manufacture these goods on the basis of an eight hour day because my competitors across the line in the United States, or in Germany, France or Switzerland, are employing people for twelve, fourteen and sixteen hours a day and in some of the markets that compete with my products the same manufacturers would have to submit to no regulations in regard to child labour or the labour of women and it would therefore be unfair to compel the manufacturer in this country to compete on an eight hour day basis if his competitors in other countries enjoyed a longer working day and employed a cheaper class of labour. However, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter for inquiry on the part of the government. It was found that in the production of cutlery in England under an eight and nine hour day the English manufacturer was able' to produce his goods and to compete in the market with the German manufacturer who employed child labour and who employed labourers for twelve and thirteen hours per day. It is evident that there are some classes, at least, of labour, where an eight hour day is practicable. It is for this government to select those classes of labour. There are again instances in which perhaps an eight hour day is not practicable. But, Mr. Speaker, to say that this is provincial legislation, that it is not within the province of this parliament to enact legislation dealing with an eight hour day, is to evade the real object of this particular Bill. This Bill does not seek to make a universal eight hour day but seeks only to recognize the eight hour day in connection with government works. It is experimental and should be inquired into by the government. They should be prepared to blaze the trail, set the example to the provinces and to employers of labour to see to it that the toiling classes get an opportunity of experimenting with the application of a workable eight hour day system. How can this be obtained? I submit that here and to-night this House can resolve itself into committee, take this Bill up and amend it in such a way as to make it a practicable Bill, a Bill that would warrant hon. members on both sides of the House supporting it, so that it would be of some practical use to the people in whose interests it is presented to this House.
There is one other phase of this matter which I propose to deal with. At the meeting of the Trades and Labour Council, held from September 20 to 24, in the city of Quebec last year, at which meeting the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) presided, the parliamentary secretary, Mr. O'Donoghue, solicitor of the council, making a report on the 22nd, spoke in reference to the eight hour Bill as follows:
Mr. Verville introduced a Bill to provide for an eiglit-liour day on government contracts. The Bill stood while I was endeavouring to prevail on the government to make it a government Bill and thus insure its passage into law. I further endeavoured to secure enough supporters to at least make certain of a division on the second reading. The absence of the Hon. Mr. King, and illness in the family of the then Minister of Labour, Hon. Mr. Lemieux, were other causes that contributed to the delay. Finally, when it was determined to push the Bill, it had become tied up on the Order Paper and the only thing that could be done was to have the order discharged so that a discussion could be had on the merits. Through the courtesy of the Prime Minister this was done, and the subject was duly ventilated on May 7. Mr. Verville presented the resolution in a very forcible and able speech,

his eliorts being ably seconded by Mr. G. A. Turcotte (Nicolet), Mr. Joseph Girard (Chicoutimi et Saguenay), Mr. J. D. Taylor (New Westminster), and Mr. A. B. Crosby (Halifax).
Hon. Mr. Lemieux said:
He found that there were some very grave difficulties in the way. In nearly all states of the American commonwealth there exists, he said an eight hour law, but it has been limited to certain industries. As drawn, he would not support the Bill, but he declared it was legislation that was worth studying and investigating. An eight hour law on government contracts, he argued, would be in conflict with provincial legislation as it stands. We could only pass such legislation as regards government works, because individual contracts come within the definition of ' civil rights ' which are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
Further on -this parliamentary correspondence says:
It is quite apparent that the Hon. Mr. Lemieux was not able to give to the subject the study it deserved or lie would not have spoken as he did. In the first place the delegates will recall that on several occasions the lion. gentleman declared himself fully in accord with our demand in this regard and stated that all we had to do was to convert his colleagues. If the hon. gentleman thinks the Bill is class legislation, he cannot fairly be in favour of it, whether in its present form or in any other.
In'conclusion, this gentleman says:
The debate served a useful purpose at all events in showing what we have to meet when the Bill is next introduced. While the opposition jeered at the honesty of purpose of Mr. Verville, it is worthy of note that the Hon. Mr. Borden did not speak in favour of the Bill nor did others of the opposition except those mentioned above.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say with regard to this parliamentary report of the parliamentary solicitor of the trades and labour council; this man who is nothing more nor less than a political henchman for the Grit party and has been serving in that capacity in connection with that body for some time now; I wish to characterise his public statement to the trades and labour council as a falsehood. He says: 'I, however, endeavoured to secure enough supporters to at least make certain of a division on the second reading,' and in connection with that statement I wish to point out that five members are enough to bring about a division on any question before the House, and I say that I have come in personal contact with and have spoken to no less than 64 Liberal-Conservative members in this House who were never spoken to by Mr. O'Donoghue with regard to that legislation. Notwithstanding that there were a number of members on this side of the House not only Mr. MADDIN.
willing but anxious to support an eight hour day, this gentleman undertakes to tell the delegates at the Trades and Labour Council that the Liberal-Conservative party jeered at it, while at the same time hq becomes the apologist for the ignorance of the Minister of Labour on the subject. Then he goes on to speak of the courtesy of the Prime Minister, and he remarks that the Hon. Mr. Borden did not speak in favour of the Bill. What about the other 210 members who did not speak in favour of the Bill; he has nothing to say about that. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Trades and Labour Council or any organized labour body in Canada which seeks legislation from this parliament, if they are sincere about it and will play fair they will always receive from the Liberal-Conservative party courtesy and fair consideration for their demands. But, Sir, I protest against being misrepresented in the Trades and Labour Council or any other trade organization by this parliamentary representative of theirs.
Now, this Bill has been on the Order Paper for at least four sessions, and it would seem to me that Mr. O'Donoghue has let the cat out of the bag when he tells, the delegates that he used his utmost endeavours to have the government adopt it as a government measure and thus ensure its passage. Why did he not take the trades and labour council into his confidence and tell them what success his efforts met with. But, if Mr. O'Donoghue does not care to reveal that secret of his, I, for my part want to know to-night what is the attitude of the Department of Labour and of the government towards the adoption of the eight hour day on government works. It is the duty of the government to give this House an answer to that question, yes or no. Are we to suppose that a department of government whose sole function, judging by its past record, has been to compile statistics is not able to tell parliament-after having had this Bill staring them in the face for four years-whether this Bill can be put into practical shape or not. It is the duty of the government to grapple with this important question and to grapple with it now. It is a question that is deeply interesting not only to employees but to employers as well, and I say that the proper thing to do is for this House now to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole and to consider the Bill clause by clause and legislate on it. This is experimental legislation and it is the duty of the government to carry on such an experiment. In the different colonies of Australia they have experimented with the eight hour day more thoroughly than anywhere else in the British empire and under the eight hour syistem which prevails in the greater part of the Australian commonwealth, they have

developed strong men, virile men, men with imperial ideas, men who, when it comes to voting for national defence or contributing to the mother country talk of Dreadnoughts. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that as the Bill now stands I would not vote for it, but I believe that it can be made workable and the time to do it is here and now to-night. Let the government grapple with the Bill now and don't let them send it to that committee graveyard whence so many Bills of this character have been consigned.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton).: When this Bill was introduced I did not think it was going to take a political turn, and I did not quite expect that the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) would wax so warm and so eloquent from the party standpoint in regard to it. I know a good deal about labour and labouring men. I do not profess to be so familiar with the doings of the Trades and Labour Council as the hon. member (Mr. Maddin), but I do not think he has much reason to blame the council or its representatives if they do come to a certain conclusion in respect to the attitude of the Conservative party in this country towards labour legislation. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maddin) personally had 18 years or 24 years out of 40 years of experience in dealing with any legislative body and during the whole of that time he failed in getting one line of legislation in the interest of labour, he would not be to blame, any more' than the Trades and Labour Council is, if he came to the conclusion that he had nothing to hope for from that quarter. That, Sir, is the history of the Conservative party in respect to labour in this Dominion. The Conservatives had 18 years of continuous control in this country; the conditions with regard to labour during those 18 years were just the same as they have been before and since and it can be truly said that although the labour men continuously asked for relief, the Conservative party never did anything to improve their condition.
My hon. friend from South Cape Breton has nothing to complain of, in the face of that record, if labouring men generally have no confidence in the party to which he belongs. If anything has been said which he regards as harsh, it is only due to the reputation which that great party has earned for itself. My hon. friend admits that this Bill cannot go very far as remedial legislation for the workingmen of this country. The class of people with which this Bill undertakes to deal is an infinites-simely small fraction of the working people of this country, that is, the people who work on government contracts or who are in the employ, directly or indirectly, of the government. They aTe a class of people from whom we hear no complaints. I have never
heard any complaints from men employed by the government, either in offices or on public works, that their hours were too long or their conditions arduous or uncomfortable. For that reason, I do not think this legislation is at all necessary for that class of people. The only good purpose this Bill serves is that it brings this question straight before this House and gives the members an opportunity to express their opinion respecting it. It is the principle at stake, and it is the assertion of that principle by the. members of this House that is of value. It is admitted that this House has not the power to pass legislation on this subject that will be of use to the workingmen of this country generally, and I do not think there is much use of going about it piecemeal and passing legislation which will merely deceive and mislead workingmen. After we go back to our constituents, if this Bill passes in its present form, we shall be asked: Haven't you passed an eight hour law? We shall have to tell them that we have not; therefore, they will be deceived, because they will think we have, when we have not. It is better to be straight and honest with these people and tell them that we have no jurisdiction to pass a uniform law for all the provinces. I_think_we should have a uniform law on this subject throughout the Dominion, and the only way in which that can be brought about is by means of a conference of the governments of the various provinces. This government would be doing a great service to the workingmen of this country if they would exercise whatever influence they possess in bringing together the governments of the various provinces and inducing them to agree upon legislation which, although enacted by the separate provinces, would be uniform in its effects throughout the Dominion.
Now, this question is not new in the province from which I come. It was discussed in the legislature of Nova Scotia in 1904, the last year that I had the honour of being a member of that body. The different workingmen's organizations, particularly the Provincial Workingmens' Association, which was the only organization in Cape Breton at that time, met the government and discussed with them the pros and cons of the question. No decision was reached at that time, but since then the government of Nova Scotia has undertaken to deal with the question in a thorough and business-like manner. I find that an Act was put upon the statute-book of Nova Scotia in April, 1908, which provides:
1. The Governor in Council is authorized to appoint a commission of three members whose duty it shall be to inquire into and report upon the economic effect of a limit to a working day for the workmen employed in the

various industries in the province of Nova Scotia, with especial reference to the effect of such limitation upon the following matters: (a) production, (b) wages, (c) employment, (d) export trade, (c) Canadian industries, regard being had to the different conditions obtaining in different districts, of amount and cost of production.
2. The commissioners shall have all the powers of a commission appointed under chapter 12 of the Revised Statutes, 1900, ' Of Inquiries concerning Public Matters.'
The government of Nova Scotia has taken a proper and systematic way of dealing with the question. That commission was appointed nearly two years ago, and has been inquiring into this' question during the last 18 months at least. I hope that at the next session of the Nova Scotia legislature we shall have from that commission a report of value to the whole country, reaching a conclusion on this difficult and complex question. It would not be of any use to jump at passing an Act in this House that would bring no practical good. The discussion on this Bill is, however, of great value. I am delighted to hear from a member from British Columbia who has had to deal experimentally and practically with this question, the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve). It is worth a good deal to this House to have the opinion of a gentleman who has gone through the experimental stage of this question and is prepared to stand up in this House and say that in British Columbia the eight hour system has proven itself satisfactory. There is no reason why, if it has been satisfactory in British Columbia, it should not be satisfactory in every other province of the Dominion. Expressing my own opinion, which may have to be modified to some extent after we hear the conclusions of the commission to which I have referred, who have had a much better opportunity than I have had to form correct conclusions; but, speaking for myself, I am in favour of the principle of the eight hour day, and I regard any favourable expression of opinion that may be obtained from this House as an advancement of that principle. ; But I think we are courting a difficulty if we send this Bill in its present form to a committee. I cannot see what a committee could do with it. They could not reject the Bill altogether, for that would mean rejecting the principle involved. They could not adopt it, for that would lead to difficulty with no compensating result. I think a resolution of the House approving of the principle of an eight hour day is about all we can get out of this Bill as it stands at present. The hon. member for South Cape Bretoq says that it would interfere with the work on ships in connection with the Dominion Coal Company and the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. I do not think it would go that far. So far as work on ships is concerned, it would be just as bad to enact a ten hour law as an eight hour law.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Ships and shipping are operated! under an entirely different law. This Bill, whether passed or not, would not interfere with the Shipping Act and the articles of the seamen, under which ships are operated. In the county of Cape Breton we have, I suppose, more labouring men, in the true sense of the term, than any other county in Canada. We have on the island of Cape Breton some
9,000	workingmen, who can be really called *workingmen, and possibly 95 per cent of those are in the county of Cape Breton. Therefore, when the hon. gentleman and myself undertake to talk about an eight hour day law, we ought to talk about something that will toe of practical benefit to the large number of people we have the honour to represent. But so far as this Bill is concerned, I do not regard it as being of any benefit to the people from the labour standpoint. It is only to benefit those working on government contracts, and I do not think they are in need of any sympathy from me; but whenever my hon. friend or any other hon. gentleman will introduce a Bill-if such a Bill can properly be introduced in this House -that will be of benefit to the workingmen and that will give them an eight hour day, I shall be quite willing to support it, and will support it, in every legitimate way. However, as it is conceded that this is a matter within the jurisdiction of the provinces, I do not think there is much use in our discussing it except in the expectation that our view will be of great benefit to the different provincial legislatures iq enabling them to reach a conclusion favourable to the eight hour day.


James William Maddin: I would like to explain to my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) that this Bill would apply to shipping, being enacted by the same bodv as makes the Merchants Shipping Act and seamen's regulations. The Bill savs:
Every contract to which the government of Canada is a party, which may involve the employment of labourers, workingmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor

It does not say employed on that particular job

-shall be permitted or required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day.
That in effect repeals the Shipping Act, and would make it necessary for a vessel to drop her anchor wherever she might happen to be at the end of eight hours.


Mr. BEATTIE.: I have a good deal of sympathy with the object of the Bill, but it does not go far enough. If the mover of this measure would include all the workingmen, I should be happy to support it,

but, in its present shape, it would only give relief to one out of a thousand. If the hon. gentleman will make his Bill apply to workingmen in general, it will have my sunnort.


Mr. A. B. CROSBY (Halifax).: Last session a resolution was submitted to the House, which has been referred to tonight, and I may say that on that occasion I was very much disappointed in the mover of that resolution, the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville). I was very much disappointed at the manner in which he brought it up. We are asked to pass a Bill anplicable, not to the workingmen throughout the Dominion, but only to those employed on government contracts and government construction work; but, of course, when lawyers take any measure in hand they can always make it look either like five cents or five dollars, as they think best, and every one of them puts a different construction on it. As I understand this Bill, it is intended to bring about an eight hour day on all government construction work. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. McKenzie) said that the Conservatives had never done anything for labour. Well, if any one would look over the hon. gentleman's record, he will not find that he has ever done anything for the workingman. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) drew our attention to the declaration of the Minister of Finance, who expressed himself distinctly in favour of no one going on government work except Liberals; but I tell the hon. gentleman we are going to have a change very soon. I believe we shall have it before this Bill goes through. The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. McKenzie King) said that my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) was prepared to vote this Bill through, no matter what happened. But if I understood the hon. member for Cumberland properly, he was in favour of the Bill and would vote for it if it compelled every man, who made a government contract, to establish the eight hour day system in his works. That is what I understood the hon. gentleman to say, but I do not think that any one has any other desire than to deal with this Bill on its merits as it affects public works. We have had a great deal of talk about the eight hour day and the nine and ten hour day, and the twenty-four hour day. In fact, the labouring man works for twentv-four hours, so they say, and never stops. When we had a twelve hour system, we had double shifts, but a man had to work twelve hours and keep the machinery going all the time. Now, if we adont the eight hour day, we can have three shifts in the twenty-four houis. There is no trouble keeping the machinery 40
going all the time; but this Bill does not refer to any thing outside the construction of government work. We are told by the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) that this is a measure which must be dealt with by the local legislatures. Just think of our sending a Bill to a local legislature and asking that legislature to enact an eight hour day solelv for the public works of Canada. The Bill is one which should be dealt with by this parliament, and we must deal with it. It has come here to stay. First we had the 12 hour day, which was cut down to 10 and then to 9, and I would like to ask any body if he regrets any one of these changes. We were met with the same cry when we talked about limiting the employment of child labour and preventing a child from going to work under 14 years. When that was proposed, those who opposed it said that the children would be so well educated they would not go to work at all. Now, in our province- we always lead in those matters-we have that condition, and what is the result? Everybody is happy, and the children of the workingman are educated. There has never yet been a reform in connection with labour which has not met with the opposition of the employers. It is not because he gets down and figures out how it is going to do him harm; he only thinks that it will do him harm. But it will not do him any harm. Why should we have this one or that one telegraphing: Don't let that Bill go through? Are they all government contractors? Have they all got a pull with the government? Some certainly say that they have a pretty strong pull, but I do not know about that. But we have nothing to fear. This is a Bill that it is the duty of this parliament to deal with. We are asked how will this Bill operate with regard to factories? Why, it will be just the same as in the employment of clerks and book-keepers under present conditions. The government have a civil service whose duties are essentially those of accountants, book-keepers and clerks. These people work from three to five hours a day, I think; will any man say that when a private employer engages a book-keeper or clerk he must allow him the same hours as those of the civil service? If not, why should it be supposed that when a private employer engages a labourer or stonemason he will have the same hours as a similar workman in the employ of the government? We have heard a good deal about the farmers in this connection. The hon. member tor South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) spoke about that. Why, the farmer gets a return for every hour he works; in fact, his farm is making money for him even when he sleeps. The farmer has his sowing season and his reaping season, but part of the year he can sit in his easy chair. The



*workman has to work every day or starve. If anything happens to him and lays him off for a few days, he does not get anything for the time so spent. If he is sick and is laid up for a week or two, he does not call in a doctor, for he would never recover if he did-if he does recover, the doctor keeps him in hot w'ater a good while. I am surprised to hear the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) talking as he does about the farmer, for that hon. gentleman generally gives us good advice, and I am glad to follow his advice on nearly all occasions. But, as I have shown, there is no comparison between the farmer and the workman; we are all working for the farmer, and even the weather works for him when he is asleep. I am surprised that the hon. member foT East Grey is not more considerate of his own profession by improving the position of the workman so that the doctor may have a better chance of having his fees paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How about the farmer when he has a crop failure?


Adam Brown Crosby: He never has a crop failure-the government always fixes that. Even if things do go wrong with him, the government always sees to it that he has enough for the winter. But the workman has no one to protect or help him, except a few of us here who are going to do what we can for him.
I stand by the principle of this Bill as I read it. I do not wish to quibble, or twist, or turn by sending the Bill here or sending it there. Of course, if we cannot deal with the Bill before this House, I will not oppose sending it to a committee. We have enough lawyers here to spoil any Bill, but I am willing to take hold of the Bill with some other laymen and put it in shape so that the working people and the country generally will be satisfied with it.


Mr. RALPH SMITH (Nanaimo).: The discussion this evening has resolved itself into a debate on the general question of the eight hour day. That is a principle, I believe, that the large majority of this House will regard very favourably. There has been considerable experience of the eight hour day not only in Canada, but in some other countries. In Australia, they have general laws regulating the hours of labour, not only for government employees, but for the general industries of the country, which laws have worked with very great satisfaction. My hon. friend from Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) has reminded hon. members that in British Columbia we have very important legislation in relation to the eight hour day. Our law applies to certain industries only-coal mining, metalliferous mining and smelting. The people of British Columbia generally believe that that legis-Mr. CROSBY.
lation has worked to the general interest of these enterprises as well as to the benefit of the province as a whole. It is true, as my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), says in answer to the hon. member for Kootenay, there was some little trouble with regard to maintaining the .same standard of wages for eight hours as had been maintained under the ten hour system. Of course, that disorganized the industries for some time. But now and for some years the law has worked satisfactorily. The coal miners of British Columbia had an eight hour day before there was legislation on the subject. But we on the Pacific coast are liable to be affected by American influence, and the miners of British Columbia were afraid that with the introduction of American capital into the coal mining of that province the influence of those concerned might possibly add to the length of the working day. The miners considered that it would be wise to make provision by law that eight hours should be a working day in mines. That was done, so that we now have had for some years an eight hour law at the coal mines and in the smelting works which has operated very satisfactorily in that province. The principle of an eight hour day has always been difficult of general application. I think the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) was quite right when he sought to discriminate between industries, in showing the difficulty of operating an eight hour day in all industries alike, inasmuch as a man can do as much work in six hours in some industries as he can do in ten or eleven hours in other industries. So I think to that extent my hon. friend is quite right.
In England they have sought to legislate on this question, and last session they passed for the first time a law regulating the hours of labour in mines for all persons, restricting the hours to eight hours a day. Thirty-five years ago they passed a law in England relating to factories and mines, and dangerous employments for women and children, and it has worked with great satisfaction. Personally I would support an eight hour law if it could be made practicable. There is great difficulty, however, in having absolute equality in the hours of labour in all industries, and when we come to consider certain employments, my contention is that it is impossible for men to do their best for any longer period than six or seven or eight hours a day. In other employments, perhaps, a man could work with advantage a longer number of hours.
But the principle of an eight hour day which seems important to me is the opportunity that it gives to men generally to appropriate the benefits ;of education. It seems to me that when we discuss the economic results of the reduction of hours on production, we forget the effects it would

have on men themselves, at least in certain employments. As I have said, there is no doubt that men can usually produce more in a shorter number of hours than they can by working ten hours a day. There is no doubt about that principle, for the reason that when men get the benefit of shorter hours, they are in a position to take advantage of the social and educational conditions in which they may find themselves. So the economic loss in reduced hours is overbalanced by the greater strength and efficiency of the workers. So I think the general principle of the eight hour day is well settled in the minds of people everywhere. The trades unions have done more for themselves by a reduction of hours than they have done by anything else. In England where the hours of labour are the shortest in the world, shorter than in Germany, shorter than in the United States, and I believe in some trades shorter than in Australia, they have an eight hour*law; and all the benefits of that condition of things in England have been brought about by a strong and intelligent organization amongst the workmen themselves.
Now, in the course of his remarks, my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) made one or two statements that I wish to refer to. He remarked that the Minister of Labour had suggested that it was necessary to have a select committee to collect evidence before dealing with this question. Now I agree with that position entirely. But my hon. friend complained that the Labour Department ought to have been in possession of such evidence already. Now, Sir, I assume that the minister's answer to that position would be that he wants a committee to study the evidence he already has in his possession. The minister may have that evidence, no doubt has the evi-evidence, but it is impossible for every member of this House to have that evidence. I have not the evidence, for instance; but we ought all to have it in order to study it before legislating on this question. I do not see that any harm can come from a complete _ and thorough investigation of this question. Now I want to say how far I am prepared to go on the question of regulating the hours of the public servants in this country. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) says that the government have already brought the hours down three or four a day. My understanding is that the Civil Service has been put on the basis of an eight hour day, that instructions are posted up in the departments insisting that the civil servants shall come to their office at nine o'clock in the morning and work until five in the afternoon, which, of course makes an eight hour day.


Adam Brown Crosby: I did not refer to the Civil Service as regards their working hours, I only referred to them to establish a comparison between their hours and the 40i
hours of men working for private individuals. Nobody expects that men in private industries should work no longer hours than the civil servants. I did not reflect upon the Civil Service hours at all.


Ralph Smith: I did not say my hon. friend was reflecting on the Civil Service, but his remarks will carry their own reflection. If I understood my hon. friend correctly, he said more than once that under this government civil servants worked only three or four, and not more than five, hours a day. My understanding is that some months ago regulations were posted up in the departments insisting that the employees should come to their work at nine in the morning and stay till five in the afternoon. I mention that to show that the government has accepted the principle of an eight hour day in the Civil Service at Ottawa. I believe that the government should be a model employer. The government represents the people of this country, and if the people generally are in favour of the principle of an eight hour day, there can be no objection to the government carrying out that principle with their own servants. I believe every man in the employ of the government, especially those engaged in mechanical operations, should only work eight hours a day.
Now I want to look at this Bill and see whether it is possible to accomplish the object aimed at by the Bill in its present form. I want to say that I do not believe we ought to pass legislation in this House that cannot be made practicable in its operation. I do not think it is possible under all circumstances to operate the principle of this Bill. I am strongly in favour of an eight hour day for all government employees, and I am in favour of the government establishing all over this country the best possible conditions for their employees, as they have done by the fair wage principle. I agree with that absolutely, but I do not think that the proposal of my hon. friend would accomplish the object which he professes to have in view. I believe that his intention is good, I believe my hon. friend wants to do something to improve the conditions of labour in this country, and I think that he is right in seeking the assistance of the government to bring about that object. But the very worst thing my hon. friend can do is to propose legislation to this parliament which this parliament cannot possibly pass.
In looking over the Bill one must see that it is impossible for this government to determine that in every contract that the government enters into it must regulate the hours of labour not only of the men employed on that particular government contract but regulate the hours of labour for the whole business which is being operated by the man who has the contract with the gov-

ernment. Let me give this illustration : Suppose that a grocer doing business in the city of Victoria, perhaps to the extent of $10,000 a month, fills a contract for supplying groceries to a government steamer in the harbour of Victoria to the extent of $100 a month; that grocer would be compelled to carry on his business on the prin-riple of the eight-hour day. The Bill ought to provide for these important effects of its operation. All the systems of transportation having contracts with this government must operate on the principle of the eight-hour day. All subsidized steamers and steamers having contracts with the government to carry the mails from Liverpool to Montreal must carry on their operations, under the principle of the eight-hour day. All systems of transportation having contracts with the government must be operated under the principle of the eight hour day if these contracts are to be maintained, because the Bill provides that wherever there is a contract with the government the whole business of the contractor must be carried on under the principle of the eight-hour day. I believe that my hon. friend has the best of intentions and motives in presenting this legislation, but it is utterly impossible for this parliament, however well disposed it might be, to carry out the principle of this Bill worded as it is. Therefore, I am strongly in favour of the Bill going to a committee. There is another thing that I would like to say. I believe that the effect of this legislation, if it were put in operation, especially in some parts of the country, would be to reduce the wages of men who are employed on government contracts. Let me give my hon. friend an illustration: Suppose that carpenters and stonemasons in Quebec and Montreal work ten, eleven or twelve hours a-day. I believe they do because the province of Quebec is farther behind in social legislation than any other part of this Dominion. My hon. friend, of course, for some time, has been bringing his influence to bear upon the legislature of Quebec which has the general legislation with respect to hours of labour affecting /public business in its own hands, but there is no place in Canada where men work as long hours as they do in Quebec. Suppose that the general hours of labour and business of stonemasons, bricklayers or carpenters in the city of Montreal numbered ten or eleven a-day, that under this Bill you put up a building and the contractor was obliged to employ his men on the eight-hour day principle. We must remember that the wages and conditions under government operation are regulated by the principle that the wages must be the standard wages of the district and the conditions and hours must be the standard conditions and hours of the district. If carpenters are


Ralph Smith: employed in Montreal at $2.50 a-day for ten or eleven hours and the conditions of the district have to determine the conditions under the government contract then the government itself in its own labour department would be compelled to reduce the wages so as to meet the general conditions applicable to work of this kind. I think the application of this Bill would really reduce the wages of labour to men who were employed on government contracts. I think the 4iscussion has been important, but I think this Bill is impossible. I am prepared to support the principle that the government ought to give their own employe.es an eight-hour day 'and ought to use all the influence they can to regulate the hours of labour on government contracts, but I do not think the object that my hon. friend has in his mind can be accomplished by this Bill. I therefore strongly recommend to him the suggestion of the Minister of Labour that a committee be selected from which we may be able to have a Bill before this House which will be practicable and thus bestow some benefit on the workingmen of this country as far as those employed by this government are concerned.


Mr. G. H. COWAN (Vancouver City).: Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of what the last speaker (Mr. Ralph Smith) has said I am prepared to agree. With his declarations of sincerity in regard to the principle of an eight hour day I am prepared to agree. But, I would venture to say that his logic is a little astray when he tells this House and the country that he is an avowed advocate of the principle of the eight hour day, and when that principle goes up against a grocer in Victoria who happens to believe in the principle of a ten hour day, he tells us that this is a difficulty in the way, that it is the lion in his path. For my part I have this amount of courage that if I believe that the principle of the eight hour day is correct I am prepared to say that everything in the way of the adoption of that principle must give way. If that grocer in Victoria-I thought he was in Vancouver, but he is in Victoria-being a contractor for the government, adopts a different principle from that which the speakers here to-night have been declaring they believed in, then it is up to that favorite government contractor to abandon his ten-hour principle and adopt the eight-hour principle. I regret that my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), in whose sincerity I have not one particle of doubt and of whose careful study of this question I have personal knowledge, has dropped into exactly the same fallacy. He tells us, as does the hon. member for Nanaimo, that he will allow the great labour population of Canada to be denied their rights because some contractor will be

obliged to change his system of labour employment in his factory or other industry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the hon. gentleman kindly inform the House what statement I made that enables him to draw such an inference? I am not aware of having made any statement which would warrant an inference of that kind.


George Henry Cowan: I think that the report of my hon. friend's speech will show that I have drawn an exact and accurate inference from his remarks. I hope that I am mistaken because I would be sorry to find the Minister of Labour, with the responsibilities of office upon him, stand up in his place in this House and declare that he is in favour of a principle but he is not in favour of carrying out that principle because it would interfere with those who disbelieve in the principle and act in a different way. I hope I will find that I have made a mistake. But, I know that I have made no mistake in regard to the hon. member for Nanaimo. He has given an instance. A grocer in Victoria has a contract with the government. That grocer has one principle of employment different from the eight hour principle. It would demoralize the system of employment and therefore we must deny the labouring men of Canada their rights. I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) in that position. I do think too that the Minister of Labour fresh and young and full of enthusiasm and actuated I believe by a single and sincere desire to advance the cause of labour-


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh.


George Henry Cowan: Yes, I am prepared to give every member of this House the largest measure of credit in the matter of motives, but I am not prepared to give the Minister of Labour credit for a single attempt to-day to crystallize in the statutes of Canada any provision for the betterment of labour. Had there been a case made out for referring this to a special committee I would have been content to reserve my judgment on the sincerity of the gentlemen who advocate such a course, but not one particle of argument has been advanced to indicate that there is the slightest necessity for any evidence, which is not already within the knowledge of the House, in support of the case. I say that this Bill should get its second reading and go to the Committee of the Whole. I hope therefore, just to test the courage and sincerity of the members of this House in facing what I am prepared to admit is a difficult question, that the member for Maisonneuve will continue to press that his Bill be dealt with now.


John Dowsley Reid: I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. friend (Mr. Cowan). I believe that when he has
been here a session or two he will not have the opinion he now has as- to the sincerity of the government when they make a motion of this kind. Our experience during the past week is enough to satisfy us on that point. When the resolution of the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was put on the Order Paper I thought it was placed there at the instance of the government in order that they might _ get some credit for it, but we found the Minister of Labour moving an amendment which practically side-tracked the issue for the balance of the session. Now we have another Bill introduced by the member for Maisonneuve. That same Bill was introduced last session by the same gentleman, and the session before, but every time it appeared on the Order Paper the influence of the government was brought to bear on the hon. member for Maisonneuve and he was afraid to move the Bill in the House and take a division on it. This year he wants the Bill pressed but the Minister of Labour gets up and says: Oh, he agrees with the principle, he is in favour of it, but yet he wants to side-track it. He tells us he wants the labouring men of this country to believe that he is in favour of the eight hour day, but he wants a special committee to examine into the question, and that is the last you will hear of the Bill this session. Is that fair to the labouring men of this country. We all understand the Bill and the Minister of Labour understands it as well as anybody else, but the truth is he is afraid to come out fair and square on the issue. I think the time has come for every man in this House to show his colours and declare whether he is in favour of the Bill or not. I shall vote for the Bill, and I refuse to have it sidetracked at the instance of the government. Let the government come out honourably and show the labouring people whether they are in favour of this measure or not. I do not hesitate to say to the labouring men from the Atlantic to the Pacific that the action of the Minister of Labour so far as this Bill is concerned is a fake from the beginning to the end; and that the minister is acting in opposition to the interests of the labouring men of Canada.
Mr. EMMANUEL DEVLIN (Wright)'. I wish to offer a few remarks which I hope will be construed as I want them to be, as fully sympathetic to the cause of labour. It has been my good fortune to have had considerable experience, not altogether in a practical way, but to have come into contact with the labouring classes, and I feel that no man in this House is actuated by sentiments more favourable towards^ the labouring classes than I am. I have listened to the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville, and I want to say right

away that I am heartily in favour of the eight hour day. I feel that the labouring classes of this country should not be called to- work harder even than hon. gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House. 1 believe that the labouring classes should have the same fair treatment that capital receives in this country. I would like to see the Bill go one step further, if it were possible, and regulate the wages which the labourer would receive under government contracts when their day's labour is cut down to eight hours. After reading the Bill over several times, I see that the contractor who assumes a contract with the government of this country shall be forced to regulate the hours of labour, and he is left free to deduct from the poor labourer's wages an amount corresponding to that reduction of hours. I do not think it is in the interest of labour that such legislation should be enacted, and I speak most sincerely when I say that I believe no hurried action should be taken in this matter. I believe that the suggestion of the Minister of Labour and the suggestion of the member for Nanaimo, as representing labour in this *country, to refer the Bill to a special committee for further study should be accepted. I think that every consideration ought to be given to this Bill and that it should be the duty of that special committee to study all the questions involved- so that the labouring men of this country shall not receive lower wages because of the shortening of the hours of labour.


Mr. GEORGE H. BARNARD (Victoria, B.O.).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate on this Bill and with more than ordinary interest to the speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith). While that hon. gentleman was making his speech, I could not help thinking how he would have graced the position of Minister of Labour. It may be provincialism to a certain extent, but in my opinion he is the man who, both by training and by natural ability, was entitled to the position; but I can quite understand that the province of British Columbia could by no possibility expect to have two members in this government. With regard to this Bill, everybody seems to be in favour of the principle of it, but nobody seems to want it to go through. I think there should be very little difficulty in straightening out the Bill. If the hon. member who introduced it would be willing to have it amended in committee in such a way as to meet the objections which have been raised, there is no reason why it should not pass its second reading, and for my part, if he chooses to press his motion to a vote, I am prepared to support him. With regard to the speech of the hon. Minister of Labour, he sought to make a little trouble for the hon. member for Cumber-Mr. DEVLIN.
land (Mr. Rhodes); but the hon. member for Cumberland was at least definite in what he wanted to say, while I doubt if anybody knew just what the views of the Minister of Labour were on this question when he got through. His position reminds me somewhat of an undertaker who, a short time ago, while away on a visit, was asked what his calling in life was. After hesitating a moment, he said:	' I follow the
medical profession.' It seems to me that the Minister of Labour has undertaken the role of undertaker to the government, for this is the second time in seven days that we have seen him bury a Bill which I am inclined to think in his inmost heart he believed to be right. I am in favour of this Bill.


Mr. ERNEST ROY (Dorchester).: Mr. Speaker, I am a new member of this House and am not very familiar with parliamentary procedure; but I cannot understand the statement of one hon. member on the other side of the House, that the Minister of Labour has not the courage to adopt the principle of this Bill. If I understand the procedure of parliament correctly, when a minister proposes to refer a Bill to a select committee, it is understood that the principle of the Bill will be adopted, for the second reading of the Bill has to take place before it can go to a committee., I think it is understood by every hon. member that the Bill in its present form must be modified before it is passed. I think the Bill should be referred, not to a standing committee of this House, but to a special committee, which would be in a better position to obtain the information necessary to pronounce on the Bill. Therefore, I think the position taken by the hon. the Minister of Labour is the proper position to take on the Bill.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the matter with which we are immediately concerned, I would like to correct a very grave misapprehension on the part of my hon. friend from North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. MacKenzie), who has declared that no legislation in the interest of labour was ever passed by a Conservative administration. I want to tell my hon. friend, and I am surprised that he is ignorant of it, that the most important measure ever passed in the interest of labouring men in Canada was passed by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald. But for that legislation men combining to strike to-day in Canada would be criminals in the eyes of the law. A Conservative member of parliament, the late E. F. C'larke, for many years a respected and honoured member of this House, was in jail in the city of Toronto under the law as it was before Sir John A. Macdonald brought in the Act which gave labouring

men the right to strike without subjecting J themselves to a criminal prosecution.


Mr. BRODER.: It was George Brown who put him in jail.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but we need not go into matters of detail. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour has spoken on this question. It is a question that has been before parliament for four years. One would have supposed that a government responsible for all the legislation that goes through parliament, as every government under modern conditions is, would have taken up this subject. I do not know whether the hon. Minister of Labour concurs with the statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo that the government at present have all the information necessary on this subject. Am I to infer that my hon. friend the Minister of Labour concurs in that statement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has a great deal of very valuable information, but I think it would be of decided advantage to the House to have an investigation.'


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is rather non-committal. It seems to me that the question resolves inself into this. The government either have or have not the information; if they have not, there have been four years during which this matter has been mooted more than once in parliament, and one would have thought that in that time they would have appointed a royal commission to obtain the necessary information, as was done by the government of Nova Scotia two years ago. When the question was first mooted in parliament four years ago my hon. friend was deputy Minister of Labour. Where have been hi.s affections for the labouring men of this country during these four years? But there is another very curious circumstance in connection with this matter. The government are to-day acting in absolute reversal of the position they took in 1907, when they brought in a so-called Conciliation Act. I asked at that time, by a resolution which I moved at the beginning of the session, and afterwards on the third reading of that Bill, that all matters touching disputes between employers and employees should be referred to a committee of this House in order that both sides might be heard. I took the ground then, which I am prepared to stand by to-day, that in these matters it is only fair that both sides should be heard before legislation of such great importance should be dealt with by parliament. What was the answer at that time? It was that the government had all the information in their possession. I have the words of the Minister of Labour of the day, Hon. Mr. Lemieux, under my hand He said:
I therefore believe that, at the present time, with the information we have before ns, with the reports of the Royal Commission of 1903, with the montHy reports which we receive from our correspondents from all parts of Canada, and with the ample reports that are presented to this House by the Labour Department, it is quite unnecesary to appoint a Committee of this House to take evidence in connection with this Bill.
My hon. friend from Nanaimo was at that time very strongly in favour of the position the government took, that there was no need to appoint a commission or to have any hearing before a commission. My hon. friend, I remind him in all kindness, takes a different stand to-night. He says that although the information is there, we should have a special committee for the purpose of passing on it and reporting to this House. I would ask my hon. friend if that is a good arugment to-day, why was it not a good argument in 1907? I urged that very argument myself in 1907, but I did not succeed at that time in securing the ear of my hon. friend, because I had the misfortune of seeing him vote against me, both on the motion I made in the early part of the' session, and on the motion I made on the third reading of that Bill.
This subject, as my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath) has truly said,_ is one that must be met. In common with every member of this House, I am disposed to give the most sympathic consideration to every measure that will improve the condition of the labouring men in this country. We want our labouring men to live and prosper under fair conditions so that, as has been well said to-night, we shall have a strong virile population, not doomed to work to the last limit of their physical strength, or to compete on unfair conditions with the pauper labour of any other country. We ought to give every possible consideration to their claims in this regard and I am disposed to do that. The question is one which must not be shelved by any proposal to submit it to a committee. I am willing that it should go before a committee for exactly the same reasons that I gave when I asked for a special committee on the Conciliation Act of 1897. I think that Act should have gone before a committee in order that both sides might have been heard; and had that course been followed, there would have been infinitely less dissatisfaction with that measure and it would have worked out infinitely better and have been very materially improved. I am disposed to send this Bill to a committee of the House, not in order that it be shelved-because we must have a satisfactory understanding from the government that it will not be shelved-but in order that employees and employers may be heard, and in order that any information in possession of the government-if they have any, if they have had enough

interest in the subject to collect information-shall be put before the committee, and in order that the committee, after giving a fair hearing to all parties, may make a report to the House. Under the circumstances I would accept the proposal, on the distinct understanding from the government, that the committee will meet at once and expedite its work and bring back a report to the House to be dealt with before the end of the session.


Alphonse Verville: I am very proud indeed to have brought this question before the House this afternoon and especially to find that it has excited so interesting a debate. This is probably the first time we have had so much discussion on the hours of labour, and many hon. gentlemen on both sides have expressed themselves, in different fashions, in favour of a shorter working day. As I said on moving the second reading of the Bill, my intention was not to make any extended remarks myself, but to obtain the views of others, and to my great satisfaction. I have heard a great deal more than I expected. Some remarks have been made regarding farm labour but there is no comparison whatever between farm labour and that which is dealt with in this Bill. We have also heard it argued that men could not do as much work in eight hours as in ten. Well, we heard that same argument every time a proposition was made to reduce the hours. Not very long ago men worked twelve hours a day. Then the day was reduced to ten hours, and no one will say that the same amount of work is not done in the ten hours as formerly was done in the twelve. The same result will follow a reduction to eight hours. Experience has proved that the longer day is not productive of more work. We have had some question about the working of the fair wage law. Well, 1 acknowledge that it has done a great deal of good for the labouring classes, but as regards the hours of labour, we have no body but ourselves to thank for their reduction, because what gain we have made has been achieved only after very hard struggling. I heard the hon. member for London say that he would favour a Bill which would apply generally.


Thomas Beattie: That is quite right.


Alphonse Verville: I heard the hon. gentleman say the same on the public platform.


Thomas Beattie: I introduced an eight hour Bill here in 1898.


Mr. VERVILLE  .@: There would be no use in any one introducing such a measure in this House because it would be beyond our jurisdiction, and it was for that reason I have not brought in a Bill of that nature. The arguments which have been urged this afternoon against this Bill are exactly the Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
same as were advanced in other countries on similar occasions. In 1847, in England, when the ten hour law was before the House, exactly the same arguments were used against it. In 1856 and 1857, when that question was brought up in Australia, we had the same arguments over again. The plea was always that if you shorten the hours of labour, you will reduce the sum of the work done. However, I am gratified to know that we have made a considerable step in advance, and if the government will promise that this measure will not be shelved, I am quite willing to refer it to a special committee. I am willing, if the Bill receives its second reading, to make a motion to have it referred to a special committee. We will then have affirmed the principle of the Bill, and it will be for the government to see that no obstacle is allowed to prevent the committee from getting through with its deliberations. I would like to have before that committee those men who are strongly opposed to any reduction in thg number of hours in the labouring day while at the same time they are quite willing to reduce their own hours of labour to three or four. I would like to meet these men before the committee. I would like also to have some of the labour men come before that committee and express their views, and then let the committee compare notes, and I am sure we shall win because we are on the right side. If the Bill be given a second reading, its principle -will then be adopted, and if the government will give a chance to the committee to get to work right away, we shall have their report before the session is over and be in a position to enact legislation which will materially improve the condition of the working class.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bill read the second time.
Alphonse Verville: I desire to move the reference of the Bill to a special committee as suggested. I move:
That the said Bill be referred to a special committee consisting of Messrs. King, Mac-donell (Toronto), Smith (Nanaimo), Staples, Prowse, Marshall and Verville.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: It seems to me tha,t. before the House assents to the adoption of that motion, we should have some assurance from the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) that he expects the committee to make a favourable report on the Bill. Having passed the second reading and adopted the principle of the Bill, I think we are entitled to have a committee that is known to be favourable to the measure, and that the committee to whom it is referred should not be expected to say whether we shall adopt such a Bill or not, but to perfect the Bill, because, as has been stated by hon. members here to-night,

in its present shape the Bill is not workable. I think we are entitled to a declaration from the government as to what they expect from this committee, for, though the motion has been moved by the hon. member from Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) it is upon the government that the responsibility rests, and if the government do not know what to expect from that committee, I think it is their business to find out. We ought not to take this step in the dark.
I would like to say, while on my feet, that some hon. members have taken what seems to me a most extraordinary position as to why this matter is before us. The question is not one of pity for or sympathy with the employees of contractors who are working for the government. It impresses me rather in this way: This is supposed to be a government of the people; a very large proportion of the contributors to this government are the organized workingmen who believe in the eight hour day; these people simply come to their servants in this House and ask them to see to it that in the expenditure of their money on contracts carried on for the Dominion government, a provision shall be inserted that the principle which they hold so dear shall not be violated. I think that is a reasonable request, and that having passed the second reading of this Bill we should not entrust it to any committee unless we have some assurance as to the attitude of the committee towards the Bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member (Mr. Taylor) has made what seems to me a most extraordinary proposal. He suggests that I should give him an assurance how this committee will report. I fail to see what other meaning can be put upon his words than that he feels that members of this House who . are selected as a committee are not prepared to report to this House honestly, straightforwardly and intelligently on the evidence that is brought before them.


James Davis Taylor: I object to the hon. gentleman (Mr. King) putting any sinister interpretation on my remarks. I spoke very plainly, as I usually do, and without any meaning other than was plainly expressed in my words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member objects to my interpretation of his words, but he has only himself to blame for giving us words that are capable of such an interpretation. I cannot see how any member of the House could suggest that any one can tell this House, before the committee listens to any evidence with regard to a measure, how that committee is going to report. I think the position will be self-evident to every hon. member. I do not think there is any member of the House other than the hon. member (Mr. J. D. Taylor) himself
who would think of asking for such an assurance.


Arthur Meighen: We have had the great privilege of listening to two addresses on this subject from the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), and at the close of the second address I think that every hon. me/nber is as much in the dark as he was at the first of the debate as to what the policy of the government is in regard to this Bill. We may have learned a great deal about the principle of the eight hour day and about many features of the Bill, but I can state one thing that we have not learned in the course of the debate, and that is the policy of the government. If I understood the question and remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor), what he' wanted from the Minister of Labour was a clear statement of the policy of the government with regard to this measure. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Ernest Roy) contends-and, in a measure, rightly contends-that when this House passes the second reading of the Bill, it .adopts the principle of the Bill, and he further goes on to explain that the Minister of Labour has endorsed the principle of this Bill. Now if the principle of the Bill is something that can be taken as endorsed by the speech of the Minister of Labour, then I, for one am utterly at a loss to see any i>rinciple whatever in the Bill. Throughout, the course of his address, the Minister of Labour expressed antagonism to the general principle and to the extended adoption of the principle of the eight hour day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the hon. member (Mr. Meighen) kindly give to the House any statement of mine from which he can draw such an inference.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. minister (Mr. King) state that he is in favour of the absolute, unequivocal adoption of the eight hour day throughout Canada?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not hear the question.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. minister state that he and his government are in favour of the absolute, unequivocal adoption of the eight hour day throughout the country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If any member of this House will introduce a measure which will make possible the eight hour day to the advantage of the working people of this country, a Bill which it will be within the jurisdiction of this House to pass


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. KING

he will find this government ready to support any measure of that

kind. The hon. gentleman knows very well that the provincial legislatures have the power to enact laws in regard to the hours of labour generally.


Arthur Meighen: The minister, I can see, was even less successful than he was before. The House will understand one thing, and that is the extreme capaciousness of his ifs in the answer he gave me. Now on various other grounds the Minister of Labour objected to this Bill. He objected to it because it would extend the principle of the doctrine of an eight hour day into fields into which it was never intended to move at all, it would extend the principle of an eight hour day into factories where it could not be universally adopted. The ingenuity of the minister was taxed to the extreme to find objections to this Bill, but all the while he was engaged in pious affirmations of what is known vaguely as the principle of the Bill. While the Minister of Labour succeeded, with the support of his followers behind him, in talking this Bill to that bourne, to that graveyard, from which few if any travellers return, he certainly succeeded in talking the principle of .the Bill into a black and hopeless eternity. Now, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I agree with my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Eeid) as opposed to the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan), that I am not impressed very much with the sincerity exhibited so far in this House by the Minister of Labour. It seems to me that, instead of living up to the expectations of this country in regard to sincerity, he has rather invaded the field of the Minister of Public Works, and will soon share with him the unenviable reputation of being the arch jollier of this generation. So far as I am concerned, and I think those on this side of the House will coincide with me, I would like another speech from the Minister of Labour, and I would like him definitely to answer the question put to him by the member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor), and let us know once and for all where the government stand on the question of whether they are prepared to adopt an eight hour day for labour on government works.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Is the House ready for the question? I do not think this amended motion is drawn in the way it should be.


Alphonse Verville: I wish it to read as follows:
That Bill (No. 21) he referred to a special committee consisting of Messrs. Mackenzie King, Smith (Nanaimo), Macdonell, Prouse, Staples, Marshall and Miller, said committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, to swear witnesses, to examine them under oath, and to report from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: 



ELECTIONS ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL moved the second reading of Bill (No. 22) to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: Before the second reading of the Bill is carried, I would like to point out exactly what it proposes to do It is in two respects an entire reversal of what has been the practice under our Dominion Elections Act for several years. The first proposition of the Bill is to repeal three sections of the present law, which require the making of a deposit of $200 by every candidate. That, of course, is simply a question of policy, of expediency. For myself, I think the present law has worked well, and that it would be a great pity to change it. The requirement of a deposit of $200 was introduced into our Election Act some years ago to meet a difficulty which I am sure every one who has followed the history of elections m this country must have seen, either in his own constituency, or in other well known instances in different parts of the country. Continually men were being nominated who had no sort of chance of being elected, who frequently had some ulterior motive rather than any real intention of going to the noils, or any hope of being elected. Perhaps it was to prevent an election by acclamation; perhaps it was to embarrass, to keep at home, the candidate who was undoubtedly likely to be returned, but who, for some reason, it was thought had better not be free to go anywhere outside his own constituency. Now, I do not mean to say for a moment that the requirement of making a deposit of $200 will prevent that sort of thing, or put an end to it; but I do think it exercises a useful check, and that it would be a decidedly retrograde step to return to the old order of things, when any one who could get the necessary signatures to his nomination paper, could put the country to the expense of an election. Ah election is an expensive thing, not only to the candidate, as I fancy every one of us knows to his *cost, but it is an expensive thing to the country; and in many cases, I think, if we had more elections by acclamation the parliament of Canada and the Dominion of Canada would be none the worse off. As I have said, men were, under the old condition of things, frequently nominated for some purpose of embarrassing the opposite candidate, or preventing an election by acclamation. All sorts of reasons for it existed. I am old enough to remember, what I have no doubt my hon. friend who introduced this Bill cannot remember, but I remember very well a distinguished gentleman in the city of Toronto, some 30 odd years ago, who, whenever there was

an election, a general election or a byelection anywhere in that section, managed to obtain a nomination for himself. He did not generally receive more than a dozen or 20 votes in the whole constituency, and it was a standing joke which nobody could understand. But I have heard that this gentleman had the fortune to have some wealthy relatives in the old country, and the nomination regularly at each election was an admirable excuse to elicit their sympathies and their financial aid. Now, while the necessity for a deposit of $200 may not prevent that sort of thing altogether, it certainly acts as a wholesome check, and I should be for my part entirely opposed to returning to the old order of things when there was no check.
Now the other proposition in this Bill '-there are just the two-is again to reverse our present law absolutely and go the full length in the other direction. Under our present law, when the seventh day after nomination day would fall on a statutory holiday, the voting is to take place, not on that holiday, but on the following day. The present law negatively declares that the voting is not to take place on the holiday. This Bill proposes to repeal this provision of the present law and declare affirmatively that the day on which the poll is taken shall be a public holiday throughout Canada. My hon. friend does not explain on the face of this Bill what he would do in the case of a by-election. I do not know if he has thought of that. He does not say whether he would have the voting day a public holiday anywhere else than in the riding or not. But, upon principle, my idea is that the present condition of things is much better than the new condition which my hon. friend would bring about by this Bill. The reason for the present law, postponing the voting day until the day following if the seventh day would fall upon a general holiday, is, I think, very plain. It is in the interest of the preservation of peace and good order at an election. Every one knows that a holiday is very likely to lend itself to other purposes than those of peace and good order, and what necessity there is for the change, I cannot understand. It is an ancient principle, crystallized in the shape of a hymn that I used to be familiar with, that Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do, and I am well satisfied that if we had the voting day throughout the country a general holiday we should only have dozens and dozens of people upon the streets who otherwise would be at their work, and go a long way toward getting back to the old order of things when election day would be a day of riot, mischief making, noise and disturbance in every direction instead of an election being the peaceful, orderly business-like proceeding that it has come to be in Canada. With all respect I would
say to my hon. friend that I think that both of these propositions would be mistakes and that this House ought not to give the Bill its second reading.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I had better have spoken before the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) so as to explain my reasons for introducing this Bill. If I had done so I might possibly have made it unnecessary to go into the matter even at the comparatively short length that he did go into it. My idea in introducing this Bill is to keep in touch with what I believe to be the democratic spirit of the day. I will deal with the two amendments as they appear in the Bill and, firstly, with the question of the deposit, because the Minister of Jusctice has not quite correctly interpreted the effect of the Bill as I had intended it. In regard to the deposit, dealing with the matter historically, I find that the first consolidation and revision of the Election Act after confederation, as far as I have been able to ascertain, took place in the year 1874. On that occasion the question of the deposit by candidates was considered and the law then was that the candidates should deposit $50. The statute of 1874, chap. 7, sec. 19, provides that:
A sum of fifty dollars to be paid to the returning officer at the time the nomination paper shall be filed with him.
That continued to be the law until the next revision and consolidation of the Election Act which took place in 1882. On that occasion the matter was very much debated in the House of Commons and there were several propositions before the House. One was to keep the deposit at $50, another was to eliminate the deposit entirely, and a third was to raise the deposit to $200. On that occasion I find that the Hon. Edward Blake, whose opinion I quote for the benefit of hon. gentlemen opposite, spoke as follows, as will be found at page 264 of the debates of the House of Commons, 1882:
But much may, on the other hand, be said against the proposition to increase that deposit to $200. I have never favoured, much, any deposit at all. I have always thought that we were trenching upon very dangerous ground when we proposed to create impediments in the way of a fair expression of opinion by the people at the polls by bringing forward candidates. ... But, I must say that I feel personally hostile to the increase of the deposit. I think that we ought not to increase the difficulties in the way of a presentation of as many candidates as five and twenty electors choose to nominate for the consideration of the people at any election.
That was then the number required to sign the nomination paper.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ives) says that this measure is, in the whole, a measure in case of intending candidates. I do not think

so. I think that the provision of so substantial a deposit as $200 is a provision which will very often prevent contests when it would be hardly desirable that there should be contests.' ... I hope that if the Bill passes this House, the amount of the deposit will be reduced to the old figure.


George Perry Graham: What was the amount of the deposit?


Angus Claude Macdonell: It was $50 from 1874 to 1882. In 1882 it was raised by the Bill then presented to $200, and it has stood at that figure ever since. My desire is to make it unnecessary to have any deposit. Long since' the property qualification has been removed. No progressive nation requires any "property qualification and very few require a deposit at election time. The idea seems to be to remove all barriers as far as possible to entry to the House of Commons of whomsoever the people shall select irrespective of any money consideration. I think that is a fair deduction to take from the words of the Hon. Mr. Blake which I have just read. It seems to me that there should be no impediment placed across the floor of the House of Commons of a financial nature against any person whose nomination paper is signed by the required number of duly qualified electors. The deposit is not a very large matter, it is true, but it is the sum of $200. The Minister of Justice has referred to the danger of a multiplicity of candidates by making it easy for persons to run who are not seriously candidates, but who interject themselves into the campaign without any hope of success. Long since the province of Ontario has abolished any deposit in regard to provincial elections. There is no deposit necessary to be made in Ontario, and yet it has not been found that it has the tendency of increasing the number of candidates who present themselves at the polls. I think there is no greater number presenting themselves at the provincial elections than there is at Dominion elections. There is no occasion for such a thing, it is simply an ancient impediment to entry into parliament. The minister and I apparently cannot agree on the principle of the thing, but I do think I will have his concurrence in the statement that elections fairly won have been upset by some neglect of the mere technicalities surrounding the making of this deposit. I think that the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Thornton) after being duly elected to the House on one occasion would not be allowed to take his seat because the deposit was put up in the shape of a marked cheque instead of legal tender. So far as I have been able to find, I do not think any: such financial restriction exists in any other country. A candidate in England is not required to put up a deposit.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Would the hon. gentleman give me any instance in which Mr. MACDONELL.
elections have been set aside in this country for irregularities in connection with the making of the deposit; I do not remember any.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I mentioned the case of Durham.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I beg to say that that election was set aside for corrupt practices.


Angus Claude Macdonell: No; the Minister of Justice must be referring, to an election prior to that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was set aside because a marked cheque was put up for the deposit, instead of cash.
Mr. AYLESWORTH, I am referring to the election in which there was a question as to the return as between the present member for Durham and his opponent. That election went to trial at Cobourg and -the election was voided and a new election ordered on account of a corrupt practice by an agent.


Mr. THORNTON.: I beg to say that statement is not correct.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I thought I was right.
Mr. GRAHAM- It is fair to the Minister of Justice to say that he says he knows whereof he speaks as he rvas in the case.


Angus Claude Macdonell: There were two Durham cases, one was as the Minister of Justice points out, and one was as the hon. member for Durham has pointed out.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I do not know whether there is a misunderstanding between the hon. member and myself on the subject, but there was but one election, one voting; there were two petitions with respect to that election and the result of the trial of the two petitions which took place befpre the same two judges was as I have stated. I appeared as counsel at that time for the petitioner and sought to obtain a new election and a new election was ordered on the proving of a clear case of bribery by an agent. The question as to the regularity of the deposit was not considered by the learned judges and the case was not carried to an appeal but a new election was had.


Charles Jonas Thornton: Mr. Speaker, I happen to know something of the case referred to by the Minister of Justice. I say most emphatically there was not one word in the deliverance of the judges in connection with that case that said the judgment was voided on account of corrupt practices; not one sentence not a single word from beginning to end.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I think that bears my statement out. There were two cases,

the Minister of Justice has referred to one, and I am referring to another.


George Perry Graham: Let us get it straightened out; would my hon. friend tell us what year it was and we will get the record.


Charles Jonas Thornton: In the general election of 1900 there were two candidates in the field, myself and my opponent Mr. Beith. I had a clear majority of 42 and the returning officer refused to declare me elected because my deposit was made by a marked cheque instead of in bills as required by law. West Durham was vacant for one whole session of this parliament because of the refusal of the returning officer to declare the candidate having the most votes elected. The question came up in this House time and again. It was declared by the Hon. David Mills (Minister of Justice) that it was the clear duty of the returning officer to declare the candidate having the most votes elected. Sir Wilfrid Laurier made the statement on the floor of the House and so did every one else who had any authority to speak on the subject. West Durham was vacant one whole session of this House because the returning officer refused to declare the candidate having the most votes elected. The seat was declared vacant, not because of corrupt practices on the part of the candidate or any of its agents, because in the deliverance of the judges which 1 have in my possession, there is not one syllable that says that the seat was vacated because of corrupt practices on the part of the candidate or any of his agents, and the statement made by the Minister of Justice is incorrect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the law about the deposit was afterwards amended.
Mr. .4YLESWORTH. I understood the hon. member from Durham stated that the decision of the judges contained nothing with reference to corrupt practices. I beg to say that is an entire mistake; the election was voided solely and only upon the ground that corrupt practices were proven.


Charles Jonas Thornton: I challenge the Minister of Justice to produce the deliverance of the judges .on that occasion and if there is one syllable in the deliverance of the judges on that occasion to the effect that they vacated the seat on account of corrupt practices I will immediately vacate the seat I hold for Durham.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How could the seat be vacated on account of corrupt practices when the returning officer refused to return any one?


William Stevens Fielding: The records will show; there is evidently a misapprehension somewhere.


Angus Claude Macdonell: No member was returned and there could be no unseating. The Minister of Justice must have another occasion in his mind altogether and that is the only way I can explain his lack of memory. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I can find no precedent in the laws of other countries for this deposit. The abolition of this deposit had been asked for by public bodies and by democratic bodies throughout this country. The Minister of Labour will no doubt bear me out that the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada have frequently asked for the removal of this impediment in the way of a free entry into this House of any man who chooses to be a candidate. It is for the members of this House to say whether or not there is to be a barrier placed at the door of the House of Commons to collect a toll of $200 before a man can be a candidate. Is it worth while; what is the reason for it? It is an ancient provision. Originally it went to the returning officer for the election expenses, and now if the candidate does not poll one-half as many votes as the successful candidate it goes to the revenues of the country. I do not think the revenues of the country should be supplemented from any such source as that. Now, with regard to the day of votation being a holiday I do not think the Minister of Justice did me justice or treated me with courtesy in the manner in which he referred to that feature of the Bill. My idea in bringing this amendment to the attention of the House is to prevent corruption and it has nothing to do with making election day a day of jollification.
This Bill does not provide for a holiday in cases of by-elections. It simply provides that the day set apart for a general election throughout Canada shall be a public holiday, which as we know, takes place only once in four or five years. I propose this amendment because I believe the present system, under which the polls are open only from nine to five, produces an immense amount of corruption. The hours of polling are so limited that the man who has the means of engaging vehicles and getting out the vote, gets it out. I believe there would be much less corruption if the whole day were a public holiday. What opportunity have the working people to record their vote between the hours of nine and five? They go to work at six, seven or eight o'clock at the latest, long before the polls are opened, and do not leave their work until after five, so that the only opportunity they have of voting is between twelve and one, and it is that hour that is taken advantage of by the candidate with money and vehicles at his disposal to bring the voters from factories and workshops to the polls. All other countries whose election laws I have been able to examine either make election day a holiday or hold

the election on Sunday. The latter is the case in some European countries^ In France, in Germany, and I think in Belgium, the voting takes place on Sunday; in Denmark there is a half-holiday. In the United States 33 of the states make election day a public holiday. In Illinois the polls are open from 5.30 a.m. to 9 p.m. In England they are open, I think, until nine o'clock at night. In other countries they open as early as six or half past six in the morning. In these countries every man is given a chance to poll his vote, whereas in Canada, unless a man is prepared to leave his work and lose his pay for the time he is absent, he has no opportunity to vote unless he can do so at the noon hour; and we know that in large cities it is often impossible for a man to go to the polling place and get back to his work, besides eating his meal, in the hour. If the government object to making election day a holiday, I am willing that the Bill should be amended to provide that the polls shall open earlier in the morning, so as to give the working classes and the people generally a chance to vote; because there are a large number of people not belonging to what are ordinarily called working people, clerks and others, who find it difficult or impossible to leave their employment during the present polling hours. Then, there is sometimes a disposition on the part of certain employers of labour to prevent their employees voting unless they vote as they wish them to. There is a great deal of intimidation of this kind, and I think to make election day a holiday or to have the polls open earlier would afford all people a chance to vote on an independent basis. If it is too much to make the whole day a holiday, let the Bill be modified in some such way as I have suggested. There is nothing very revolutionary in this. The amendments I propose are along the line of giving the men on the street a fair chance with the capitalist and the large employer. I can do no more than bring these matters to the attention of the House. I have done it to the best of my ability consistent with brevity. I hope the Minister of Justice will reverse his decision with regard to these matters, just as I believe he will reverse his opinion when he refers to the record and finds that the hon. member for Durham is correct in what he has said.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: To justify the statement I made a few minutes ago with reference to the Durham election, the election trial in question took place, according to the certificate of the judges, on the 7th and 8th of June, 1901. There were two petitions, one by Charles Jonas Thornton claiming the seat and the other by Charles Burnham against Charles Jonas Thronton to set aside the election and have a new one ordered. The judgment, to be found on Mr. MACDONELL.
the second page of the journals of this House for 1902, states:
The said petition, by reason of certain preliminary objections and an appeal thereon to the Supreme Court of Canada, was never at issue until the 10th day of May, 1901, and was tried before us at the town of Cobourg on the 7th and 8th of June, 1901, whereupon having heard the evidence adduced, and the petitioner having abandoned his claim to have the said Robert Beith declared to have been elected, we determined and adjudged that Win. L. Gerrie, an agent of the said respondent, Charles Jonas Thornton, at the said election had been guilty of corrupt practices at the said election, but without the knowledge or consent of the said Charles Jonas Thornton: whereupon the said Charles Jonas Thornton, abandoned his claim to be declared to have been elected.


Charles Jonas Thornton: I made the statement a moment ago, with reference to the deliverance of the judges in that case, Judges Falconbridge and Street, that they did not say that the seat was vacated because of corrupt practices on the part of myself who was a candidate in that election. I repeat that statement, and I will produce to this House, inside of the next week, the deliverance of the judges as certified to by the official stenographer of the court, it my statement be incorrect. I will do what I said I would a few moments ago-vacate mv seat, on condition that if it is correct, then the Minister of Justice will vacate his seat.


Samuel Hughes: In the Durham election, the hon. member, (Mr. Thornton) received the majority of votes legally cast. It was found out that his agent, Robert Loscombe, had placed in a marked cheque instead of the cash as required by law, and on that technicality, Mr. Thornton was denied the right to take the seat which was his by a majority of the votes cast. These are the facts.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I beg to move that the Bill be not read now the second time, but this day six months.


Mr. C. J. DOHERTY (Montreal St. Anne's).: I would like to detain the House just a few minutes to place before it some considerations, which, I think, if the hon. gentlemen will give them thought, will lead them to conclude that this Bill deserves much more serious consideration than has been given it within the last few minutes. It seems to me that the reasons advanced by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) in support of his proposition, ought in themselves to carry conviction; but there are also perhaps larger and wider considerations which might be invoked in its favour.	.	,	,	...
It seems to me that the two propositions in this Bill deserve the support of this House, not perhaps so much because of what they will themselves effect, if carried

into law, as because they will serve as beginning of improvements to our election system and tend to remove what constitutes in the public mind a very false impression of what really an election should be. There can be no doubt that there is an impression in the public mind that an election is an operation whereby two or more gentlemen, anxious to become members of this House, throw themselves into a, struggle in which they are prepared to expend their money, their efforts, their eloquence and arguments for the purpose of attaining positions for themselves. That is an impression entirely the reverse of the conception of what an election ought to be, namely, an operation by which the people calmly and quietly select the men who, in their judgment, are best qualified to represent them and to legislate! to the best advantage of this country. That false conception is in a measure due to the very provisions of the law this Bill seeks to amend. What is this requirement of a deposit of $200 but the announcement that an election to this House is something which must cost money to the candidate or which must at all events expose him to the loss of money. In other words, that no man, who is not sufficiently anxious to get into this House, to spend $200 or, at the very least, to be willing to bet $200 that he can get half as many votes as the candidate opposed to him, can under any circumstances he entitled to represent any constituency in this country, and that no body of electors, no matter how anxious they may be that a certain individual should be their representative, shall be entitled to vote for him unless he is sufficiently anxious or has sufficient confidence in the result to bet $200, or unless his electors are sufficiently confident of his election to make themselves the bet of $200. Unless the condition be fulfilled, they shall be debarred from voting for the man of their choice. This put the candidate in a position which, it seems to me, no candidate ever should occupy, of seeking favour at the hands of his electors, seeking something for himself that he is willing to pay or risk his money for; whereas the real fact is, and, it seems to me, ought to be so understood, that the man who comes forward consents to place his services at the disposition of his fellow-citizens and fellow countrymen and does-not seek at their hands something for himself. I am compelled to admit that the impression is widespread that every man who is willing to serve his fellow-citizens as a member of this House is out seeking for the position and wanting it for himself! Any thing that can be done to remove that impression, I think, might well be done. And I believe the abolition of this deposit of $200 required of the candidate would be, at all events, a help in doing away with
that very false and very erroneous impression.
It is said that the purpose of this deposit is to prevent people who have no possible chance of being elected from presenting themselves and putting the constituency to the trouble and turmoil and the country to the expense of an election, as well as putting the opposing party to such expense as he may incur. But may I humbly suggest that there may be a better method found to protect the country and the constituency against these consequences than this requirement of a deposit of $200. The law now says to every qualified person: If you are anxious enough to have a chance of becoming a member of parliament to put up $200, go ahead and put the constituency and country to the expense and the constituency to the turmoil and agitation of an election contest. In other words, the measure of a man's right to present himself in desperate circumstances is whether his anxiety to get into parliament is great enough to make him risk $200. I would like to suggest that a fairer test, and as effectual a check, would be an increase in the number of persons required to nominate a man for the position of member of this House. It is a very 'rational proposition that a man should not be entitled to provoke an election where there is a manifest, or, at all events, a strongly presumable, impossibility of his succeeding or even of coming as near to success as polling half the votes of his opponent. But is it a reasonable way to decide whether there is such an impossibility to say:
: If you are willing to risk $200 on it, you may come forward ? This makes the right to come forward, as I say, depend upon the anxiety of the individual to have the chance to get in. Why not make the permissibility of a man coming forward and provoking an election contest depend upon whether or not he can produce reasonable evidence of a desire on the part _ of some considerable portion of the electors that he should be elected? I am not suggesting that we should require a majority or anything approaching a majority. But surely, in a constituency of eight or ten thousand electors, it would be a more reasonable thing to say that a man should not come forward as a candidate unless he can show at least 100, or 150, or 200 electors in that division desiring him to come forward, than to say that he can come forward if he has $200 to bet on the chance of his being elected. This would prove as effective a check to ill-advised candidature, if I may use the word. Surely, the man who will come forward with his nomination signed by, let us say, one per cent of the electors, would be in a better position to say he had reasonable ground for provoking a contest than the man who has no

other reason to advance than that he is willing to bet $200 that he will get at least half as many votes as hin opponent. I do not say that it is not desirable to prevent unnecessary contests, but here is a means of preventing unnecessary contests ready to the hand of legislators if they will adopt such a provision as I suggest. It would have another advantage; it would go further in carrying home to the minds of the electors that an election was not an effort of a man to get himself elected, and involving at the very outset, at the behest of the law, his putting up money for the opportunity. Is not the country in a peculiar position in reproaching an individual elector who expects something from the candidate in return for helping him to get elected, when itself says that a man shall not be a candidate unless he takes the chances of paying the country $200? It seems to me the first provision of this Bill merits the most serious consideration, and for my part I have no hesitation in saying that it is a measure, which, in my judgment, would be a distinct improvement on the law as it stands. I think I might fairly call-did I desire to do so-for the support of the hon. member (Mr. Miller) who the other day introduced a Bill for the prohibition of race-track gambling. Why here is an election Act that requires that every candidate should be a gambler. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) the other day gave us a number of instances of acts that amounted to gambling. Can you call it anything else than a bet when a candidate is called upon to put down $200 on the condition that if he gets half as many votes as his opponent he shall receive back his money, but shall forfeit it otherwise? What is the operation but a bet on the part of the candidate that he will get half as many votes as his adversary, the country taking the dignified position of standing up and saying, ' I bet you, you can't do it.'
Now with regard to the second proposition, I think it can be supported by reasons resting on the same basis. The reason we have heard urged against it is the danger that if you create a public holiday the people may use it for purposes other than that which was intended, and may indulge in disorderly practices, upon the principle that Satan finds mischief for idle hands to do. Now that would be rather a dangerous principle to carry to its logical conclusion. What are we going to do with the Sabbath day? What are we going to do with all our statutory holidays? Is there any reason to fear that on this particular holiday Satan will be particularly busy? I would not like to suppose that the experience of the Minister of Justice in elections leads him to the conclusion that it is a day when Satan gets in his finest work. But it seems to me that to say that you do not dare to give the Mr. DOHERTY.
people of this country a public holiday on election day because they would abuse it, is a very weak reason in face of the positive reasons in support of this Bill advanced by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell). Now I would like to add one other reason, and it is based on the same general principle which leads me to support the first proposition of this Bill, and that is that the declaration of a public statutory holiday by the governing power would be a measure notifying the whole people that their country looks to them to give one day to the performance of what is the most important civic duty that each one of us owes to his country. Surely, if for nothing else than to bring home to the people their duty in an election, it would be worth while that this government should say to them: We expect you to give that day to the performance of the duty of selecting a man to represent you; you shall not go about your ordinary avocations, you shall not treat your private business as of greater importance than your public duty, you shall not wait until somebody sends a wagon after you, until half a dozen people run after you, and bring you up in state to the polls. No, the election of a member to represent you is a duty you owe to your country, and you shall give this one day to the performance of that duty. It seems to me that such a provision would remove one of the disadvantages under which working men frequently suffer, as has been eloquently pointed out by my hon. friend from South Toronto, and it would furthermore remove an excuse which men frequently offer for abstaining from the performance of that duty. We all know the excuses which men give for refusing to go to the polls. I hardly think it will be denied that, except under very exceptional circumstances, such men are failing to perform a duty which they owe to their country. I would take away from that class of men all excuse, such as their business interest, the necessity of pursuing their daily avocations. This proposition would place those men in a position where they would be forcibly made to understand that they must give up a day to this work, it' would deprive them of all excuse of refusing to do their duty by going to the polls. Sir, I think these two propositions, if carried into law, will help the attainment of a far-reaching result, namely, the result of bringing home to the people of this country the conviction that casting a vote in an election is a duty they owe to the country, and of removing the widespread belief that an election is but an opportunity extended to certain persons of aggrandizing _ themselves by spending their money in deposits or otherwise, to induce people to go and vote. It is because I believe those two propositions carried into law would be steps
. DECEMBER 9, 1909
in the direction of producing that result, that I shall vote against the amendment, and in favour of the measure proposed by my hon. friend from South Toronto.


Mr. E. BRISTOL (Centre Toronto).: I believe it would be yery much to the interest of this country that the Bill introduced by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) should be passed into law. I do not propose to speak at length in its favour, inasmuch as my hon. friend from South Toronto and my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Doherty) have very ably presented strong considerations which should induce this House to pass the Bill. I cannot, however, refrain from saying that I believe a refusal on the part of this House to abolish the deposit is really a restraint on the discussion of public issues at elections. There are in every country a great many matters of public interest which, in the first instance, have not many converts; there are many men who wish to advance ideas with which at the moment the general public do not agree. There is no logical Teason, in my judgment, why such men, if they have a sufficiently signed petition, should not be permitted to place their names before the public, and to address the public on such issues as they believe of national importance. I believe, therefore, it is in the public interest there should be the fullest opportunity given to men who receive a reasonably signed nomination of expressing their views, and receiving the votes of their fellow-citizens. I do_ not see that the public are in any way injured. I do not see how any one can reasonably oppose the proposition. I would think that hon. gentlemen opposite would have been moved to a more favourable consideration of this measure when they were reminded that in the province of Ontario they had placed such a law on the statute-book of that province, and when moreover they remember the views of their former distinguished leader, the Hon. Edward Blake. With reference to the second part of the Bill, it seems to me that the argument, if you can call it such, of the Minister of Justice is an insult to the intelligence of this House. To suggest that a public holiday should not be given for the performance of the most important duty that the people have to perform every five years, namely, the election of members of the House of Commons, to suggest that a public holiday should not be given because it might end in riot and drunkenness, is,
I affirm, an insult to the intelligence of the people of this country. That might have applied in the old days of open voting, when bars were in full swing, and barrels of beer were all around. But people have advanced during the last forty years, both in temperance and in intelligence. I quite agree with my hon. friend from Montreal 41
(Mr. Doherty) that every opportunity should be given on this particular day for the expression of public opinion, and for every citizen to take part in a national election. We are talking about compulsory voting in this country. We have been making complaints that people do not go to the polls. Surely it would be in the national interest to give the public every opportunity of going to the polls before we try such legislation as compulsory voting. Is not this a measure in the right direction? Is it not a measure in the interest of the people of Canada? It is easy enough for the rich man to go and vote, it is easy enough for a great many members of the community to go and vote, but in the great cities and in the northern districts it is a difficult and expensive matter for poor people and workingmen to go to the polls. I can only say that I believe that if the Bill of my hon. friend from South Toronto became law, it would tend to decent elections, it would tend to greater interest in the elections, and I think the very fact that one day in five years was set aside as a national holiday for the purpose of electing members to this House would be of great public importance and of great advantage to the people of Canada and to Canada itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to ask a question of the hon. member who has introduced this Bill. The Bill proposes that election day should be on a public holiday. Is it intended that employers of labour shall be required to pay their men their wages?


Angus Claude Macdonell: My idea would be to declare it a public holiday the same as any other holiday allowing the people to vote and stand by whatever arrangements may be made according to the laws__of the different provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mv hon. friend gives no guarantee that wages will be paid on that day?


Edmund James Bristol: Are wages paid on Labour Day or on a government holiday?


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Workmen would certainly get paid the same as they are paid for Labour Day or Dominion Day or any other public holiday.


Arthur Meighen: The only observations I have to make are in regard to the controversy that took place in the House a few moments ago between the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) and the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Thornton). I have made it my business, since that controversy took place, to look up the records and I shall endeavour to state what the facts are simoly from the records and absolutely impartially. An election took place in 1900 in West Durham in wfiich the hon.



member for Durham received the larger number of votes. But he was not declared elected by the returning officer on account of the reason which he stated to the House.


Mr. TALBOT.: Mr. Speaker. May I ask if this question is in order?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is a question of relevancy, but if the House is willing that the debate should go on I shall not rule it out of order.


Arthur Meighen: I quite recognize that it is scarcely relevant but I thought the House would desire to see the matter cleared up. The returning officer, having refused to declare my hon. friend from Durham elected, he entered an action in the High Court of Justice asking for a mandamus compelling the returning officer to declare him elected. That action is styled Charles Jonas Thornton vs. Thomas Bingham, the returning officer, and the report of the judgment is given at page 3, Votes and Proceedings, 1902. The judgment is given by Mr. Justices Palconbridge and Street. The petition of the hon. member for Durham was dismissed by these justices and they decided that he could not compel the returning officer to have him declared elected by reason of the fact that he had not put up his deposit. No mention wnatever is made in the judgment of corrupt practices. Another action was also entered in the courts of justice and I think that possibly my hon. friend from West Durham has had the two confused. Another action was entered by one Charles Burnham, who evidently was a voter, against Charles Jonas Thornton and Thomas Bingham. That action was entered asking that Mr. Thornton's opponent, Mr. Beith, be declared elected on the ground that Mr. Thornton was not legally a candidate, he having put up a marked cheque in place of money with his nomination papers. The petition asked for a mandamus to compel the returning officer to declare Mr. Thornton's opponent elected on this ground. The petitioner went further, however, and alleged the alternative ground, that, if the judges found that Mr. Thornton's nomination papers were in order, his election should be declared void for corrupt practices. The judgment is given at pages 2, Votes and Proceedings, 1902, and in that judgment it was stated that there was no election:
And we further report that at the said election neither the said Charles Jonas Thornton nor the said Robert Beith was returned as elected, and that the said election was and is void.
But, in the course of the judgment, and this is evidently what the Minister of Justice referred to, corrupt practice was said to have been proved on the part of one W. L. Gerrie but without the knowledge or consent of Mr. Thornton. That election was not declared void on account of corrupt Mr. MEIGHEN.
practices, so that I think the Minister of Justice will have to concede that he was wrong in that regard. The corrupt practices are referred to in the judgment as having been committed by one Gerrie, agent of Mr. Thornton, without the latter knowledge or consent. They simply say ' whereupon the said Charles Jonas Thornton abandoned his claim to be declared to have been elected ' and then they add that on account of no one having been returned elected the election was null and void. I have stated it as clearly and as fairly as I could.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, I see no reasonable objection to this Bill and it seems to me that there is very much to commend it to the judgment of the House and the country as well. In the first place it has been asked for by very respectable classes; of the community. The patrons of industry, representing' the great agricultural class, have passed resolutions more than once asking the government to make this amendment to do away with any deposit by a candidate when he is running for election. I think that their views ought to be entitled to some consideration. Have the government given us any strong grounds in favour of putting up a deposit of $200 or is there any strong justification why it should be done? But, in addition to the patrons of industry, I notice that the labour unions all over the country have also passed resolutions favouring the abolition of the $200 deposit in elections. Surely the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) can hardly say that it is defensible to give these important elements a slap in the face by moving the six months hoist. It is not very courteous to them to say the- least. But, he can reckon with them. It is not my funeral, it is his own and I am quite willing to leave the matter with him. The minister, the other night, gave us a splendid address on gambling and betting. What is the situation here? The hon. member for Montreal, St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) made an allusion which was very fair, but if I were to elaborate it a little more I would say that the government become the bookmaker in this respect, and, therefore, are gamblers on a race, the only difference being that this is a human race instead of a horse race. The government, through the Minister of Justice, say:	We will bet you
$200 that you cannot get half the vote that the successful candidate gets and if you believe that you can and put up the money the government act as the book-maker and stakeholder. The Minister of Justice tells us that if he had the power he would do away with all gambling, but here is evidence that he does not practise what he preaches. I always thought there was another argument in favour of the proposal

to make election day a public holiday and that is that it would result in minimizing the possibility of purchasing votes. The poor man does not want to leave his business on voting day, in the first place because he may offend his employer and in the second place if he leaves his work he will be losing a portion or the whole of his day's wage. It is a very strong temptation to induce that man to take compensation for the time he has lost in going to the polls, which of course is corruption. If you had a public holiday on votation day this temptation would be done away with and at the same time you would give the labouring men of this country an opportunity to exercise their franchise without any personal loss to them. There is a good deal in the argument of my hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Doherty) that if election day were a public holiday the citizens of Canada would be likely to appreciate the importance of what they are doing on that day and enter into the election of their representative with more vim and more enthusiasm.


Mr. PROULX.: Does not my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) think that if you made election day a public holiday a great many people would be disposed to travel on that day instead of staying at home to vote? If you adopt such legislation as that you would have to incorporate with it the principle of compulsory voting.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are a great many people who favour compulsory voting, and one of the strongest arguments against it always has been that it would compel a man to lose his day's wage to go to vote.


Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: I wish to protest against the evident desire of the Minister of Justice to give this Bill the six months hoist. We had before us a Bill at an earlier stage of this day's sitting regarding the eight hour day, which gentlemen on the other side professed to favour in principle, but the details of which they did not agree with, a.nd so the government referred that Bill to a select committee for the purpose of selecting its best features and Submitting them for the opinion of the House. Now, there is a good principle in the Bill we are now discussing and why should the government propose to murder it by giving it the six months hoist. There may be details in the Bill which we cannot assent to, but there are certainly good principles in it and why the other Bill should be sent to a special committee and this Bill knifed by the six months hoist, is something that I do not see the logic of. I must confess that my mind is open with regard to the question of the deposit, and I think there is a great deal to be said for and against it, but it does seem to me that the proposal to abolish it deserves more con-41}
sideration than a cold six months hoist. Then, with regard to the principle that on election day there should be a holiday to give every voter a reasonable opportunity to exercise his franchise, I do not think any man can say that principle is not worthy of acceptance. In the province of British Columbia we keep the polls open until seven o'clock at night in order to give every man who is employed in business or in the mills or in the mines a fair opportunity to exercise his franchise. As was pointed out by my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) what is the good of our boasting as we do about the sacred right of the franchise and the triumph of democracy, when we do not really try to make it sacred by emphasizing the vital importance to every man of the step he is about to take when he casts his vote. We talk about a holiday, in every truth it would be a holy day, if we could impress upon the mind of every voter the great national importance of electing men who would legislate for the welfare of the country. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) has stated that he was willing to have his Bill amended in its details so long as the principle incorporated in it were adopted by parliament, and in view of that I shall be glad to record my vote against the proposal of the Minister of Justice to give this Bill the six months hoist.


William Stevens Fielding: One or two hon. gentlemen seem to think that when we follow the well established rule of the House in moving that a Bill be read six months hence, it is something in the way of an insult to somebody. Why should it be regarded as an insult to any body if the House follows an old established rule in this respect?


Edmund James Bristol: What I said was that the reasons given by the Minister of Justice were an insult to the intelligence of the people of the country, and I repeat it, because the reason given by the Minister of Justice against having election day a public holiday was that it would result in riot and drink. If the government wishes to shelve the consideration of this measure by moving the six months hoist I do not consider that would be an insult to any body and I did not say it was.


William Stevens Fielding: There is nothing easier than to answer an argument of your opponent by saying it is an insult to the intelligence of the House. But I never found there was much argument in a statement of that character and I do find that those who usd it are generally those who are not noted for advancing a sensible argument.
I have listened with pleasure as I always do to the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) who gave us a moderate, and from his point of view, a well reasoned speech



' 1287 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
on this subject. With all that he said as to the desirability of establishing a higher conception of the relations between the candidate and the electorate I am most heartily in sympathy. It is a misfortune that at times many of the electors fail to realize what is the true position of the candidate and that the candidate is treated as one who has some personal gain to serve. If I thought ther.e was anything in this Bill to bring about that higher and better conception in the mind of the electorate of the position of a public man, I should most heartily give it my approval, but I have not been able to see that my hon. friend from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) made his point good with reference to that particular phase of the question. One hon. gentleman has stated that the principle of this Bill is all right and that the details can be fixed up in committee. There are just two principles in this Bill and it so happens that both of them are regarded as objectionable by hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this side. The first principle is the abolition of the deposit, and you could not fix that up in committee. It is a question of whether or not it is right or wrong to have a deposit. I am afraid I am growing a little Conservative. I am afraid I am beginning to have more regard for the thing that is. I said the other day that there was a time when I used to think there were a thousand and one things which should not be, but as I grow older I am beginning to believe there is a reason for the thing that is established and if we look for that reason closely we are sure to find it. I have no doubt that the men of former days who in this parliament pronounced in favour of the principle of a deposit-not an extravagant deposit-were actuated by the highest sense of propriety and I am inclined to think, after the discussion that has taken place to-day, that their reasons were good then and are good now. It has been said by some that the $200 deposit is a kind of a'penalty, but that is not the right way to look at it. It is not a penalty. If a man can get but a very moderate proportion of the votes of the electorate, the $200 is paid back to him, and that as a rule happens. There are hut few cases, after all, in which a man loses his deposit. That there should be something to prevent frivolous elections is surely a principle that members on both sides will accept. It is a question of method. The hon. member for St. Anne's (Mr. Doherty) suggests as a substitute that we should require a requisition signed by a small number of voters, say 150 or 200, on the part of a candidate. I would ask my hon. friend to think a little further over that. Take a great constituency like that which he represents; what are 200 votes in proportion to the total electors? And if Mr. FIELDING.
it turned out that a candidate did not receive any more votes than the 150 or 200 on the requisition, is it reasonable that that great constituency should be put to the trouble and worry and expense of an election merely to gratify the vanity of a man who, it is perfectly clear, has no considerable following in the community ? If he has any considerable following, he will have no difficulty in getting the $200. I doubt if there has ever been a case of a bona fide candidate representing any considerable interest in a constituency who failed to get the $200; and in a very few cases in which a man has lost his deposit, I think hon. gentlemen, if they look at each individual case, will say that he was a foolish man to run, that he did not represent any great interest or sentiment, and that there was no need of his butting in and putting the community to the expense and trouble of an election. So I think the $203 deposit is good, and I do not think the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. Anne put so moderately and argued so forcibly, would quite meet the case. Then with regard to the proposal of a holiday on election day, the Minister of Justice ventured to suggest that it might possibly be abused. My hon. friend from Toronto Centre (Mr. Bristol) says that is an insult to somebody, and another hon. member says, what about the Sabbath-should it not be a holiday for fear it would be abused? Let us recognize the fact that the average elector is a bit different on election day from what he is on the Sabbath day. The Sabbath does not as a rule excite the average man; but we all know that in the field of party strife a considerable proportion of the electors are stirred up and excited on election day. So I think there is reason for regarding the Sabbath as not a holiday of the same kind. Then, there is the other view, that there are a great many people who do not take the keenest interest in politics, but who love a holiday, and if you gave them a holiday, they would go out of town instead of staying to vote. The hon. member for East Grey says that under the present arrangement a man cannot get away to vote, because if he went he would lose one or two hours. If he cannot afford to take two hours to vote, how could he afford to take a whole holiday? It is not reasonably conceivable that the average employer is going to pay his workmen on that day when they are absent.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they not do it on Labour Day?


William Stevens Fielding: There may be some generous, large-hearted men who do it, but they are not bound to do it, and I do not think the average employer does it. So I think the result would be that die average workman would lose his day's pay and

would have no substantial advantage in return. The hon. member for South Toronto, in his argument, introduced a new feature and one that would commend itself,
I think, to members on both sides. He went beyond this Bill and said that the hours of voting were insufficient. If my hon. friend can show that the workingmen of the country are for that reason denied .the opportunity of vodng, let him introduce a Bill on that subject, and I hope it will find favour in the House.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Then, why not let this Bill go to the committee, and there introduce an amendment lengthening the hours of polling instead of making the day a holiday?


William Stevens Fielding: Because this Bill has no relation to the hours of polling. It deals with a holiday, but does not propose to change the hours of polling.


Angus Claude Macdonell: That portion of the Bill deals with the opportunity of voting. I ask that a day be set apart as a general holiday for that purpose. If that is not in accord with the views of the government, let the opportunity of voting be given by extending the hours of polling.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not quite see the connection between the two. The holiday is one question, the hours of voting another question, and the deposit another question. The Bill deals with the deposit and the holiday, but it does not touch the question of the hours of voting. I say that if it be found by experience, especially in our larger cities, that the present hours of voting are insufficient, and my hon. friend can show that there is need of some further extension of the time, I for one will be in hearty sympathy with that; and in opposing the Bill in its present form, I would not be understood as being opposed to that part of his speech.


Adam Brown Crosby: This Bill is one in which I am interested, but it does not seem to be well understood. The Minister of Finance says we need not have very much sympathy for the man who loses his deposit. We had a case in the county of Cumberland only a few weeks ago, where the Liberals and Conservatives each nominated a candidate and the labour party nominated a candidate. This man polled 1,300 votes, a sufficient number to elect him in many constituencies, but he lost his deposit. Will the Finance Minister say that he should have lost his deposit, after having been solicited to run by a fair number of electors, and having contested a fair and honest election?
Again speaking of a holiday for the purpose of permitting workingmen to poll their votes, there are lots of men who have other
men in their employ, and who may be influenced by the political leanings to let a certain portion of them vote and hold others back. But if the election day were declared a public holiday-and as there is only a general election once in four years nobody could be hurt-every man would have an equal chance to poll his vote. All the workingmen are asking for this, and there is no need for our standing up to tell them they do not know what they want. They want to be in a position, when the day comes, to poll their votes independent of their employers. We know, as a general thing, that men who are employing labour to a large extent, will try and influence the votes of their employees; and if they cannot get them to vote as they please, they will keep them at work so as to prevent them from voting at all


George Perry Graham: I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) because I had something to do with getting a measure through in the Toronto legislature to give workingmen full opportunity to vote. I am free to admit that in my county I have never found the large employers of labour objecting in the slightest to a man going to cast his ballot. In the manufacturing establishments in the town of Brockville-and there are several large ones-not one man in the last twenty years was ever prevented from voting, no matter what his politics or the politics of his employers. The time has gone by when employers dare interfere in that way and they do not do it, so that I think we are raising a bugaboo when we speak of employers not giving their men time to vote. I have alwavs opposed the principle of a holiday on polling day. We know that in elections there are people who sometimes induce men to get away from a constituency; and if they have a holiday they will be the more easily induced to leave the night before and not return in time to vote. Whereas, if working for their employers, they will not want to lose any time and will hesitate before going away. There is another reason. We close the hotels on polling day for a very good reason, but is it fair to say to all men in business, no matter what kind of business, that they must close because there is an election on. Is it fair to say that on polling day all business must stop in the constituency? Is it fair to proclaim the election day a public holiday and enable the employees to go out and close up the business establishments, no matter what the rush mav be? What my hon. friend wants is that every man shall have time to poll his vote, and I think that can be got in a much less drastic way. Let me read the Ontario Act in that respect. I must admit that I am not sure to what

extent this House might have jurisdiction to say to an employer: You must let your employee off certain hours in the day. We could proclaim a general holiday perhaps, but I am not sure that we have jurisdiction to interfere in a contract between employers and employees, but the provincial government surely has. Let me Tead the Act now in force in the province of Ontario, which I submit works well and accomplishes all my hon. friend from South Toronto desires in the way of giving the men opportunity to vote:
On the day of the polling the voting shall commence at nine o'clock in the forenoon, and shall finish at five in the afternoon of the same day, and the votes shall be given by ballot.
A voter entitled to vote within a city or town shall, on the day of polling, for the purpose of voting, be entitled to absent himself from any service or employment in which he is then engaged or employed, from the hour of noon in the day time to the hour of two of the clock next thereafter, and a voter shall not, because of his so absenting himself, be liable to any penalty, or suffer or incur any reduction from the wages or compensation to which, but for his absence, he would have been entitled; provided that if so required by the person in whose service or employment the voter is so engaged or employed, the voter so absenting himself shall, at some other time during the same or the following week, employ himself in and about such service or employment for one hour or more than the hours of the usual and ordinary day's work or service otherwise required to be performed by him.
Tbjs protects the employer and the employee as well, and the workingmen of Ontario have accepted it as a fair arrangement. If my hon. friend will introduce a Bill along these lines, I would endeavour to assist him, so far as the principle is concerned, in putting the measure through the House.
As to the $200 deposit, I adhere to the older custom and law on the statute book, that there should be some substantial deposit before a man places himself in the hands of the public asking for their support. For example, take a seat that becomes vacant, perhaps in this House, through some extraordinary reason. Let me call your attention to one seat which was vacated a few years ago because the hon. gentleman, and he is a most lion, gentleman-I refer to the then member for Hastings (Mr. Corby)-because it was found in some committee that his firm had a contract with the government without his knowledge. On the fact -becoming known to him he immediately resigned his seat in a most honourable manner. It would be easy, in such a case, for some mischievous person to put that riding to the whole expense of an election if he were not called on to make a deposit. On the Mr. GRAHAM.
other hand, the deposit does not debar any responsible man from running. Let us take the other view. Hon. gentlemen who are in municipal politics, in which every one can run, will agree that they know of instances where men have been put up to run merely for fun. Men have signed petitions asking men to run who did not vote for them, but simply wanted them to run to annoy some one else. The hon. member for St. Anne thinks that a large number of signatures would meet the case, but can he not recall to mind instances where men have been asked by petition to run even for parliament, and the same men have signed both petitions merely as a friendly act?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no deposit in Ontario politics, were there are more candidates in the local elections in some constituencies than in the Dominion elections, where a deposit of $200 is required?


George Perry Graham: I am not prepared to say that there are. Still that would be no reason why we should remove what we consider a safeguard for this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it would be an example showing that the hon. minister's argument does not hold good in practice.


George Perry Graham: It might be to my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) but it is not to me. I say again, the law has worked no hardship to any person. I do not believe there is any man in Canada who ought to run for parliament, whom the people of Canada wish to see run for parliament, who has been debarred from running on account of the deposit. I see many reasons why we should retain this provision of the law. [DOT]
Now, a word on another line. I do not think that hon. members ought to feel aggrieved because a portion of the House declares that it does not approve the Bill and cannot conscientiously vote for it. This is a world in which we have our differences. In my experience, before coming to this House, I have withdrawn a Bill time after time though I had my heart set on it, because the leader of the government said: You cannot put it through. And I have pressed other Bills and had them defeated. But I did not think 1 had any grievance merely because the majority did not agree with me on the measures I proposed. In conclusion, let me say that if my hon. friend will introduce a measure to give the workingmen a longer time at noon to vote, especially in the large centres, I shall be heartily in accord with it. But I cannot support this measure, for I have opposed the holiday suggestion in the Ontario legislature for reasons that seem to me good. And I think my reasons are good against doing away with the deposit.


Mr. GEO. GORDON (Nipissing).: I am surprised at the attitude of the Minister of Justice (Mt. Aylesworth) on this Bill. For, though I was not here at the time, I understand that he fathered an Act which would lead to the conclusion that he was very much impressed with the requirements of Northern Ontario. The provisions of this Act are admirably adapted to the requirements of Northern Ontario, and I do not see why the hon. minister should not try to have it put through. In the district of Nipissing, as the hon. Minister of Justice well knows, there are a great many camps in which men are working miles away from a polling booth. And I am told that you would not have had the pleasure of listening to me here to-night had it not been that in the last election certain parties held back men from going to the polls to vote. I think the Minister of Justice should allow a chance to be given to New Ontario to send a supporter of his here after the next election.
I am not saying that that is the case, but I am told that it is so. If we give a holiday to the electors of Northern Ontario on election day, the vote will be increased by probably from 1,000 to 2,000 men being able to get out to the polls who are not able to get out under present circumstances. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) stated that if one or two hours longer were required for the purpose of enabling men to turn out and vote, he would be in favour of such a proposition. But I would point out that in the case I refer to, one or two hours would not be of much use; you would require to have the whole day. With regard to the abolition of the deposit, I may say that I am in favour of that also, because it would meet the requirements of New Ontario, as most of us up there find it difficult to get the $200 to put up. We have many intelligent workingmen who would likely enter into the race, and, as I always like to see a free-for-all race, I would like to see all given an opportunity to enter. And, if you will abolish the deposit next time, you will see a different kind of race from those we have ever had.


Mr. WM. THOBURN (North Lanark).: I have been wonderfully impressed by ^ the remarks of hon. members on both sides. But I have to acknowledge that I am not convinced by the arguments made by most of the hon. members on this side in reference to the Bill. The case was very clearly put by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) in relation to municipal elections. I have had a good deal of experience in municipal elections, and I have no hesitation in saying that if the law were such that candidates in such elections had to put up a deposit, we should have better councils, not only in the province of Ontario but in the whole Dominion, than we have to-day. I
have known many cases of men being put up, as the Minister of Railways says, just for fun, and put up so often that the best men in the municipalities would not_ allow themselves to be offered in opposition to such men in the municipal elections. For that reason, I perfectly agree that the deposit should be put up by candidates in parliamentary elections. In fact, when the thing was mentioned here to-night, I said that instead of abolishing the deposit, I would be in favour of increasing it.
Now, as to the public holiday: it is just a question in my mind whether the great working classes of this country would be in favour of such a Bill, for it means that the working class must lose a day's wages. According to my experience, a great majority would be in favour of earning a day's wages rather than make it a public holiday.
I have heard it stated here tonight that the Trades and Labour Council demanded that election day should be made a holiday.
I am not aware of it. In the town in which I have the honour to live, I have never heard such a thing as the men wanting election day declared a public holiday.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member (Mr. Thoburn) misunderstood me. I said that they passed resolutions in favour of doing away with the deposit of $200-both the labour unions and the patrons of industry.


William Thoburn: I think some hon. member said that.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Let me point out to the hon. member that at an interview held with the government on the 12th day of January, 1909, at Ottawa, by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, represented by their duly accredited officers, this request was made by them.
Abolition of the $200 deposit in election contests, and proclamation of election day as a compulsory legal holiday.


William Thoburn: Well, I do not know that this government has any right to pass a law making election day a public holiday until we have some greater demand for it by the great working classes of this country. It will entail not only a loss to the labouring classes, but a loss to the employers of labour in all large manufacturing industries. I am perfectly in accord with the idea of lengthening the time for polling; but from my standpoint I do not see the necessity of either the abolition of the deposit or the proclamation of a public holiday for election purposes.


Thomas Beattie: I am sorry to have to differ with some of my friends on this side of the House. But I have had some experience with these election deposits, and I would be sorry to see the present law wiped away. On two occasions candidates have been brought up against me. On the
first occasion a petition was hawked around, and a dollar collected here and a dollar there, to enable the candidate to make a deposit. The man just got enough to take the field, and I think he came within a very few votes of losing his deposit. At the last election the same thing happened again. A petition was hawked around the town, and a few dollars were subscribed here, and a few there, to enable the man to take the field against me. To-day 1 do not know where that man has gone to, I have not heard of him since. But he did save his deposit. As for the second proposition, I have seen a poll standing open for half an hour at a time and no voter cast registering. If the poll was kept open until two o'clock in the morning you would still find a few voters standing around waiting for some one to give them a dollar for their vote.


Angus Claude Macdonell: My hon. friend from London who has just addressed the House, according to his own statement, has no grievance against this Bill, because he admits that on each occasion he won the election. He complains that the deposit was raised by men going about the town and collecting a dollar here and a dollar there to enable his opponent to take the field, still my hon. friend admits that he was not hurt. My hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Thoburn) agrees with the deposit, and would apply the principle to municipal elections. Now I had hoped to receive some encouragement from the Minister of Railways and Canals, knowing as I do the part he took in the Ontario legislature, and with his knowledge of the statutes of that province, both as regards the extension of hours for voting on election day, and the abolition of the deposit. I can only attribute his changed attitude to the position taken by the Minister of Justice. The government has not attempted to take the strong and drastic stand on this matter which has been suggested by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Finance let the Minister of Justice down half way, and then the Minister of Railways let him down the whole way. The Minister of Finance referred to the excitement on election day. Now I would like to point out to the Minister of Justice, what he knows, that on election day all the hotels are closed by the law of the province of Ontario. His insinuation that the people would become riotous on that occasion is certainly a reflection on the character of the people of Ontario, and as a member from that province I strongly dissent from his statement that if they were allowed a public holiday they would abuse it. Now I may point out that this request has been made to the government by two strong and influential labour bodies in this country, men who are authorized to speak for the labouring classes. I Mr. BEATTIE.
had hoped that on this occasion the Minister of Labour would have contributed to this debate, and his failure to do so will surely be commented upon, both inside and outside this House. My sole object in bringing this matter to the attention erf the House was to improve the election law, to simplify it, to remove the obstacle of the deposit, which to my mind is the last relic of a financial qualification to parliament. I have endeavoured to do away with it, and the responsibility for its maintenance must rest upon the government and the Minister of Justice.


George Perry Graham: And several friends of my hon. friend.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Well, the government are moving in the matter and it is their motion that we are now going to vote on. I had hoped that something better would come out of it. The Minister of Railways offers some small means of encouragement but I do not know whether he was in the House when I made my few opening remarks. What I said then and what I say now is that I merely suggest a public holiday for the purpose of having the election day purified, and, as far as possible, to remove corruption. I expressed my willingness then and I repeat it now to make any reasonable amendment to this Bill. I would be willing to adopt the Ontario system setting apart two hours for voting or to adopt any other reasonable plan by which the public can obtain a better opportunity of polling their votes on election day. However, with the government must rest the resnonsibility for the decapitation of this Bill. If the government are serious in their desire to facilitate voting on election day then let the Bill go to the committee and make the amendment that the Minister of Railways was kind enough to say that he would vote for. That, however, does not appear to be the intention of the government.
Amendment (Mr. Aylesworth), agreed to.



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL moved the second reading of Bill (No. 23) to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907. He said: The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. King) has some amendments to consider in connection with the Industrial Disputes Act which may conveniently be considered at the same time with the amendments which are contained in this Bill and as I am anxious to advance the Bill to the committee stage I move the second reading with the understanding that it shall be allowed to stand until the Minister of Labour is prepared to consider this Bill and his own amendments.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. gentleman has correctly stated the position, and I am entirely agreeable to what he proposes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 24) to amend the Railway Act- Mr. Macdonell.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) will take up the Water Carriage Bill and if the opportunity comes the House will be moved into supply, my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) beginning his estimates, and my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), if further opportunity presents itself, will follow.


Haughton Lennox: Would the Minister of Finance be kind enough to state whether he proposes to deal with the Budget on Tuesday?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it is our expectation that the Budget will come on Tuesday.	,


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.10 a. m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 10, 1909.