Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Mr. Speaker, if I might be allowed, I would like to refer to a question asked me the other day by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), in reference to a complaint of the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) in reference to an error made in the Intercolonial railway office at Moncton concerning cheap rates for a Conservative picnic that was held in Nova Scotia. The hon. leader of the opposition asked me to ascertain what happened to the junior clerk who had made the mistake-was he promoted for making it or was he reprimanded? As a matter of fact, the young man was fined and placed in a less responsible position, for the time at least, for the error he had made.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. C. L. OWEN (East Northumberland).: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I notice in the Montreal ' Gazette,' in the account of the proceedings of this House yesterday, that I am put down as having voted with the government on the amendment. That is a mistake. I voted for the amendment, but I did not notice that my pair was absent. When that fact was brought to my notice I asked to have Mr. FOSTER
my name erased. At the same time, I said that had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment, because I was of the same opinion as the mover of the amendment, that we should have a little more time to talk this matter over with our constituents before being asked to vote upon it.



SUPPLY-INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into- Committee of Supply.
['I would call the attention of the hon. gentleman in charge of this Bill to the provisions of section 3:\nThe conversion of fifty thousand shares of the capital stock of the company from common stock into five per cent non-cumulative preferred stock, and the issue of such shares as such preferred stock, is declared to be valid and binding upon the company and the shareholders thereof, according to the terms of such conversion and issue.\nI would like to know if the committee had information that that was agreed to by all the holders of common stock. This section makes valid a priority which is given to 50,000 shares of the common stock. That of course is unusual, and would I think, be improper unless all the holders of common stock were parties to it. I would suggest that progress be reported on this Bill so that we can get information on that point.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. BLAIN.: I wish to direct the attention of the government to an incomplete return laid on the table the other day. The return ordered by the House was as follows:	'
How many appointments have been made by the government from the constituency of South Grey since 1904, what are the names, to what positions appointed, and the salary or remuneration in each case?
The government have brought down a return showing something like 26 appointments. It is fair to say that the most of them are very minor appointments, chiefly from the Post Office Department to country post offices worth a few dollars a year. The larger departments have not responded at all. There is no reply from the Public Works Department, none from the Interior Department, none from the Department of Railways and Canals, and none from the Marine and Fisheries Department, the four important spending departments of the government. I cannot understand how this could have been overlooked. One department says it keeps1 no record of that; another says something of the same kind. It seems to me that it would not be a very diflicult task on the part of any department, by consultation with the sitting member for the county, to learn how many appointments had been made from the constituency from all departments of the government since 1904. That is a very reasonable request. I am not going to criticise particularly my hon. frienu who represents the county, as he is not in his seat; but I am informed on very good authority that he makes it a pretty common plank of his platform for re-election that he has been so successful in representing the county having been able to get so many appointments for liis county made in the different departments of the government. As these offices are in the gift of the government, and the salaries come out of the public treasury, the government should be able to say who have been appointed, and where they come from. I did not include the hon. Minister of Finance with the departments that have not been heard from. It may be that my hon. friend from South Grey has been influential with the Minister of Finance.


Mr. FIELDING.: He would be.


Richard Blain: I would think so. My hon. friend is always ready to respond without much persuasion, particuarly to requests coming from that side of the House. 'I would ask the government to obey their own order and to lay on the table of the House a list of these appointments from every department. I suppose my hon. friends will answer that this is an impossible proposition. Everybody in this House knows that it is not. If any department has not a record of the constituency from which each person appointed comes, surely that could be ascertained by consultation with the sitting member who in the main would recommend the persons for the different positions. Then they could lay a complete return on the table of the House, from which the public could understand whether or not my hon. friend was using the proper election method in stating that his constituency was honoured because he was so influential with the government being able to get so many of his electors on the Civil Service pay-roll of the country.


Air. REID (Grenville).: I should think that the Secretary of State would be able to collect from all the different departments the necessary matter for a complete returiT such as is asked for by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain). Another matter which I wish to bring up is this. The other day, when the Prime Minister was absent, I appealed to the government, instead of taking the estimates of the Public Works Department day after day, to vary them with those of some of the other departments. Probably two-thirds of the session have now gone by, and the only department whose estimates we have yet considered in Supply is the Department of Public Works. There are a great many Items for that department, and if we discussed each item fully it would probably take the whole session to deal with that department alone. There are important matters to be considered in the Marine and Fisheries Department, and in the Department of Agriculture which is one of the most important of the government as the Prime Minister will admit, judging by the deputation which was heTe to-day. In the past we have had different departments under consideration from time to time, but this rule is now violated, and I think when we appeal in person to the Prime Minister he will give our appeal attention.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand there have been no appointments made in the Department of Public Works from the constituency of South Grey since 1904?


Air. PUGSLEY.: Will my hon. friend send me over the return?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The motion to adj'ourn was for the purpose of obtaining what information is actually on record in the department, and if my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) has received that I do not know that he can complain.


Richard Blain: I assume that no man is appointed to office by this government unless the government have a record of that appointment?


Wilfrid Laurier: The record of the appointment might not necessarily give the locality the appointee came from.


Richard Blain: These appointments are not usually made at the request of the appointee, but at the request of the sitting member and the government can easily inquire from the sitting member where the man came from. The ministers or their officials can find out from the member for South Grey what persons from his constituency have been appointed since 1904.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: I do not think it is the duty of the officers of my department to go round to the different members and find out where in former years was the place of residence of certain officials. There is no record kept, as I understand, of the place whence an appointee originally came, and I take it for granted that the return gives all the information in the department.


Richard Blain: If the minister states there have been no appointments to his department from the constituency of South Grey since 1904, I will accept his statement.


William Pugsley: There may be dozens of officials in my department who originally came from South Grey, but we do not keep a record of where they came from.


Richard Blain: I do not think this a fair answer. The order of the House asks that the government shall lay on the table all the appointments that have been made from the important constituency of South Grey, and the minister answers saying there is nothing in the department to show whence the appointees came Surely that answer will not be accepted by the House. If the information is not given we must assume that it is not given because they wish to keep this secret. If the Minister of Railways, or the Alinister of Marine, or the Minister of Finance will stand up and say there has been no appointment made since 1904, I will accept the statement at once. I regret that my hon. friend (Mr. Miller) is not in his place, but I am informed on very good authority, that when the hon. gentleman goes back to South Grey from the House, each and every time he congratulates himself and his people upon the fact that he has been



so powerful with this government that he has had so many men appointed to the different departments. That is using an unfair weapon in party politics by a supporter of the government. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong, but it is quite easy for the government to clear the matter up.


Mr. LENNOX.: I believe there is a duty upon the government to inform the House as to the matters which my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) has moved for. All that the Minister of Public Works or any other minister has to do, is to go to the member for South Grey and get a list-and I understand it would be a long list-of the gentlemen who were appointed at his instance. I venture to say that the public will think it necessary that the government should know from what district an appointee comes, so that they may be able to ascertain something of the character of the person they are appointing. It is altogether too much a habit of the ministers of the Crown to keep back information which the people of the country have a right to get. Does the leader of the government forget that it was brought to the attention of the House the other day that the hon. member for South Grey is trading upon the influence he has with the government, that he is indeavouring to influence his constituency by the statement that he is able to control the government in the matter of appointments to the public service. In view of that, it comes with very bad grace from the Minister of Public Works and from the government to refuse to make a simple inquiry, which would result in a full disclosure of the names of these parties, so that we may know whether or not the hon. member for South Grey is justified in the boasts he is said to be making.


Richard Blain: May I be permitted to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) whether there have been any appointments made in the Finance Department since 1904 from the constituency of South Grey?


William Stevens Fielding: If I had the information I would be very happy to give it, but I do not think there is -a record kept in the department of the places from which the appointees come, but even of that I would not be quite positive. It may be possible that some of the parties appointed did come from South Grey, but I could not say from memory.	t


Mr. CBOTHERS.: It is a rather large draft on our credulity to ask us to believe that there is no record kept in any of the departments of the localities from which the appointees come. One would naturally suppose that whenever a person is appointed to an important position in Mr. BLAIN.
any department, there would be, in the order of council appointing him, some addition to his name. I do not suppose that a motion is made and carried that John Brown, for instance, be appointed to a certain position in any department, without giving his residence and profession, as for instance John Brown of the city of St. Thomas or Toronto, merchant.


Mr. MILLER.: I have just come into the House, and do not know exactly what has been said, but I understand that there has been a discussion as to the appointments made from the constituency of South Grey, and that the statement has been made that I have boasted of the number of these appointments. To this I give the most emphatic denial. I challenge any one to name any place or occasion in which I made such boast. No such boast has been made by me for three reasons. First, because I am not in the habit of boasting about such things at all ; second, because I have had no occasion to make any such boast, as the number of appointments from my constituency has been very small ; and third, I have no need to make any such boast to carry South Grey, and I expect to be able to carry it again withoujj resorting to any such method. If my hon. friends opposite desire any information from me, as to appointments made from my constituency, I shall be glad to give them all the details.


Richard Blain: Might I ask another question? Might I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) if there have been any appointments made frojn the constituency of South Grey since, 1904 in his department?


George Perry Graham: It is evident that my hon. friend is not really very keen to get the information because my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) has just offered to give it to him and he did not accept that offer. Why, if it is the information he is after, there is the source from which he can get it, and from which he intimated a few minutes ago the government might get it. My hon. friend has as much right to ask the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) as he has to ask a member of the government. ,


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that when an order of the House has been passed unanimously, that order would be complied with by the hon. member for South Grey giving the information?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend himself suggested that the information could be got from the hon. member for South Grey and got very easily, and the hon. member for South Grey is ready to give it, but my hon. friend refuses to take that information when it is offered to him. As far as the Railway Department is concerned, I

have no recollection of any one having been appointed in my time from South Grey or of the hon. member for South Grey having importuned me for any appointment But if I wanted to get a good official, there is no man in this House whose advice I would take more quickly than that of my hon. friend from -South -Grey.


Mr. BARKER.: I think we are getting entirely away from the question. This House has ordered that certain information shall be given, and I would like to know why we have not got that information. It is no answer to say that we can get it from the hon. member for South Grey, or that the appointments were very few or that the minister has not the names or the residences. The minister can get these. When the government allow an order of this House to pass, they ought to have some regard for the decency of procedure, and see that it is complied with.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Railways has directed my -attention from the government to the hon. member for South Grey.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman made that suggestion himself.


Richard Blain: He said that if I wanted the information, I could get it from the -hon. member for South Grey.


George Perry Graham: Mv hon. friend himself said it could be got from that hon. gentleman, and that hon. gentleman offered to give it.


Richard Blain: Does this document contain the full number of appointments from the^ constituency of South Grey since


Henry Horton Miller: I do not think it does. I do not think any appointment was made n the Railway Department on my recommendation or that any appointment has been made in the Department of Agriculture. I think that there are two in the Department of the Interior, not mentioned in this list.


Richard Blain: Can the hon. gentleman give the names and salaries?


Henry Horton Miller: I can give the names but n0j	- ;.n'ie,s. One is Frank Wenger
and the other is Daniel MacDougall. These are the only ones principally that do not appear m the return. The' hon. member lor Peel made the statement that I have been boasting of these appointments. I ask him to produce the evidence. It has been suggested that I should ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw, but I shall not do that. He may make, so far as I am concerned, any statement he chooses.


Richard Blain: I did not make the statement myself. I said it was currently re-106i
ported in the hon. gentleman's constituency-and I repeated that a number of times and at another time I shall be very glad to give the information my hon. friend asks for.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: Did my hon. friend not hear the member immediately in front of him follow up his remarks -by the statement that the hon. member for South Grey had -been boasting?	J


Haughton Lennox: No, nor did the hon. Minister of Public Works hear me -make any such statement.


William Pugsley: We all heard it.


Haughton Lennox: The minister prides himself upon his memory. I would as soon trust his memory as his statements on many occasions, but I would not want to be forced to trust either very much. I did not make the statement that the hon. -member for South Grey boasted, but I said that it had been stated in this House that he had been in the habit of boasting of the appointments he had made. I referred simply to what had been said on a former occasion, and it does seem rather peculiar that it took so long for the hon. member for South Grey to summon up his courage to contradict that statement. Personally, I know nothing about it. I accept the statement of the hon. member for South Grey with regard to the matter. It took some time for him to tell us. But he does revise his statements occasionally, as I have some reason to recollect. I think he revised the statement he made to the returning officer of his election expenses if I remember rightly


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) is speaking on a point of personal explanation, I understand.


Haughton Lennox: I will not follow that up, Mr. Speaker, but I was only going to say, as the matter has become personal to some extent, that I am glad that the hon. member for South Grey has, after mature consideration, after thinking over it for some time, been able to come to the House and say that he has not boasted, and to tell us that he is not in the habit of boasting. I wish to pay my compliments more particularly to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). If, as a young member of this House-young in years as well as in my time in this House-I might presume to give that hon. gentleman advice it would be this: To be a little more particular about contradicting hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and to be a little n ore sure of his facts before he makes statements concerning hon. members on this side. _ It is not many weeks since I had occasion to call attention to a very significant-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I would _ not like the debate to open up on that line. I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) is speaking of a matter concerning which he was misunderstood. Having already spoken, he is limited to that. Of course, if he proceeds on the line he is now taking the minister (Mr. Pugsley) will have to be allowed to answer.


Haughton Lennox: I would very much like to hear him.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) has been misunderstood or misquoted he has the right to explain.


Haughton Lennox: I was only going to say in reference to it-of course, I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker-that this is not the first time that the hon. gentleman has given us occasion to call attention to the .fact that his memory is short and likely to be at fault.


William Pugsley: I will not ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) to do more than look at ' Hansard ' to-morrow, and he will see what he stated, and I am sure he will then be satisfied that the remark I made is absolutely correct.


Haughton Lennox: Well, it will be the first time.


Henry Horton Miller: I would like, also, to make an explanation. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) I regard as a personal friend, with whom I have r.o quarrel, and do not expect to have any quarrel. The hon. gentleman says it has taken me a long time to get up my courage to deny the statement made in this House Some time ago. I do not want the hon. gentleman, or any other hon. member on that side, to think that it is lack of courage that makes me ignore a good deal of what they have to say; it is rather lack of interest. It was also said a few days ago that I was, day after day, asking favours of certain ministers I might have denied that and might have briefly stated that I have never, since I came to this House, made a request of any minister' of the Crown for any personal favour to myself. The hon. gentleman has made reference to a supposed revision of my statement of election expenses._ That is a matter I have never thought it worth while to meet before, but I can say without hesitation that I have never revised my statement of election expenses, and never made a statement of election expenses that was not absolutely correct. And I would remind the hon. gentleman that it would be better if he did revise his statements, particularly as to the amount the ' Globe ' gets from this government year by year-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) cannot cover these points- Mr. LENNOX.


Henry Horton Miller: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I have reminded the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) of his duty in this matter.



Mr. SAM HUGHES (Victoria and Hali-burton).: Mr. Speaker, now that this episode has been cleared up, and we find that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) has not been getting so many appointments in his riding, I shall take up a matter, which, possibly, may be of very little concern to the House, but of considerable concern to myself and to others immediately affected. As I have pointed out before, for many long years I have been specially interested in the closer union of Great Britain and her colonies, and it has been my endeavour not only to encourage the closer union of Great Britain and her colonies, but also to place obstacles in the way of any movement that might tend in the direction of disintegrating the empire. Therefore, I looked with a great deal of suspicion on the movement made a year ago, initiated by Rev. Mr. Macdonald, then editor, now part editor, of the ' Globe,' in his peregrinations to Washington to bring about reciprocal arrangements in regard to the maximum tariff of the United States of America and some changes that we made in our tariff to prevent the imposition of that maximum tariff against the Dominion of Canada. So far as I am concerned, I would have welcomed the imposition of the maximum tariff on the part of the United States of America against Canada, and I condemned then, as I condemn to-day, the action of this government in bringing about the reciprocal changes which were then made. That was followed up bv the agitation wdiich has brought about the proposition, which I am not at liberty, under the rules of the House, to discuss to-day, in regard to the reciprocal trade relations which are now proposed between the two countries.


Wilfrid Laurier: But later.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, with the help of goodness, I purpose having my say, or, at all events, my vote, later on. And I hope, knowing the open mind of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to be able to give him, on that occasion, good and sufficient reasons why he should change his mind and seek some means of having the proposition thrown overboard. However, Sir, while I was making my researches in connection with this movement of a year ago, I ascertained beyond peradventure, from the city of Boston, that Rev. Mr. Macdonald, then editor, now part editor, of the ' Globe,' was in receipt of moneys from the American Peace Society from a

fund headed by Mr. Ginn, of the well-known firm of Ginn, Heath & Co., of Boston, to advocate the claims of this peace society. I was asked to make that statement in the House. I declined to do so, because, as I said a week or so ago, I knew that some petty friend of Rev! Mr. Macdonald, some gentleman of small calibre occupying a pulpit, or having access to the public platform in some part of the country, would charge me with taking advantage of the privilege of parliament and refusing, or failing, to stand out openly before the public and make these statements. I went to St. Catharines and made the statement frankly and squarely on the public platform, that the Rev. Mr. Mac-donaid had, a year ago, undertaken to conduct these reciprocal negotiations between Canada and the United States regarding the maximum tariff and some changes to be made here. I pointed out that this had been carried out, and was being followed up by the present reciprocal negotiations. I pointed out, also, that it was a strange position of affairs, in a country like Canada, to have a man carry ing on this agitation, receiving money from an American concern, and at the same time receiving part of his pay from the Toronto ' Glebe.'
These statements have never been contradicted by the ' Globe ' or by Mr. Macdonald. Never, they cannot contradict them truthfully, they are the facts. Then I went on to say that it struck me that-this Peace Society movement, in practice at all events, was merely a movement to bring about closer union between Canada and the United States. That was the ground I took then. Sir, I have no reason to change my position, it is the ground I take to-day. We had an illustration of it here. We w'ere told that this gentleman was in association with President Starr-Jordan-*with a hyphen between the Starr and the Jordan-president of Leland Stanford University of California, and Mr. John R. Mott and others for the propagation of peace. We had an opportunity of hearing President Starr-Jordan in the city of Ottawa and he was also heard in Montreal and Toronto. He spoke under the auspices of the Peace Society, the subject being this Peace Propaganda, and the keynote of Professor Starr-Jordan's sermon or lecture was an insidious argument in favour of the union of Canada and the United States. He came out openly in favour of removing the customs officers between Canada and the United States, after approaching it most beautifully. If that is not preaching reciprocity, if that is not moving towards annexation then I would like to know what it is. Does any man mean to tell me that if the custom officers were removed, along the borders between Canada and the United States and kept on the outer borders of
those countries against the rest of the world, that would not be annexation pure and simple? On the following Sunday Professor Starr-Jordan went into the pulpit of one of the churches of this city, and as I pointed out in my former address on this subject, as reported in the ' Free Press ' of this city, he enunciated the identical views, that we wanted the removal of customs officers between the two countries. Was I or was I not justified in taking the stand I did upon this question? And when I was slandered by the ' Globe '-let me say I appreciate the slander from that source, I value it very highly-when I was slandered -by the ' Globe ' in this matter I replied to them in the House of Commons. On the following Sunday evening a parson in the city of Ottawa in -his pulpit delivered an oration. This parson is an intimate friend of this Rev. Macdonald of the ' Globe '-with a capital ' R '-and this gentleman made use of words which I shall read to the House. Members of his congregation on that evening thought, and said that the words applied to me. I was told by a gentleman in the city of Ottawa that night that I had got slated by one of these great divines in the city of Ottawa, and he told me of this sermon. When I opened the ' Citizen ' the next morning, I saw a report of the sermon in which he spoke of the rights of members of parliament. I read it. As I came up the Street every other man I met drew my attention to the fact that I had been slated by this parson. Well, Sir, it is a free country. So far as I am concerned I have not the slightest objection to every parson in the country being free to use his pulpit for the propagation of any idea, politics or any other subject-I never hear them preaching the Gospel very much, some of them-that they choose to discuss. I believe in the utmost freedom in that regard, -but I -also believe in this aspect of the ease also : Let those for whom they are lecturing pay the -piper, and in the county I have the honour to represent I have taught the gentry of the Liberal faith that if they choose to use the pulpit and sermons in disseminating Grit principles, if we cannot convert them by prayer we will do it by fasting, or, as the poet Whittier says beautifully: ' By dint of fasting if we fail by prayer.' I now come to the article, -and it is strange that it is in quotation marks. How did this article so suddenly get into the Ottawa ' Citizen ' on the morning immediately after it was delivered? Was there a shorthand reporter there who took it down? I understand not. I will not charge the reverend gentleman with any more offences than possibly he is guilty of, but I understand that this was furnished to the Ottawa ' Citizen ' from some source, possibly the reverend gentleman did not compose it but

it was furnished to the Ottawa ' Citizen ' in order that members of parliament might toe taught where they belonged, and if they dared transgress the dictum of this gentleman and others like him, they might know what the future held in store for them. Here is the article :


NIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT.
Rev. J. W. H.: He might as well have printed Rev. James Macdonald, D.D., of the Toronto * Globe.'
-any man against whom he may have a grudge, on mere pretext of suspicion. Any man may have his name brought before the House, by any member. He may be maligned by inuendos. He may, although innocent, have suspicion cast on his character, yet have no means of redress.
This may be called the right of parliament, but it is not in harmony with the spirit of Christian civilization.
This is the same gentleman who a week ago assisted in passing one of the most disgraceful, unchristian and bedeviled motions that has ever disgraced any body of public men in the Dominion of Cn ada. Yet he uses the words ' Christian civilization.'
No civilized community would tolerate the highwayman who would jump from an ambush and steal the purse of a respectable citizen, and yet we permit political highwaymen to stand up in the House and rob sincere, earnest citizens of their character. There must eventually be some means provided which will prevent such public outrages.	,
I leave it to the First Minister, I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, if in your experi-Mr. HUGHES.
ence you have ever seen in this parliament any conduct which will justify such words as these from a minister of the Gospel. I have never seen it. Sir. I stand here today the best of friends with every man in the House of Commons on both sides. When I hit, the First Minister and every other man knows that I hit above the belt, fairly and squarely and manfully.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: I am told that our good friend who uttered these words now says that he did not refer to me.
He referred to me. I am not perhaps taking his own words because he says that he referred to all the members. But. if he did not refer to me. personally he must have referred to me as one of the members of parliament and in that instance I have a perfect right to defend my honour against this slander that this gentleman uttered from his pulpit in the city of Ottawa. But what do we now hear that his excuse is?- that * I did not mean to refer to Hughes but to the member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce).' But he did not speak until two days afterwards, showing the very weak subterfuges of these gentlemen and the extremes to which they will resort when they want to cover up their tracks. It was to defend the honour of the Minister of Finance that this was done! No, Sir, he might as well come out in the open and frankly admit that he referred to me. There is no equivocation on my part; I referred to him; make no mistake about that. I did not try to hide myself behind any subterfuge and I am satisfied the public would respect him much more if he would come out manfully and say-he might resort to a little white fib, but I am not going to quibble as to that-I made a mistake ; I did refer to Hughes and I am now ready to take my medicine.' But, he does not do that, he squirms around and says:	'No, I meant
the members altogether; ' and in that he is endorsed by some hon. gentlemen occupying seats in this House who should be ashamed of themselves. He has gotten back at me in the Ministerial Association and I will deal with' that organization in due time.
Now, Sir, valuing my good name as I do, valuing the honour of this House and valuing more than that the liberties of the people of this country and desiring to preserve them from ecclesiastical encroachment or tyranny whether coming from the Roman church or from any Protestant church, I shall have a word to say with regard to the action of these gentlemen. Ecclesiastical tyranny has in all ages, in all lands and at all periods of the world's history coerced humanity. I hesitate not to say so, I have said it before and I am endorsed in that by the best men in all

churches. I know that most people hesitate when they are attacked by these gentlemen wearing-I said five cent white neckties-but, I must apologize to the House; I find that an ordinary batch can be got for 25 cents a dozen, but the style that most of them wear now comes a little higher. They are adopting what is called the Roman stole, a descendant of paganism, and this comes a little higher, or costs a little more money. But I know that the people dread running up against these gentlemen. Mark you, in any thing that I utter here to-day I am not saying one word with reference to those godly and good men that are found in all churches. I excepted them in my utterances upon another occasion and I will again except them from what I say here-men who are a credit to the churches with which they are connected, who are found among the ranks of the ministers of the gospel and there are no men who despise these weaklings more than those splendid fellows who are found in the ranks of Christian ministry up and down the country, but who cannot very well get rid of these others. They have to put up with them. The tendency is for humanity to bow before these gentlemen who pose as representing the church, and as being ministers of the gospel. Well, it is not my intention, at all events, to be so suppressed. I have had the privilege of meeting these gentlemen on other occasions. In my own county we had a very godly, Christian soul who, on the eve of an election, found it to be his duty to go from house to house-Tory house to house-and have a prayer for the success of the G. W. Ross government. A number of the gentlemen there were very much annoyed and I wanted to know why they were annoyed. They said:	We are
going to leave the Methodist church, but I said: Not at all, this fellow is only an excrescence on the church; what you should do, if you cannot reform him by prayer is to reform him by fasting; that will bring him around. So, when the next pay day came around, there was a very small stipend put up, the result being that he got out at the end of the year and balanced up by using some of the missionary funds.
On another occasion another gentleman, who did not belong to the Methodist church, thank fortune, but unfortunately belonged to the Presbyterian church, went from door to door. We found his trail, we saw that his buggy only turned into the Tory doors and he went from house to house, and although he was not a voter, he told them how disgusted he was with politics and that he would under no consideration think of voting for either candidate. The Tory party seemed to be a good deal the worst, but he would not vote for either. In that way he endeavoured to
keep a great many of ths honest Conservative voters from voting. But the boys in the country are instructed. They listened to this gentleman when he preached the gospel, even then taking only what suited them, but in politics they used their own judgment. I got wind of this and I brought it up in this gentleman's presence, as I usually do in dealing with such things, on the public platform in the village of Min-den. I gave him an opportunity of stepping uo on the platform and making good his position. Well, Sir, strange to say, the boys applied the fasting game there also, and that gentleman sought fields and pastures new. That is the way we treat political parsons in our country.
Now, Sir, I shall come to the resolution which these gentlemen have seen fit to pass. Let me say before I deal with it that the Ministerial Association in Ottawa should be and, as a rule is, a respectable body of men when they are all there. It is made up of a number of very good men, but I want to point out that on this occasion the big men in the church, possibly with one exception, and he is an innocent, dear old soul, they say-I do not know him at all-who could easily be misled, were absent. However, the gentleman who engineered the show was named Ramsay; I do not know that his name has ever got far through the length and breadth of the land; I never heard of him, but I notice that he is the gentleman who. on a certain occasion came to the assistance of Hon. G. W. Ross in the city of Ottawa, and that he attended his meeting here in order to impress the people with the idea that this man Ross after all was not as bad a fellow as he had been painted. This motion was moved by Rev. Dr. Ramsay. This is the gentleman who is reported by the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of January 21, 1905, page 12, as being at the G. W. Ross meeting in the Russell Theatre. It says that on the platform at that meeting were Rev-Dr. Ramsay, Rev. Mr. Reynolds, Rev. Wm. McIntosh and Rev. Mr. Milne. These gentlemen were on the platform at that meeting and one of these is the gentleman who got back at me the other day The resolution was moved by Rev. Dr. Ramsay, and seconded by Rev. Mr. Deeprose. I understand that Mr. Deeprose is a very respectable gentleman, but quite unsophisticated and not up to the arts of these gentlemen who were engineering this afiair to suit their little purpose. The resolution was passed unanimously. But at this point I may interject the remark that the leading ministers of the city were not present.
Dr. Herridge, a gentleman whose name is held in high respect, was not there. If Dr. Herridge had joined in condemning me, or if the Rev. Dr. Henderson had joined in passing a resolution condemning me, I would have sat up and hesitated to

ask if I had not done sofnething wrong. These are gentlemen whose names carry weight; they are gentlemen of Christian standing, they are gentlemen whose actions as well as utterances are never voiced along the line of politics in the pulpit. I do not know what their political inclinations may be, but these are gentlemen whose names stand high in the Christian world throughout the length and breadth of the land. Neither was Archbishop Hamilton present, or the Eev. Canon Kittson, nor Eev. Mr. Peever, and I submit that not one of these present but Eev. Mr. Deeprose, has any standing. That is the statement furnished me, I am not vouching for it, by authorities in the city. The resolution goes on:
The Ministerial Association of Ottawa, made up of members of various religious denominations, takes this first opportunity to express the surprise and pain

I will endeavour to give them some balm for their pain:
-with which it has learned of the attack recently made by a member of parliament upon one of our own number.
Now, I don't mind any crowd standing altogether. You all heard the story of the lawyer-I do not know whether it was the member for Pictou in his first case or not-who, when he was addressing the jury passed up and down amongst their ranks and muttered something to them, and the jury, without leaving the box, stood up and said: 'Not guilty.' After it was all over the judge said to him: How did you manage to hypnotize that jury, and he replied: I just muttered to each man as I went along that now is the time for a crowd of fellows like us to stand together.


Mr. CAEVELL.: Tell the rest of it.


Samuel Hughes: There may be a little of that spirit abroad among these gentlemen. I do not know whether there was or not, but if so, I do not blame them much:
-upon one of our own number, Eev. J. W. H. Milne. Some years ago Mr. Milne served as our secretary with great efficiency.
He has evidently been always on the job:
He also filled at one time the office of president with tact and dignity. After these many years he is honoured by us all for his geniality and integrity

In this case it may be something like the darky who was brought before a magistrate, and the magistrate said: This is the first time you were ever up before me, and the darky replied : Yes, Massa, please the Lawd, in his infinite goodness'.


Samuel Hughes: and mercy, this is the first time this here: darky has ever been cotched:
[DOT]-bis faithfulness as a pastor and power as a preacher, his breadth of mind and fervor of zeal in the advancement of Christ's Kingdom-
Well, so far as I can find out he has! been doing all this chiefly along Grit political lines in the city of Ottawa, and I never knew there was a department of Christ's kingdom for that organization. There may be, but we will inquire into it.
-and we esteemed it a privilege to possess his personal friendship.
I do not blame them in the slightest degree for that. Here it refers to the ' Hansard ' report,' and while I do not wish to reflect on the gentlemen who report for ' Hansard,' that report of my address on that occasion by some mischance, contained two of the most outrageous misprints or mistakes that has ever fallen to the lot of any man to have credited to him. However, you would naturally suppose that these gentlemen would have got a corrected copy of ' Hansard ' and that they would have done me or done themselves the honour of asking for a corrected copy. Oh, no, they were going it blind:
We have listened to the ' Hansard ' report of the speech of which Mr. Milne was assailed.
I stand here to say that Mr. Milne was not assailed, Mr. Milne was exposed, as I am going to expose him a little more to-day:
Together with the ' Citizen's ' summary of that part of the sermon which gave an excuse for the hon. gentleman's denunciations.
Now, I ask the Ministerial Association how they knew I referred to Mr. Milne? They take his word that he did not refer to me. How do they know? Surely, if my description of this gentleman is so terrible it cannot apply to any one of them. How do they know it referred to him? They might as well come out in the open. I referred to Mr. Milne, and I admit it, and Mr. Milne referred to me and he won't admit it. There is the difference between us.
It seems to us remarkable that a single member of parliament should apply to himself alone remarks of quite a general nature.
If the remarks were not applied to an individual then it is doubly cowardly on the part of this man to stand in the pulpit and slander 220 odd innocent men for the sake of getting at one man. If he refers t<>
me let him have the manhood to say so. The excuse is now given, I am told, that he referred to the member for Algoma. That is a subterfuge, the member for

Algoma did not speak for two days afterwards.
We feel humiliated-
It would take a good deal to humiliate the gentlemen who drew up this resolution :
-that any man should pollute the atmosphere of our national parliament with language so abusive.
Pollute the atmosphere-why, ' eau de Cologne ' compared with a polecat would not be in it with my remarks compared to theirs.
-so abusive as seems to have been used on this occasion.
They seem to think that my statement and the narrative of facts I gave have been a little hard, but what I did give was a narrative of facts, plain straight facts, not one of which can be successfully contradicted. Before I am through I will show whether they can be proven or not, if the Ministerial Association is anxious to follow it up:
Not less deplorable do we think it that the representative of a Canadian constituency should unrebuked have publicly repeated to the detriment of a fellow citizen assertions of some irresponsible tale bearer which he does not pretend to have verified.
I verified every statement that was made to me. Members df Mr. Milne's congregation and gentlemen in the city of Ottawa will verify every statement I made. The only one upon which there can be any possible doubt is whether he referred to me or not. If he referred to me individually, then I have accepted it, and if he referred to me as one of the 200 odd members of parliament, I have accepted it as one of these. In the first instance, if he referred to me specifically he would be more manly, but if he referred generically then his statement is utterly cowardly from any point of view you like to take it. Then, the resolution goes on:
We accept without reserve Mr. Milne's assurance, corroborated by the members of his congregation that these assertions are absolutely false.
We will see about that. They go on:
With him, moreover, we regret that there are members of parliament so venomous as to be ready to suggest or say anything that will leave a stain on the character of an opponent, and affirm that such conduct is not in harmony with the spirit of Christian civilization.
Well, Sir, if anything more slanderous and cowardly than that can be produced I want to see it. Now, what are the facts? They have no evidence to back them, not a tittle of evidence for one assertion they
made. They didn't even get a correct copy of the 1 Hansard '; they did not even ask me to go before 'them, and justify the statement I made concerning one of their members. They showed no Christian spirit in the matter from start to finish. Why, a set of desperadoes, the commonest political hacks I ever saw, could not formulate a resolution under conditions more degrading than these gentlemen who have formulated that. They followed no rules' of evidence whatever, they simply took Mr. Milne's statement. And, Sir, the report was prepared, I understand, before they ever went to the meeting. Now, I stated that Mr. Milne, previous to the elections some years ago-the time the Ross government was beaten-had expressed himself as antagonistic to, or at least regretted the actions of the Ross government and condemned them in general terms. There was nothing wrong in that. Lots of Liberals did that and lots of them afterwards fell back intp the ranks, and that is not a serious offence. I rather appreciate his manhood if he did condemn them. Then the next statement I _ made was (and I want to point out this is one of the statements the Ministerial Association says is absolutely untrue), the' next statement I made was that he ap-t peared on the Ross platform. The Minis-i terial Association declares that is untrue.i In the Otttwa ' Citizen,' January 21, 1905, page 12, will be found the report of a meeting in the city of Ottawa, and the four clergymen, Dr. Ramsay, Mr. Reynolds* Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Milne are reported as being present. And, when some of the congregation objected to the active part Mr. Milne was taking in that election-I have this from the particular gentleman who was spoken to in the matter, and I will be glad to give the evidence to the Ministerial Association if they^ choose to act as gentlemen and Christian judges, but if they are going to act as Grit heelers I will have nothing to do with them. One of these gentlemen remonstrated with Mr. Milne for the active part he was taking in the matter, and Mr. Milne said to him:
' Why, you are as bad as Russia in the city of Ottawa, if a man cannot take part in these matters.'
The next statement I made was, that he had arranged with the Rev. Mr. Macdonald. (with a capital R), of the Toronto ' Globe ' to come down and address the electors in his church on either the Sunday immediately before the election or the Sunday before that; and I stated that this was opposed by certain members of the Session. I will now go further, and say that the Session took the matter up, and that two gentlemen were deputed to wait on Mr. Milne and arrange with him that Mr. Macdonald should not come here. This

is one of the statements which the Ministerial Association declare is absolutely without foundation. I repeat that statement to-day, and I will go further and say that Mr. Milne afterwards stated that Mr. Macdonald could not come. That was the reason he did not come. I can give the names of the members of the church Session who were deputed to see Mr. Milne, and have Mr. Macdonald called off from preaching. And yet, I am branded before the Dominion of Canada by this outfit in the city of Ottawa as having stated what was false and untrue.
The only other statement which I made, which it is necessary to refer to, was this, that the Eev. Mr. Milne had furnished, in one way or another, to the Grit leaders a list of the members of his congregation, marked as to how they would vote and how they could be influenced. I stand here ready to produce an affidavit of a gentleman in the city of Ottawa, who will swear that that is true. A gentleman who subsequently tackled Mr. Milne about the matter, arranged to go with him and meet the gentlemen referred to, but when the time came, Mr. Milne did not appearl' But the gentleman found out that in the meantime, Mr. Milne had gone to this man privately, and arranged that the difficulty should be smoothed over; and when he denied this, ho was told a word of four letters, which I will not repeat here, by the member of his congregation, but a word which comes with very bad grace to one who poses as a minister of the Gospel. It is an old and well recognized principle that:
Of all the ills with which mankind is curst,
Ecclesiastical tyranny is the worst.
I wish to point out that not one word that I have uttered has reference to the splendid ministers of the gospel, who are found in all parts of Canada and in ah lands. These are men of the highest Christian character and godliness, in word and act, and they are men that one is proud to meet. But these men do not endorse such actions as those I have referred to. I go further and say that the disreputable men in the Christian ministry are responsible for the fact that Christianity, in 1900 years, with all the energy and money expended upon it, has made such little progress. It is owing to the fact that there are these objectionable men to be found in the Christian ministry more than to any other single cause. One of these men will neutralize the good work of 50 good men. One of them will cause more suspicion in the public mind than the actions of a hundred splendid, noble men of the church. I know it personally from this better class of men, that the great drawback they feel to the Christian church


Samuel Hughes: in the land, is the fact that there are mountebank clergymen, who are always seeking their own advancement, as this gentleman sought his own advancement.
Let it be clearly understood that in my action towards the Rev. Mr. Macdonald of the Toronto ' Globe ' I acted from the highest viewpoint of the British Empire and humanity. I had nothing personal in view. Who dragged the matter into the Glebe church ! The gentleman who occupies the pulpit of that church. He made the attack on members of parliament, whether he meant the members generally or me personally; and if there is anything coming before the Ministerial Association, I am not the man who brought it. They passed the resolution; I had no part in it; and let them take their medicine in any way I choose to give it to them.
Mr. Milne lobbied some years ago for his father. I am not saying a word against the old gentleman. I am sorry to bring this in, but I do it just to show you the class of man he is. His father is now in the Post Office Department in the city of Ottawa, as a third-class clerk. He was appointed in 1901. He was born in the year 1835. He is thus 76 years of age, considerably over the retiring age. This is a motive for the gentleman's loyalty. Others of these gentlemen are seen frequenting the halls and corridors of parliament, dancing attendance on ministers, and may pos-sibly^have a similar iftterest in doing so. The famous historian and divine, Rev. Dr. Robertson of Scotland, stated that there were three classes of men to whom no quarter should be given-the hypocrite, the pharisee and the tyrant. There is no use, he said, of reasoning with these three classes of men; there is only one way to reach them-expose them with the strong whip and lash of public censure and public 'condemnation.
Now, Sir, if any of these gentlemen of the Protestant Ministerial Association approach meron the morrow, I shall be glad to assume full responsibility for everything I have uttered here to-day, by giving them a revised copy of ' Hansard ' with my endorsement upon it, and with my certificate that I accept full responsibility for everything I say to-day. Then they will not be able to bring the charge that I am shielding myself behind the privileges of parliament. I have given the evidence to prove every charge that I have made with regard to Mr. Milne. The only point about which there is any possibility of equivocation on his part, is his statement that he referred to all the members of this House and not to me specifically. The more manly thing would be,, to say, that he referred to me specifically, and that he did not slander the other 200 members or more of this House. * An equivocation

is half a falsehood, and a falsehood is all of Hades,' and I charge the minister who passed that resolution with being guilty of deception, with being guilty of falsehood, and with being guilty of slander; and I will sign that statement any day that the Protestant Ministerial Association comes to me and asks me to do so. Sir, I rather enjoy the old story told in New England years ago. Whittier put it very well:
So this is all, the utmost reach,
Of priestly power the mind to fetter,
Now shame upon ye, parish popes,
Was it thus with those your predecessors
Who sealed with racks, and fire and ropes,
Their loving kindness to transgressors.
I can imagine this outfit, in the old palmy days, when the strong arm of temporal power was at their beck and call, trailing your humble servant before them and saying to him:	Now, dance, you terrier,
dance; and then following some of the good old Christian devices, such as bore his tongue with a red hot iron, chopping off his ears, or cutting off his nose. These things have been done 'by Protestants as well as by the others. We have had women thrashed naked through the streets of Boston, and hanged to the nearest gibbet. But the other fellows did it in even a more drastic manner. These are all part and parcel of the old days of intolerance, and that spirit still exists in the hearts of men to-day, not only in the church, but out of it.
As an instance of this, just let me point to the Ministerial Association. I wonder what the Master, whom these people pretend to follow, would have done under similar circumstances and conditions. Even supposing that I am all that they say-and I am not anything of the kind, for I claim to be just as righteous as any of them, which is not saying much-but, what would the great Master have done ! I am satisfied that He would have followed an entirely different line of action, and it would have been more becoming on the part of these gentlemen if they had shown a little more Christian spirit and had not been so anxious to whitewash one of their own kind. I do not propose to allow myself to be placarded in the way these gentlemen have placarded me all over the country, without showing them up in their true light, In my own county, the exponents of religion, mind their own business, except in the case of one of them, who meddled in the last election, and he had to leave the county. ' He was deserted by his congregation, and we did not take long to get rid of him. Fasting is the surest way^ to cure a gentleman of that kind, of this disease. Close up the purse strings, and he will immediately see the errors of his ways, and conclude that if
he is going to be in religion, he had better stick to it, and leave politics alone, and if he is going to be in politics, he had better give up his whole time to them. I find that some members of Ministerial Association,-not the big, noble minded men of the organization at all, but the smaller fellows, the men who have not that breadth of heart which they would have, if they really loved one another-have passed resolutions on many an occasion about other people in higher positions than myself. I find that even His Excellency the Governor General, the representative of the King, the Supreme Head of the British Empire, has fallen under their censure, for they passed resolutions condemning him for having gone to a horse race. Well, I have never found any fault with a man of the gospel for going to see the circus. These gentlemen take the children to the menagerie, but they always wait to see the girls dance and ride fast horses. I approve of their going to see the' circus, but_ why make the excuse that they are taking the children to the menagerie ? Why not frankly admit that they are going to see the circus, and are taking the children with them ? We have also had examples of these extreme members of clerical organizations seeking to invade the private homes of people in the country in order to find out if they indulge in a game of bridge on a Sunday afternoon or in a glass of wine. Some years ago a number of respectable gentlemen in the city of Toronto heard that there were living pictures in the exhibition being held in that city. They were informed that a lot of girls had been brought from the slums of yankee cities and were dressed up in tights and were posing as living pictures, and the question was mooted whether it was proper or not. Well, these gentlemen appointed a delegation to inspect, and the delegation after viewing the show for a week or so, came to the conclusion that they were satisfied with it. Why, some of these worthies had the hardihood to condemn even the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth), for some official act, and also some of the judges in Ontario. It is nothing but condemnation all over, but I fail to find where the Master followed the same line. He did not go about always condemning. The only time I find condemnation from His lips, is when he was dealing with just such subjects as this hypocritical crowd, and then he was severe, and rightly severe. These people show the same spirit as was shown by the early pagan priests and which was displayed afterwards by the clerical tyrants of Christendom. The earliest annals we have in history recount the tyranny, the villanny, the vindictive spirit displayed by the early pagan priests against those who dif-


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish the House to misunderstand the case. I may inform him that any decoration of these buildings is under the direction of the Public Works Department.


Samuel Hughes: The Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) is quite right. I have the correspondence with the Minister of Public Works concerning the protests that were made. But the decorations were there all
the same. And I repeat that there is only one way for this country in matters of this kind, and that is to keep ecclesiasticism, whatever its source, out of the public life of the nation. If this thing is to be allowed to go on in the city of Montreal on the occasion of a Eucharistic congress, then, on the 12th of July, if we demand it-but we could never be insane enough to do so- the post office in Lindsay ought to be decorated with Orange colours. If it is conceded in one case it must be conceded in the other. Let these institutions keep to their own business; let them keep out of public affairs. And men there were, officers of the Dominion of Canada, who took part in that Eucharistic procession in their garb of office. I am surprised that these men had not more self-respect than to parade the streets in official costumes as part of a procession under the auspices of an ecclesiastical institution. I am amazed at the want of personal self-respect on the part of such men-to be so carried away by this spirit as to be found in such a procession in their garb of office. I would say, ' God bless them,' if they walked in such a procession in their individual capacity; that is none of my affair; they can decorate themselves in any way they choose, they can garb themselves as grotesquely as they please, they can go with rings on their fingeTS and bells on their toes if they choose, and that is their own affair. But it becomes my affair when they don the garb of an officer of the Dominion of Canada, I care not what position that garb may indicate, to march in such a procession. And I say it is time for the nation to declare that this must stop, and that these ecclesiastical matters must be kept out of our public life.
I am sorry I have had to occupy the attention of the House at such length, but I want to point out that every statement I have made from start to finish in connection either with the reciprocity arrangement, with Mr. Macdonald of the ' Globe ', or with the ' Globe ' itself, or Dr. Starr-Jordan, or Mr. Milne, is borne out by absolute facts. The only statement about which there is the slightest possible chance of difference is that Mr. Milne says he did not refer to me personally. If he did not he referred to me as one of the 220 members of this House, and I have a right to defend myself as one of them. In order to get at one man he slandered the whole batch. I stand here to say that my motive in introducing this subject of reciprocity long ago and bringing in Mr. Macdonald was in order as far as possible to defeat the attempt to bring about commercial union between Canada and the United States because I believe that is the ultimate ambition of the gentlemen who are engineering that to-day. I am not wor-

ried by being attacked from the pulpit, although every one knows what the effect of an attack from the pulpit is if the man has anything behind them. Years ago in my own riding I have had these attacks, but I do not think I will have any more; as I said there is only one way to bring about the proper conduct of these matters and that is if we cannot bring it about by prayer, then let us bring it about by fasting.


Mr. MACDONELL (South Toronto).: As an ordinary member of this House, I cannot retain my place without making one word at least of comment upon the remarks just dropped by the hon. member (Mr. Hughes). With that hon. gentleman's quarrel with the clergyman in question I have no concern whatever. I have no concern and no comment to make upon his difference with this particular clergyman or this or that particular church or any other particular matter regarding which he has a desire to speak to a question of privilege in this House, but in a word, I do not desire to sit here and hear an attack, a slander upon religion and the various clergymen of religion without discrimination, of their order. I wish to put myself on record as not concurring in the remarks which have gone down on ' Hansard.' The hon. gentleman has gone out of his way to attack clergymen who do not belong to the church to which the Eev. Mr. Milne or the Dr. Starr-Jordan belong. He has referred to clergymen, priests and ecclesiastics of the Roman Catholic church, both of the present and past generation. His reference to these, gentlemen is entirely unnecessary and quite gratuitous and in no way concerns the dispute the hon. gentleman had with the particular clergymen in question at the present time. I cannot permit the hon. gentleman to state that humanity has been cursed by ecclesiastics of the order and the faith to which I have alluded, nor can I sit patiently and hear his remarks directed to what he calls ecclesiastical tyranny when directed in the most indiscriminate and general way without any reference whatever to the question of privilege to which he has risen.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to no question of privilege whatever.


Angus Claude Macdonell: You spoke to a question of privilege.


Samuel Hughes: There was no question of privilege.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I think he spoke to a question of privilege and exceeded the privilege. I simply rise to say I will not permit his remarks to go on ' Hansard ' without my name being associated as entirely dissenting from them, strongly disapproving of Mr. HUGHES.
them; and speaking as far as I am concerned, and with reference to the church to which he alluded, I make a protest against the language he has used.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Fearing that silence on my part might cause people outside to think that I had sympathy with a great deal the hon. gentleman has said in his lengthy speech, I rise to make the declaration that I am not at all in sympathy with the discussion of a question of this kind in the House of Commons. I would not like to be identified with it, nor would I like people outside whom I know and whom I respect to think that I sympathized with the statements made this afternoon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, not to speak of the clergymen who belong to my own faith, but speaking for the clergymen of the country in general I wish to disassociate myself and I believe all the members on this side of the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. LEMIEUX-from the very serious and violent remarks made by the hon. gentleman. I do not think that any wellthinking Canadian can approve of these remarks. I have no mandate to defend the clergy against the aspersions of the hon. gentleman. I have no brief to speak for my clergy, nor for the Protestant clergy, but I think that this Canada of ours can boast of having in both the Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy, high, elevated minds of which any country could well .be proud.


Henry Horton Miller: I have no part in this matter at all. I did not listen to the address the hon. gentleman delivered in the House a few days ago, but since that time a member of Mr. Milne's church in Ottawa, I refer to Mr. Reid, of the Sun Life Assurance Company, a very estimable and prominent citizen of Ottawa, came to me and said that the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton were quite incorrect as to that church having refused church and nulpit to the Rev. Dr. Macdonald of Toronto. Mr. Reid said that Mr. Macdonald had been invited by their congregation to take their pulpit on the Sunday in question, but had declined the invitation, it not having been possible for him to be present. I do not think that if the hon. member was as brave in this matter as he has often proclaimed he was in South Africa, he would have made an attack unon gentlemen who have not the same opportunity that he has of defending themselves, and speaking in this House. It is not so bad, perhaps, to attack the Rev. Mr. Macdonald, because Mr. Macdonald can rr through the medium of his newspaper, but Mr. Milne has no such opportunity and I do not think it

was any example of bravery or chivalry for the hon. member to attack Mr. Milne in the way he has done.


Samuel Hughes: Before you leave the chair I wish to correct a statement made by the hon. member for South Grey, the only member of the House who was base enough to make out that I had boasted of my bravery in South Africa. It is the privilege of every coward to sneer at those who went to South Africa. I never directly or indirectly in this House made any reference to my bravery in South Africa. The hon. gentleman and one other hon. gentleman have been found base and degraded enough to charge me with having boasted of my actions in South Africa. I take back the word and apologize to the House for having used it, but language could hardly be found harsh enough to describe the spirit of the gentleman making such a remark as he did.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. gentleman is quite mistaken. Far be it from me to question the bravery of any man who, with the aid of one other, rounded up 300 Boers. Nothing was farther from my mind.


Samuel Hughes: Coward.


DUTY ON FRUIT.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: 
J. McCHIE.
[Stage Direction]
*	Secretary.
I may add that messages to this effect have been before the government since last session, when a project of interfering with the fruit duties was first mooted.

Mr. JAMESON.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) if he would take over Bill (No. 27), respecting licenses to fishing vessels, and Bill (No. 28) to amend the Customs Act? My purpose in making this request is to facilitate action upon them. The object of the legislation in question is to provide a system under which fishing vessels of Canadian register may enjoy greater freedom of movement, by avoiding the delays which now occur owing to the present necessity of reporting at the customs house; to invite thereby more frequent landing of their fares by those engaged in the fresh fish branch of the trade; to aid in placing at the disposal of consumers in central Canada Canadian caught fish in the prim-est condition possible, and to help in stimulating fishing on the Atlantic coast of Canada by removing an exacting regulation which interferes with the movements of vessels, more especially those engaged in the fresh fish branch of the trade.
Last year I introduced similar legislation, but at the request of the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) I did not press it that session for a good and sufficient public reason, namely that the Hague arbitration was then impending. This session I desired the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to be present when these measures were discussed, but upon both occasions, when these Bills were reached the minister was unavoidably absent from the House, and I think, from the city of Ottawa. There is now a special reason why I think this legislation should be taken up as a government measure, namely, that if the present reciprocity agreement is carried into effect, American fishermen will have an advantage over Canadian fishermen with respect to the facility with which the movements of the vessels can be carried on. Fishing vessels of the United States under license are not obliged to reoort at custom houses_ in the United States, and in the alteration to be made in our regulations under the modus vivendi they will be permitted forty-eight hours instead of twenty-four hours to remain in a Canadian port without the necessity of reporting. It is for these reasons that 1 would make the request that the government take these two Bills over as government orders, and have them at least carried as far as the Committee on Marine and Fisheries where the merits can be considered.
_ Mr. BRODEUR. I do not know whether it will be possible to accede to the request of my hon. friend. But I would be veTy slad to consider it. If I remember aright the object of the Bills is already covered by a regulation of the Department of Customs. It is a matter which appertains to the Department of Customs more than to my department, and I think I would have to confer with mv colleague the Minister of Customs before saying that I would adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend.


GRAND TRUNK TRAINMENS' STRIKE.
Haughton Lennox: I desire to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. King) to a matter in order that he may inform the House upon one or two points in connection with the strike of Grand Trunk Railway employees, who are in the train, and yard service, which terminated on the 31st July last. This is not a matter that will be dealt with by Judge Barron in the investigation which he is holding. It is a matter as to the status the men will occupy who have been taken back or who would be taken back. I desire to ask the minister, first, whether, by the settlement of the 31st July between the Grand Trunk railway and its employees in the train and yard service, it was intended and understood that the parties were putting an end to all existing disputes . and difficulties, (2) that' the men should be put back into the positions they held previous to the strike; and (3) was it understood that the men should be reinstated or were they only to be taken back as new men? I had the question jotted down, and I might pass the paper over to the minister so that he might understand them.


Mr. KING.: I think I can answer my hon. friend. My recollection is that it was expected by the settlement, that all existing differences would be at an end, and that the men were to return to the company's service and to be reinstated in their former positions.


Haughton Lennox: That is what I thought.


George Gerald King: ' Were the men to be reinstated or were they only to be taken back as new men?' In regard to that question I think the agreement will have to speak for itself. The word in the agreement is that the men should be


Haughton Lennox: Put back.


George Gerald King: Yes, put back in their former positions.


Haughton Lennox: What I want to call the attention of the minister to is that it is a very important point whether the men were reinstated in the broadest sense of the term or were being put back as new men. I can hardly conceive that it was contemplated that they were to he put back as new men. Are we to understand from the minister that that distinction was not adverted to at all and that he did not take that into consideration? I certainly would think that it would be the object of the minister to see that the agreement was in such a form as that the men, when they were taken back, would get the same positions that they would have occupied if no strike had taken place. Otherwise, it would be an Mr. BRODEUR.
idle sham, and it would deceive the men. If it meant that- a man who had been in the service of the company for twenty years or more and who would be entitled to a pension was to be taken back as a new man, and not to be entitled to his pension it would certainly be a most unfortunate result.


George Gerald King: As regards pensions, when the matter was under consideration, the leaders of the men who were negotiating on behalf of the employees took the position that they did not care about pensions one way or the other, that if the company cared to regard them as having violated its agreement with them to the extent of breaking any regulation which governed pensions the company was perfectly free to put that interpretation upon it. I was rather surprised myself at them taking that stand, but they did take it and they gave me to understand that in so far as pensions were concerned, if they had forfeited the pension by going out, and if the company cared to put that interpretation upon it they were free to do so.


Haughton Lennox: Am I to understand the minister to say that his mind is clear that those who represented the men were at least indifferent as to the question of what position the men would occupy as regards pensions? That is what I understand the minister to say: that those who represented the employees of the railroad companies on that occasion expressed themselves indifferent as to whether the company should consider the pensions forfeited or not. I may say to the minister-of course, with every deference to what he says-that unless he is absolutely clear that that was the understanding, I would he surprised to hear that such was the case. The information I have got so far, and I am endeavouring to get more explicit information, is that the men throughout the country generally, and I understand, also, those who represented them- thoroughly understood at that time that except as to those who had been guilty of acts of violence such as expressed in the agreement, it put an end to all existing disputes and difficulties, and that the men would be restored to all the rights and privileges t-hat they had before the strike had been declared.


George Gerald King: I am perfectly clear in my own mind as to what took place at the time, and I remember that the subject of pensions was ' never mentioned in any of the joint discussions between the men and the company. I remember, also, quite distinctly, that, apart from the joint discussion which took place, and at which the Minister of Militia and myself were present, the leaders of the men spoke nothing about the question of pensions. I brought that up myself.
FEBRUARY 10, 19li


Haughton Lennox: To whom does the hon. gentleman refer as leaders?


George Gerald King: Mr. Garrettson, Mr. Lee, Mr. Berry and Mr. Murdock. I think all of these gentlemen took the same position on the matter. The question of pensions was a separate matter altogether, and it was not one that entered into the settlement one way or the othgr.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Labour being a party to the agreement that was signed on behalf of the men and the railway company, will it be laid on the table of the House?


George Gerald King: It was laid on the table of the House some months ago. We are going into Committee of Supply on the estimates for the Department of Labour, and possibly if any gentleman wishes to discuss that matter to-night it would be a good time.


Haughton Lennox: So far as I am concerned, I am not proposing to discuss it. I only want to get information now, and at a subsequent date I shall discuss it.


DUTY ON FRUIT.
Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: Before Mr. Speaker leaves the chair I desire to read the following telegram, which I have received to-day:
Kamloops, B.C., Feb. 9, 1911. Martin Burrell, M.P.,
Ottawa.
The British Columbia Inland Board of Trade fearing that the proposed reciprocity may seriously affect the lumber and fruit industry of this province strongly urges that the government thoroughly consider the question and respectfully suggests that a committee be appointed to investigate and report upon conditions before legally passing same.
M. S. WADE, President.
JOHN F. SMITH, Sec'j.
I might say, without wishing to discuss this matter, an opportunity for which will be afforded early next week, and no doubt the government have already had as much as they can stand in one day along that line, that I have had a great many messages of this kind, which I hope to refer to later on, and I presume the government lias been receiving messages from my province fully endorsing this telegram during the course of the last few weeks.


Mr. BLACK.: If it were in order I could bring a whole sheaf of letters from the fruit growers in Nova Scotia, all of whom, to a man, are in favour of reciprocity. I think it would be impossible to find a fruit grower in my province who is not in favour of reciprocity in natural products.


Martin Burrell: As this matter is on the Order Paper for discussion at a fixed date, I did not wish to discuss it further than to 107
read the telegram at the earliest possible moment. I did not want to enter into the merits, and I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Black) should be allowed to discuss them now.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) - is not willing that any one else should refer to the matter but himself.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The discussion of the question is not in order now.


Judson Burpee Black: I am not discussing it. I am only saying that if it were necessary I could bring any number of letters in favour of reciprocity in fruit. I only wanted to get in the fact that our fruit growers are all in favour of reciprocity.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Department of Labour-Conciliation and labour, &c., $27,300.
Mr. RHODES.: I desire to take the earliest opportunity on going into Committee of Supply to consider the estimates for the Department of Labour, to bring to the attention of the Minister of Labour a matter of grave importance affecting labour conditions in the province of Nova Scotia. I refer to the strike at Springhill, where seme 1,600 employees of the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company have been on strike since the 10th of August, 1909, or just 18 months to-day. The Minister of Labour has been informed of the situation in Nova Scotia by letter and telegram, and in the ' Labour Gazette ' for a long period, and the situation is more or less familiar to him. I may say that I have not before this brought the matter to the attention of the House for the reason that since the passing of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act the Department of Labour has always taken the attitude that where that Act has been invoked and its machinery has been applied in a given case, that the action of the department would end there, and that if it were understood by those who invoke its machinery, that a resort could he had to the Department of Labour after the Act had been invoked, that it would tend to weaken rather than strengthen the machinery of the Act, and that therefore the parties to the dispute must, after the Act has been applied, resort to the arbitrament of war, and that the fittest must survive. I have kept in touch with the matter myself, and I find that at the very inception of this strike, or on the day before the men went out on strike, the Acting Deputy Minister of Labour wrote to the president of the United Mine Workers of America a letter, which I propose to read in full. It is fairly long, but it gives, in the shortest possible way, I think, the attitude of the department affecting questions of 'this character. It reads:



Ottawa, August 9, 1909.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge your communication of August 3 in reply to the letter of the Deputy Minister of Labour of July the 28th in respect to the strike in the collieries at Inverness, N.S. Your communication has been referred to the hon. the Minister of Labour and the minister directs me to say that he has had under consideration that part of your letter in which you stated you are inclined to the opinion that ' if the-Department of Labour would investigate the situation in Nova Scotia they could do much to bring about a settlement of the difficulty in that province,' and has noted that in concluding your letter you express the hope ' that the Department of Labour may lend its influence to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the difficulties in Nova Scotia.'
With regard to the request that the department should investigate the situation or lend its influence to bring about a settlement the minister directs me to point out that the dispute at Glace Bay between certain of the employees of the Dominion Coal Company, members of a local union of the United Mine Workers of America and the said company, has already been the subject of government intervention by reference under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and the report of the board appointed has been given to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Were parties to industrial disputes encouraged to look indefinitely to government intervention or given reason to believe that the findings of boards appointed expressly for the purpose of inquiring into existing troubles, would be subject to further revision by the minister or other officers of the Department of Labour, it would seriously prejudice the effectiveness of the work of boards appointed under the Act and the value of their findings, and might only serve, having regard to industrial disputes generally, to prolong, rather than to minimize, the period of industrial strike.
Whilst the policy of the department in the matter of disputes referable under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is as set forth herein, the minister wishes me to say that he will be pleased to discuss at any time with either of the parties to a dispute any of the facts or circumstances having a bearing upon the situation and best methods of effecting a satisfactory adjustment of existing differences.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) GEEALD H. BROWN,
Acting Deputy Minister.
T. L. Lewis, Esq.,
President United Mine Workers of America, Indianapolis, Ind.
In that letter the attitude of the Department of Labour was very clearly defined, and there is something to be said in favour of it so far -as ordinary strikes are concerned ; but the strike at Springhill is an extraordinary one. As evidence of that, I have only to refer the hon. minister to the report of his deputy minister on industrial conditions in the coal fields of Nova Scotia. At page 31 of that report he Mr. RHODES.
will find the following remarks in reference to the strike at Springhill :
I found evidence of strong feeling as between the management and the employees of this company. Leading spirits among the men manifest much feeling, not to say bitterness, toward the management, not only toward the person of the general manager, but to all subordinate officials; and since all these were drawn, with4 one exception from the ranks of the men themselves, the presumption i-s at least favourable_ to the theory that any estrangement that exists is not due to one side alone. With such an influence as this dominant among the men it would seem to be impossible for any manager or official to bring about a condition of good relations.
At page 32 of the same report he will find the following :
One is forced, therefore, to the conclusion that there can be no speedy termination to the present struggle, and that it will be a. long-drawn-out contest unless some factor not now in evidence comes into play.
The record of strikes at Springhill, with which the minister is familiar, will bear out that expression. I believe that some five boards have sat under the Conciliation Act without alleviating conditions there, and there have -been some 23 strikes in a period of 22 years. So that the conditions at Springhill are abnormal. I need not point out that the town of Springhill is an unusually good mining town. There is a good class of men there. The very appearance of the town is pleasing to the eye, vastly different from that -of an ordinary mining town. Nor, need I take up the time of the committee to point out the disastrous results of this strike. In the country around the town of Springhill, and in fact throughout the whole county, the blight of this strike is felt. The revenues of the province have suffered from it to the extent of some thousands of dollars. I have shown you the -attitude of the minister and the department with reference to the strike at Springhill. But in July of last year there occurred a strike among the employees of the Grand Trunk railway. On July 19, the editor of the ' Gazette ' at Barrie, Out., sent the following telegram to the minister :
Strike of trainmen declared here last night 9.30. Passenger trains being run this morning undermanned by inexperienced men in train service, and public seriously alarmed. Can you do anything P
To which the minister replied as follows :
Your wire received and contents duly noted. Am preperad to lend good offices of government to fullest extent possible towards adjustment of present differences, and have so informed parties.
Then, in a letter addressed by the Minister of Labour to Charles M. Hays, presi-

dent of the Grand Trunk railway system at Montreal, he makes an effort to bring the parties together. In conclusion, he suggests that a way be found for arbitration, and adds :
If such a reference to arbitration, is agreed upon, all the necessary expenses incidental thereto will be met by the government.
Then, I find among other telegrams the following, which is typical, from the Minister of Labour to Wm. C. MacLaren, president of the Board of Trade of Brockville, Ont., under date of Montreal, July 29, 1910 :
Your telegraph July '29 received. The government is putting forth every effort to bring about a speedy termination of Grand Trunk dispute.
I could read a number of telegrams of the same tenor, but that may be regraded as typical. Then, at the conclusion of the strike I find that the Minister of Labour refers to his efforts in connection with the strike in the following terms, in a letter addressed to A. J. Anderson, Esq., Joint Secretary O. R. C. and B. R. T., Brockville, Ont. :
I much hope that the part taken by the Department of Labour and the government in helping to bring about a settlement of the differences between the members of the brotherhood whom you represent and the Grand Trunk railway will have commended themselves favourably to the members of the Brockville lodges.
So that the minister himself is not indisposed to take some credit for the settlement of that strike, and as to that I am not disposed to quarrel with him, I would be one of the first to congratulate him on settling a strike or upon doing anything he could to settle a strike, and I hope he will not withhold his efforts to settle the strike at Springhill.
If any proof were needed that the government did promptly intervene in this Grand Trunk Railway strike after the conciliatory board had sat on it, I could refer to the Toronto ' Globe * of Wednesday, August 3, 1910, in which I find this heading:
Grand Trunk Railway strike is over; an agreement is reached. The good work of Hon. M. L. Mackenzie King and Sir Frederick Borden.
Then the details are given. In this article, Mr. Garretson, a representative of the men, is quoted:
Further, said Mr. Garretson, I would like to pay my tribute to Hon. Mackenzie King and Sir Frederick Borden for their work in settling this trouble. They both did everything possible to reconcile the conflicting parties, and they are entitled to the thanks of not only the railroad interests, but of the people of the Dominion. By the manner in which they aided the negotiations they have earned I 107i
the gratitude of the railway and of the men and also of the whole public.
And the ' Globe ' not only refers to the matter in its news column, but also in its editorial column, from which I shall quote a few lines out of many:
The services, the very great servics, rendered by the Minister of Labour throughout this controversy have been of the highest value. Hon. Mackenzie King has illustrated what may be done by government representative with adequate knowledge, a sense of justice, a conciliatory spirit and an eye single to the good of the public.
The Montreal ' Herald ' is no less forward in giving its mede of praise to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Militia, but I shall not take up time by quoting the article. I may refer briefly, however, to the government organ, the Ottawa f Free Press,' in its issue of August 3, 1910. It is just as fulsome in its praise of the two ministers I have mentioned. It says:
The usefulness of the Labour Branch of the Dominion administration has been doubly vindicated as the result of the recent dispute between the railway companies and certain of their employees. When, months ago, the companies were unable to come to terms with their men, a strike was made impossible because of the necessity under the Lemieux Act of first appointing a board of conciliation to investigate the dispute. The report of that board immediately solved the trouble so far as the Canadian Pacific railway was concerned, and an agreement which was mutually satisfactory was signed between the employers and the employed.
That was vindication number one. Unfortunately, that report did not, offhand, settle the dispute between the Grand Trunk railway and its men and open war resulted.
There was no law on the statute-book empowering the government to interfere. There was nothing to compel the disputants to submit to arbitration. So far as legislation was concerned, the government had no standing.
But while the government had no compulsory powers, it did have in the Labour Department machinery which it could at once set in motion with the object of bringing the regrettable war to an end.
Before the Labour Department was created, it was anybody's duty when a strike occurred to make an attempt to stop it, and what is anybody's duty is often nobody's duty. But things have changed. Immediately the strike occurred on the Grand Trunk, the eyes of the public were focussed on the Labour Department. Everybody said it was the duty of the Labour Department to act as mediator. There was no casting around for a man or men who would be unprejudiced with the delay consequent upon such a search, The one man at whom all pointed for this arduous and urgent task was the Minister of Labour.
Hon. Mr. King rose to the occasion and once more he has come out of the ordeal with flying colours.
The editorial goes on somewhat further, but I shall not quote any more. I have no

quarrel to find with the minister or the department for having intervened in the Grand Trunk Railway strike. All credit to them for having done so. As a matter of fact, if the Labour Department is to serve a useful purpose the Minister of Labour must exercise just such powers at Spring-hill as he did in connection with the Grand Trunk Railway strike. But if the Department of Labour is to content itself with merely sitting still and allowing the machinery to be invoked, and then, if the parties fail to come to terms under the Act, let them fight it out as in the old days before there was an Act, we might, just as well do away with the Labour, Department altogether, because otherwise all that would remain for the department to do would be to gather a certain amount of statistics, as was done before. In the strike which occurred in the town of Springhill, the department took the stand that it would not intervene after the machinery of the Lemieux Act had been invuked. But that is not apparently always the policy of the minister and the government, because we find that when there was a strike among the employees of the Grand Trunk railway, the minister did intervene. He might say that the policy of the department had changed since the strike at Springhill, but I would point out that the strike still exists there, and is still of great importance, and I hope my hon. friend will take the committee into his confidence and let us know why he has made this distinction between the two.


Haughton Lennox: Lest my silence be misconstrued, I wish to say that I do not subscribe to the doctrine of the ' Free Press ' or the ' Globe '; but aside from that altogether, let me point out that having been intimately connected with the men who are affected by the Grand Trunk Railway strike-not speaking of the strike from second hand but from first knowledge-I say very emphatically, much as I regret it, that I cannot endorse the enconiums which have been showered by the press pn the minister or admit that the *settlement of the Grand Trunk Railway strike was a satisfactory one. The contrary position is the one I am forced to take. From my knowledge of the situation in the town of Allandale, a portion of the town of Barrie, and from my general knowledge of the matter, I know that the settlement does not absolutely remove all disputes, because I understand there are employees, who by reason of that settlement, are cut off from their pensions. There are numerous instances among the strikers in which men, who had been from 10 to 25 years in the service of the Grand Trunk railway, find that the company entirely repudiate any obligation in any way or to recognize as entitled to his Mr. RHODES.
pension any one who had been out on strike and was afterwards restored to the service. What the company say is that these men come back as new men. If I understood the minister correctly, these men would probably not get a pension. He cannot say whether the agreement does or does not cover cases such as those I Tefer to. I am not now saying that I condemn the minister nor that I applaud him, but what I say is that from my knowledge of the matter, the indications are that this settlement will be exceedingly unsatisfactory, and in all probability a very unfortunate one for the men. I understand the hon. member for Cumberland to be dealing with another matter, and, incidentally for illustration I presume, he finds it proper to refer to the Grand Trunk employees' strike. If I could add compliments to the Minister of Labour in relation to the Grand Trunk strike, I should be prepared to do so, and I may be able to do so in the end. At present I am not in that position. If I am to judge of the facts as they are before me, my reference to the matter must be uncomplimentary. For the present, however, I leave it. 1 am collecting information on the subject, and when I have collected it,
I may bring the matter again to the attention of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sorry that my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) did not understand my object in referring to the Grand Trunk strike. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour did. I did not refer to it for the purpose of dealing with it. I pointed out that there has been a strike in my county for the last eighteen months. The policy of the department, i't was stated, was not to interfere with the strike where the machinery of the Act had been put in operation and had proved of no avail. But, in the strike of the Grand Trunk employees, the machinery of the Act was applied without effect, and yet after that the minister took it in hand. I was asking him the reason for this difference of treatment.


Haughton Lennox: I think I understood the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rhodes) and said so.
I thought he was referring to the Grand Trunk strike incidentally and by way of illustration, while dealing with the case in his own riding with the facts of which he is specially familiar.


George Gerald King: Replying, first, to my hon. [DOT] friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes), I would say frankly that I agree with him that, to appearances there seems to be a difference in the action on the part of the department in regard to these two strikes. But I think he will agree with me that circumstances must govern actions at all times, and there are occasions when the

exception itself proves the rule. In regard to the general policy of the department as to intervening in industrial disputes, it is precisely as set out in the letter of August 9, 1909, written to Mr. Lewis by Mr. Brown, the Acting Deputy Minister of Labour. In that letter it is pointed out that where a dispute has come under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act it is not the policy of the department to follow up any intervention of that description by intervention on the part of any officer of the government or department. But my hon. friend will notice-for he has read it-that this communication closes with these words:
Whilst the policy of the department in the matter of disputes referable under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is as set forth herein, the minister wishes me *to say that he will be pleased to discuss at any time with either of the parties to a dispute any of the facts or circumstances having a bearing upon the situation and best methods of effecting a -satisfactory adj ust-ment of existing differences.
In the ease of the Springhill strike, notwithstanding that this intimation was made some sixteen months ago, up to the present time neither of the parties to that dispute, so far as I am aware, has cared to take advantage of it. They have not intimated to me, either directly or indirectly, their desire to discuss the situation at Springhill with a view to bringing about a termination of the strike. The Grand Trunk strike was different. When it had assumed such proportions that there was hardly an interest in the province of Ontario that was not suffering in consequence of it, I received the following telegram from one of the representatives of the employees on strike at that time:
Montreal, Que., July 27, 1910. Hon. W. L. .Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour, Ottawa.
Messrs. Garretson and Lee held a conference to-day with Mr. Hays without result. May I be permitted on behalf of the men on strike to request that, as a Minister of the Crown and representative of the people yon come to Montreal and by further effort try to arrange an honourable settlement either by arbitration or negotiation.


JAMES MURDOCK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Murdock was a representative of the men out on strike at that time.
I point out to my hon. friend that there, at any rate, is a difference: in the one case the department has not been requested, up to the present time, to intervene further than by the action under the Act; in the case of the Grand Trunk strike the department was requested by one of the parties to the dispute to take action. I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me that, in the absence of any request from the parties after the communication that was sent them, it would hardlv have been proper for the department to have proceeded.
I say frankly that if the parties had come and discussed this matter with me I should have been only too glad, if a suitable way could have been found to have assisted to the extent of my power. I do not say that I would have intervened actively, but I would have endeavoured to assist in bringing about a readjustment. I may say that, without making it publicly known, I have had a talk with the present manager of the Springhill mines with a view to understanding the situation thoroughly, to see if, in some way, it would not be possible for the difficulty there to be brought to a close.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman is referring to the new manager?


George Gerald King: sumption is at least favourable to the theory thal any estrangement that exists is not due to one side alone. With such an influence as this dominant among the men it would seem to he impossible for any manager or official to bring about a condition of good relations.
That passage my hon. friend read, but on the next page, 32, we find:
One is forced, therefore, to the conclusion that there can be no speedy termination to the present struggle and that it will be a long drawn out contest unless some factor not now in evidence comes into play.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I read that also.


George Gerald King: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; I did not catch that. In addition to the work which the Board of Conciliation did at Springhill, an officer of the department, the deputy minister, investigated the situation, went into it carefully and fully, and gave what he believed to be an honest and unbiassed report, so that both parties, if they chose, could be guided by it. Mr. Acland's report was made in September, 1909. He said to the parties that the strike would be a long drawn out fight. It was a question of recognition. He had heen in the confidence of the men on the one side and of the company on the other, and, speaking fearlessly as an officer of the department, he gave due notice to all parties concerned, that the strike would be a long struggle. 'That was in September, 1909. Here we are in February, 1911, and this struggle is still on. I say as a minister, speaking here, that I believe if the present position is maintained by the parties, in other words, if they insist on the Question of recognition, if we are here this time next year, this strike will still be in continuance at Springhill. I say that because I have had a conversation with the present manager, who has informed me that on no consideration whatever will his company yield on the question of recognition. If that is a fact, what can save the situation? There is no good of the department trying to intervene and bring about a settlement by negotiation. The only thing is for the parties to settle it themselves, and take such responsibility as the facts seem to warrant.
So I say in regard to the Springhill strike there was additional intervention on the part of the government disclosing the full nature of the dispute, disclosing, also, the only line on which a settlement could take place, but there was no special invitation as in the case of the Grand Trunk strike for any officer of the government to intervene.	_
But my hon. friend will also see that the strikes were very different in their significance. The Springhill strike has gone on for a year and a half, and conditions have continued in Nova Scotia pretty much as they have been for some years past. Un-Mr. KING.
doubtedly the locality immediately surrounding has been seriously affected, but the conditions generally in the province have not been. In the case of the Grand Trunk strike there was hardly a town in Ontario which was not beipg affected, in fact, some towns situated along the line of the Grand Trunk railway were really in the nature of communities in a state of siege. It was impossible to ship provisions in or manufactured goods out. Factories were closing, men were being thrown out of employment; the whole situation was one which was creating terror in the minds of the people of this province. A great system had been tied up from Chicago to Portland, a thousand miles of railway had been completely tied up, so far as the handling of freight was concerned. Boards of trade all over the province, city and town councils were sending telegrams daily to the government, and giving in detail the nature of the situation as it had grown up. There was a situation entirely different from a national point of view from the situation in Springhill. Had it been, as at Springhiil, local in its nature, I would have maintained the attitude that has been maintained in the case of the Springhill strike and have hesitated about intervening. But when we had a situation such as there was at that time, I felt that njo matter what the cost, even if it cost me my position as a minister of the Crown, should I fail in that duty, I would attemnt it and do the best I could, because I felt it was my duty to do it; and I must say that I trust hon. gentlemen opposite will be spared from having to take their lives in their hands to the extent to -which it was necessary to do so on that occasion, and to get in between two great fighting factions with a view to bringing them together. I do not wish to take any credit in the matter of bringing about a settlement in the Grand Trunk strike, but I do say that had it not been for the agencies which this government had established, had it not been that, in the first instance, the whole dispute had been made the subject of investigation by a board, so that when we came to a final adjustment it was a matter of taking the report of the board and sifting out certain features, and for the fact that there was existing, through agencies which the government had supplied, some means of bringing public opinion to bear on the whole situation, that strike, instead of lasting two weeks, might have lasted several months, and instead of being brought to a termination and of the men who were out being restored to their situations to the extent they have been, there might have been several hundreds who would never have got back their situations at all. My feeling is that had the government not intervened the result would have been disastrous all around, disastrous to the

Grand Trunk, disastrous to the men and still more disastrous to the general public. To the extent to which disaster of that nature has been averted, the government has rendered the country a service, albeit that there may be certain features in connection with that settlement that are not *quite as we would wish to have them.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 45) respecting the Montreal Park and Island Railway Company.-Mr. Ecrement.
On section 1,
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: There is a proposed amendment, notice of which was given by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk).


Mr. BELAND.: I was asked by the promoter of this Bill that it should stand until next Tuesday.
Progress reported.


McCLARY MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 75) respecting the McClary Manufacturing Company-Mr. Beattie.
Further consideration of section 1.
William Pugsley: I suppose the committee have considered this Bill carefully, but it looks like a merger. Probably my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) has given thought to it.


Mr. BEATTIE.: What is the objection?


William Pugsley: (There is a principle involved in the Bill. We have on the other occasions declined to allow mergers to be consummated in this manner. You see it gives to the company the power to purchase stock in other companies carrying on similar business. If that is allowed it permits in the very clearest way the possible consummation of a -merger among all the manufacturing industries in the same line. I am not quite sure that there is any strong objection to that but it seems to me that there is a principle involved, and that it would be well that it should come before a fuller House than we have to-night.


Thomas Beattie: This is -a Bill introduce! on behalf of the McClary Manufacturing Company. The only persons interested in this company are the members of the Me

Clary family, and I think that you will find in the law as at present existing all that they are asking for. They have an establishment in every province of the Dominion, and agencies in different places, but instead of sending their own agents out on a paid salary to dispose of their goods they propose to entrust that work to persons in business in that line of goods in different towns and they ask for this power in order that they may be able to take some stock in their business. They think that by giving the sale of their goods to a business man in a town and then themselves taking an interest in the business he will push the sale of their goods more energetically, and will at the same time make a little money for himself. I have a statement explanatory of the Bill which, with the permission of the committee, I shall read :
The McClary Company were incorporated by chapter -116 of, the Statutes of Canada, 1882. The Companies Act, contained in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and being chapter 79 of these statutes, contains clauses similar to the clauses in the McClary Bill. Fart 2 of the Companies Act applies to the McClary Manufacturing; Company. Section 122 of the Companies Act provides that Part 2 of the Act shall apply to every company incorporated subsequently to the 22nd day of June, 1869. by any special Act of the parliament of Canada. The McClary Manufacturing Company, being incorporated by special Act of the parliament of Canada in 1882. conies within the meaning of -this section. Part 1 therefore of the Companies Act does not apply to the MoCl-ary Manufacturing Company. If it did, section 44 gives -the right to purchase stock in other companies in a broader fashion than that in the McClary Bill. Section 44 permits a company, to -which part 1 of the Companies Act relates, to use its funds in the purchase of stock in any other corporation, when the directors have been expressly authorized by by-law passed by them for that purpose and sanctioned by a vote of not less than two-thirds in value of the capital stock represented at a general meeting of the company duly called for considering the subject of the by-law. You will notice, that in section 12 of the McClary Bill, it is provided that the directors must be authorized by by-law, sanctioned by a vote of not less than two-thirds in value of the subscribed capital stock represented at a general meeting duly called for that purpose, before they can use the funds of the company in the purchase of stock in any other company.
They -had a strike some years ago, and -an agent in a town refused to sell their goods on account of the attitude of the workingmen in the town, the result -being that he gave up the agency. The company had to take one of their own men -and start him selling the line of goods they manufactured. But their charter did not give them power to take any stock in his -business. That is why the Bill has -been brought forward. It has nothing to do with a

merger. Everybody knows that the Mc-Clary Manufacturing Company is one of the largest institutions of its kind in this country. It employs 1,300 men, and the stock is owned in the one family. They are merged in themselves in so far as that goes. I do not believe that they will think of merging with any other company. They are too large a concern for that, and their purpose for asking for this legislation is as it has been here explained.


William Pugsley: I know the company very well, because they have a branch in my own city of St. John. I know they are a thoroughly respectable and exceedingly enterprising company.


Thomas Beattie: Oh, very.


William Pugsley: The only reason I rose was, that there would seem to be a principle involved in this first section. If we pass it as it is, it may be difficult to refuse similar powers to other companies, which were ostensibly seeking to create mergers, and it is giving parliamentary recognition to the principle that it is quite right for mergers to be created in this way. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Beattie), desires to have the Bill go through as it is, I do not intend to press my views.


Thomas Beattie: Would the hon. minister like to see the letter; it will give him the facts.


William Pugsley: Yes, please send over the letter. The object, as I understand it, is to enable them to take an interest in another company, which might qct as agents for the sale of their goods,


Thomas Beattie: That is entirely the object of the Bill. They have an agent in almost every city at the present time, and instead of sending out an agent, they thought it better to take a firm who is in business in a certain place, and give them entire control of their productions there. The McClary company is. very extensively engaged in the manufacturing business, and they thought it would push their business better and lead to greater enterprise if they adopted this system. The McClary firm as every one knows, is an old firm, a wealthy firm, and a respectable firm.


William Pugsley: I do not press my objection, Mr. Chairman.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


ALBERTA RAILWAY AND IRRIGATION COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Further consideration in Committee of the whole of Bill (No. 51) respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company - Mr. Crothers.
Thomas Beattie: 


Mr. HERRON.: I move:
That in section 1, subsection 3, the words ' Spring Coolie ' be stricken out and the word ' Cardstone ' be substituted therefor.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the promoter of the Bill satisfied with the amendment ?


John Herron: Yes, it has been agreed to between the promoter of the Bill and myself.


William Stevens Fielding: In that case, I suppose there would be no objection.


John Herron: I would also move:
That in the second line of subsection 3, after the word ' westerly ' the words be added: ' at, in, or near the town of Pincher Creek/
Then the subclause will read:
From a point between Cardstone and Mountain View, westerly, at, in, or near _ the town of Pincher Creek to a point on the line of the Canadian Pacific railway.


William Stevens Fielding: Has that also been agreed to ?


John Herron: Yes, it has been agreed to by all parties.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


ALGOMA CENTRAL AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 62) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Tolmie.
William Pugsley: I would call the attention of the hon. gentleman in charge of this Bill to the provisions of section 3:
The conversion of fifty thousand shares of the capital stock of the company from common stock into five per cent non-cumulative preferred stock, and the issue of such shares as such preferred stock, is declared to be valid and binding upon the company and the shareholders thereof, according to the terms of such conversion and issue.
I would like to know if the committee had information that that was agreed to by all the holders of common stock. This section makes valid a priority which is given to 50,000 shares of the common stock. That of course is unusual, and would I think, be improper unless all the holders of common stock were parties to it. I would suggest that progress be reported on this Bill so that we can get information on that point.
Progress reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 76) respecting the Ontario, Hudson Bay and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Tolmie.

Bill (No. 88) respecting the Bay of Quinta Railway Company.-Mr. Currie (Prince Edward).
Bill (No. 20) respecting the Mather Bridge and Power Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 81) to incorporate the Canadian Northern Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 80) respecting the Buffalo, Niagara and Toronto Railway Company.-Mr. Lancaster.
Bill (No. 90) respecting the Indian River Railway Company.-Mr. Turcotte (Quebec).
Bill (No. 100) respecting the Orford Mountain Railway Company.-Mr. Hunt.
Bill (No. 83) to incorporate the Simcoe, Grey and Bruce Railway Company.-Mr Tolmie.
Bill (No. 89) respecting the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company.-Mr. Lafortune.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 109) respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited.-Mr. Conmee.
Bill (No. 110) respecting the Peoples Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 113) to incorporate the Dominion Development Railway Company.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
["Before the committee rises, I would not want the hon. member for North Cape Breton to go away with any misapprehension of my statement, wliich he takes so heavily to heart. I did not say that he had made a decision which was set aside. All our judges do that, because they are human. All of them give hcnest, well-meant judgments which are l set aside. What I did say was, that after\n\nhe had accepted a nomination he had delivered a judgment which was afterwards set aside. That is a mere statement of a fact, and I did not mention it because his judgment had been set aside. Any one's judgment is liable to be set aside.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.37 a.m., Saturday.", 'Monday, February 13, 1911.']
George Gerald King: With reference to the question raised by my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) before recess regarding pensions on the Grand Trunk railway, I said that my impression _was that during the discussion between the parties, at the time of the negotiation, the matter of pensions was not mentioned, but the leader of the men declared that in that matter it was a matter of indifference to them what attitude, the company might take. I took occasion during recess to look up one or two documents, and I find in the Toronto 'Star,' of August 4 last, the following interview given to a 'Star' reporter by Mr. Murdock, who was one of the representatives of the employees concerned:



[Stage Direction]
'What about the restorations of the pensions?' Mr. Murdock was asked.
' We are not paying any attention to that pension talk,' was the reply. * It was not touched on in the final settlement, as you know. The aim of most of these pension schemes is to test the fidelity of the men to
the union. In the strike there it was easily seen what effect it had on the allegiance of the men to their union, was it not? If railways will pay proper wages to their men there will be no necessity for these pension schemes at all.
If the Grand Trunk sees fit to pension its employees for years of faithful service, well and good. If, now, after the strike it chooses to be vindictive, and to say ' because for fifteen days you left our service we will disregard all your years of faithful work, and cancel your pension,' well, we have nothing to say as to that.'
In the Toronto ' Globe ' of August 5, I find the following interview of Mr. Berry, who was the representative of the other organization involved in the strike:

[Stage Direction]
The object of Mr. Berry's visit to Montreal is to meet in conference with Mr. Murdock and the other strike leaders, and to go over the terms of settlement with a view to issuing an official explanation to the men. Also to arrange about the strike pay, and generally wind up the strike campaign. Mr. Berry was accompanied by Messrs. Todd, Dodge and Curtiss.

[Stage Direction]
' I am not particularly concerned about the pensions,' said Mr. Berry, in response to another query. ' I believe that the company have the option of granting or refusing them. I have always looked upon pensions as a fake devised to deceive the workers. I believe in the men receiving a proper salary and being independent of any consideration such as pensions.' Mr. Berry also expressed himself as satisfied with the way in which the men were being taken back. He was not surprised at what the company officials were saying, and he dismissed their arguments with the advice to the men and the public not to take any notice of what the company said.
This came as a surprise to me. Messrs. Garretson & Lee, who were negotiating for the men, did not bring up the question of pension at all, and the other leaders took a stand in conversation, not unlike what they appear to have publicly taken in the interview I have quoted here. Speaking this afternoon my remarks may have seemed to imply that Messrs. Garretson & Lee also took the same stand in regard to pensions. I am not quite sure in regard to that, it may be they said nothing about that. As to the other men, dealing so far as Canada is concerned, the position they took was similar to the position they gave out in these interviews to the public.
In regard to the Springhill strike, to which reference was made by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rl*odes)J while the strike took place notwithstanding the report of the board which investigated it, nevertheless, the report of the board has had an effect on the situation which ought
[Stage Direction]
to be helpful at the present time, in bringing the matter to a termination. The three members of the board were, Mr. Justice Longley, of Halifax, Mr. Archibald, of Halifax, and Mr. E. B. Paul, M.P.P. They agreed in the following, before the strike took place:
Under the circumstances your board cannot help recognizing that the only rational policy to be pursued by all parties concerned, is one of conciliation and forbearance in order that this large and important industry may not be compelled to cease operations, with most far-reaching and disastrous consequences to all, including the business men of the town. Hea?y loses have been already entailed by twenty-two strikes which have exhausted the energies and wasted the resources of the company.^ In the judgment of the hoard, the present is not a time to agitate for changes, but rather a time a common effort should be made to improve the situation and securo the permanence of the industry.	_
Your board saw tokens during the somewhat lengthy investigation of the matters in dispute that unpleasant feelings, if not distinct hostility, existed between a large number of employees and the management. It would perhaps be invidious to attempt to place the responsibility for this, but the hoard feel it their duty to bring this state of affairs to the attention of the directors of the company in a formal manner by means of this report.
This hoard recommends the directors to make a careful investigation into this unpleasant feature of existing relations with the hope that they may be able to adopt such a policy or make such changes as will prevent the possioility of this unfortunate condition prevailing in the future.
In this report of the board then, attention was drawn to the fact that it was an inopportune time to bring on the strike, and if a strike did take place, it was likely to last a long time, and do considerable injury to the community, and also that evidently there was something in the personality -of those who had to do with the management of affairs, that was in part responsible for the continuous friction, and the board suggested that the directors should look into that matter. The directors have looked into this, and I understand that the former manager is no longer manager at Springhill, his position has been filled by the appointment of Mr. Butler, formerly deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, in connection with this government. Therefore, in so far as the element of personality may have had an influence on the situation-and my own opinion is altogether in accord with that of the board, and also with that of Mr. Acland, who later investigated the situation-that factor has been removed, and it would therefore seem that the present is at least an opportune time for the men who may he still out, to go and negotiate with the new manager, Mr. Butler, and see if it is not possible to come Mr. KING.
to some sort of a settlement. As I said this afternoon, I spoke to Mr. Butler only a day or two ago, and Mr. Butler said he would be glad to have a talk with the men who are out. He also said that he would like me to state, if I had an opportunity of doing so in public, that so far as he was concerned in the management of these mines, he would not yield on the question of recognition. I think it only fair, that the parties in the dispute should know that fact, that the manager has stated he will close the mines before he will yield on that point, and I feel that the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes), could not render a greater service to his riding than to go down there with the knowledge which he has of the situation, and see if it is not possible himself to point out to the parties involved what the meaning and the ultimate probable issue will be of their continuing as they are at present, without endeavouring to get together and end what has been altogether a lamentable industrial dispute.
Inasmuch as these two strikes at Spring-hill and on the Grand Trunk railway have been discussed a good deal, and attention has been devoted to them in this parliament, I think it is only right, in order to give the country and the members of this House, a true impression as to the service which the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act has rendered this country, that 1 should attempt to give the House, in a few words a statement of what has been actually accomplished under that Act. In the first place, I would draw attention to the fact that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act was enacted about four years ago. During that time, there have been altogether 100 boards applied for under that Act. In 91 out of the 100 cases, which have been referred to boards for settlement, strikes have been prevented, and in only 9 cases have strikes ensued. In other words, this legislation has been the means of averting over 90 per cent of the strikes which would otherwise have taken place in the Dominion in industries in the nature of public utilities. There are two ways of verifying these figures. If we compare the record of disputes which took place in the industries in the nature of public utilities for the four years prior to this legislation, with the record which has since been enacted, it will he found that the statistics verify what is given here as the result of the operations of this Act, that, as I have already said, in the industries in the nature of public utilities over 90 per cent of the strikes have been averted. Then there is the actual showing based on the sworn statement of the parties. For ten years the department has been gathering statistics of strikes and lock outs in Canada. It has been possible from these

figures, and by comparison with similar statistics in other countries, to find the average duration of strikes. In Canada for the last 10 years the average number of working days lost in each strike amounted to something like 24. In some cases the strikes lasted much longer, in other cases a shorter time, but 24 days seems to be the average. The men involved in the disputes that would otherwise have given rise to strikes, numbered 99,542, in other words, almost 100,000 men have been involved in these disputes that have been settled by boards and in which no strike has taken place. If we assume that the average wage for the men employed in these industries thus affected was $2.50 a day, and that in the cases where there have been settlements had there been strikes, the strikes would have been of the same average duration as in the case of other strikes, there has been saved through this legislation to the workingmen of Canada, in wages alone, a sum not less than $5,972,520; or in round figures $6,000,000 has been saved in wages to the workingmen of this country through the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I am not just sure as to how one can calculate the amount saved in profits, but if we assume that an employer would receive in profits 10 per cent of the amount which has been spent in wages to his employees, then there has been saved to employers in profits, in round figures, something like $600,000. If we try to form an estimate of the value of goods that would have been produced with that amount of labour, and with the capital that would have been employed, the smallest figure at which it could be placed, would be something like $10,000,000. That is to say, had strikes taken place where settlements have been effected and had these strikes lasted twenty-four days, commodities to the value of $10,000,000 would not have been produced, which have been produced. So, taking the inside estimate, the amount that has been saved to the workmen in wages is $6,000,000, the amount which has been saved to the employer is $600,000, and the amount saved in commodities that have been produced which otherwise would not have been produced is $10,000,000, or in round figures, something like $16,600,-000_ has_ been saved to this country by that legislation, and I might add the total cost of administering the Act, including all the expenses of the boards, has not exceeded in these four years $80,000.
That, I would point out, is only the monetary side of it. These industries to which I have referred are industries in the nature of public utilities. They are industries upon which the other industries depend, they are industries upon which the happiness and welfare of the community
depend. Take the strike at Lethbridge a few years ago; there you had families freezing in their homes for want of coal. Take a strike on a railway and you have something that influences the whole community. In all these cases the community, and all that goes with it, in so far as its relation to the industry is concerned, has been saved the inconvenience and the loss which would otherwise have taken place. While attention has been drawn to the fact that we have had in Canada in the last four year's one or two very serious strikes one should not lose sight of the fact that there has been saved to this country the vast sum of money and the vast amount of disorder which are indicated by the figures I have already given.
There is one other feature that I want to note in connection with the working out of this legislation, and that is the result of strikes that have taken place after the boards have given their findings and where the findings of the boards have not been accepted by the parties. As members of the House know, the parties to an industrial dispute in the industries covered by this Act are not allowed to strike or to lock out until the matter has been referred to a board. If they are not satisfied with the ' finding of the board then they may strike or lock out, and the returns indicate that while in 91 cases they have not struck, but accepted the findings of the board, in nine cases they have struck, and it is interesting to ask what has been the effect in the cases where they have gone on strike. The records show that in every one of those cases they have either returned to work on the terms which the board had granted or upon terms not as good as those which the board had granted. In no case have the working men who have gone on strike in Canada since this legislation was passed obtained better terms in consequence of their striking than they would have obtained had they accepted at the outset the findings of the board. Then,
I think it will be interesting as well to note, the relative position of the different industries concerned.
Haughton Lennox: That would indicate, as I understood the minister to suggest by reading it, that it would be wise for the employees in all cases to accept the finding of the board in so far as experience has gone?


George Gerald King: That is decidedly the opinion I have. My feeling is that this parliament, by enacting this legislation, has provided a better means of securing what is fair and just to the workingmen than it is possible for them to get in consequence of a strike. I do not say that the findings of the board are always the best thing that could possibly be obtained, but I do think
.'(399

and I say this, as a result of a careful watching of the industrial disputes which have taken place in Canada in the last ten years, the workingmen will gain more in the long run by accepting the findings of the board than by going out on strike.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The impression of the minister is that the Act has been successful in its operation from one view point. What is the view point of the labour men of the country?


George Gerald King: I think the labour men of the country will agree absolutely with what I am saying at this moment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the minister has an idea of what I refer to. I do not know that he has received them, but, speaking for my own constituency alone, I have received resolutions from all the lodges in the county calling for the repeal of the Act. Has the minister received any of these resolutions from Nova Scotia or elsewhere?


George Gerald King: I am well aware of the^case to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rhodes) refers. Unfortunately, there has been, in the province of Nova Scotia, during the last year or two, a great deal of industrial strife. As the hon. gentleman knows that strife has come about largely through the endeavour of one union to get into possession and to be recognized, and the struggle that has been going on there has been largely between two different organizations rather than between employers and woTkingmen. -


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is true as affecting Nova Scotia, but has the minister received similar resolutions or requests from other provinces?


George Gerald King: I am informed that all the communications that we have received of the nature to which my hon. friend makes reference have been from lodges of the United Mine Workers' Association, the organization that is concerned in the diffi-. culties in the province of Nova Scotia.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: But have they all come from Nova Scotia?


George Gerald King: They have come from the lodges of this organization in other parts of the Dominion, and it would appear therefore, that in so far as the united mine workers are concerned many of them are not satisfied with the Act. But, I would point * out that, while that is true, I know some members of the United Mine Workers' Association who are strongly of the opinion that the Act is the best piece of legislation that has been enacted in the interest of workers. There is a difference of view between them in that regard, but I can refer my hon. friend to the stand taken by the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress which represents the union has Mr. KING.
pretty generally in \the Dominion and which body strongly endorsed this legislation, and also to the communications which I read to this House last year from the representatives of the several railway organizations in the Dominion also endorsing this legislation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say that in the report of the Deputy Minister of Labour with regard to conditions in Nova Scotia he pointed out that politics enter quite largely into the trouble down there, and that is illustrated veTy forcibly Dy the fact that while the United Mine Workers' in Nova Scotia are entirely opposed to the Act, and are calling for its repeal, the other body of organized labour, the provincial Workingmens' Association are taking a stand in its favour, but, it is interesting to note that while this organization is now at war with the United Mine Workers', at a meeting in Halifax in 1907, the Grand Council of the Provincial Workers' Association unanimously passed a resolution calling for the repeal of this Act in so far as _ it affected the province of Nova Scotia. While the minister is discussing this question I may say that the great grievance they have in so far as the Act is concerned is that there is no compensating feature in the Act to make good the loss to the men of the thirty days which they must work before they can go on strike. Under the Act there is no compensation coming to them at all. It simply means that the management receives 30 days' notice that there is going to be war which means that the management is able to fortify itself and consequently the efforts of the miners by means of a strike prove largely abortive, after the 30 day period. That is the great difficulty.


George Gerald King: If my hon. friend had read the Act carefully he will see that the company is not allowed to change the conditions during that time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Unfortunately they do.


George Gerald King: If they do, then my hon. friend and those interested in the welfare of the men should point to the clause of the Act which gives the men redress, and under which the companies are liable to prosecution if they take steps of that kind. The Hillcrest Coal Company of Alberta did lock out its men on one occasion without giving notice, and they were fined under the Act.


Mr. WILSON (Lennox).: How much were they fined?


George Gerald King: I really forget at the moment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is all right if it is a lockout, but if the company should choose to say that they closed down be-

*cause business was dull, or because the plant calls for alterations and so on, it is a simple matter to have, in effect, a lookout.


George Gerald King: Granting all that, they would have that power if the Act was not on the statute-books at all. But what the Act does give the workingmen which they never had before is the right to put their own man on the board, and he has the power to summon before him the members [DOT]of the company by which those whom he represents are employed, to examine their books, and get a complete statement before the public, in order to show who was right and who was wrong, and thus bring to bear upon the situation public opinion properly shaped and properly defined which is of all factors the strongest in bringing about justice in these industrial [DOT]disputes.
Mr- MADDIN. Does the minister wish the House to understand that employees may summon their employers to disclose their books, their sources of revenue, their cost of manufacture, their market price, and lay it before the public. I am sure he must know that the members of the board alone can receive that, and that they are worn to secrecy. The public are not *allowed to know that .and quite properly they should not know it.


George Gerald King: What I stated was this-


Mr. MADDIN.: The Minister of Labour [DOT]did say that this Act empowered workingmen - to appoint one of their own number to the board.


George Gerald King: Yes.


James William Maddin: To summon their employers and have the employers produce their books?


George Gerald King: Yes.


James William Maddin: And lay it before the public?


George Gerald King: No, I did not say that.


James William Maddin: The Act does not make any such provision, and it would be very unwise if it did.


George Gerald King: I have the Act before me, and it provides, just what I said, that a body of workingmen, where a board is granted, may name any workingman they please,_ provided he has not a financial interest in the dispute, to represent them on the hearing, and that man once appointed has all the powers of a judge in the matter of summoning an employer, compelling him to produce his books, to show what profit he is making, what wages he paid, what is his output, and all the rest of it. This is the power under the Act, and it is a great power to give to any body of men ;
*a power very much greater than that of simply going out on strike and waiting while they are losing their wages day by day to see whether their endurance is stronger than that of some great corporation. I think that an enlightened view of the industrial situation will lead one inevitably to see that strikes are the last thing in the world which workingmen want. If there is any means whereby justice can be secured to the parties without that extreme measure, it should be resorted to. The record which I have given to the House to-night goes to show that our legislation which was inaugurated by this parliament as a whole, has done very great .service to the working classes, and to all .classes in this country. To cite only one instance in addition, take the case of street railway strikes. In the period of four years before this Act was passed there were six or seven strikes on the Street railways of Canada, and they were among the worst we had in the Dominion. They entailed considerable loss, and the community suffered very considerably. Now, since this Act was passed there have been seven boards in the large cities, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and there has been only one street railway strike in four years, that being the strike which took place in Winnipeg a few weeks ago, when the men did not accept the award. The result of that strike is well known to the House. There is a concrete instance, taking only one industry, showing the immense service this legislation has been not only to the workers but to the public as well. I think that is a matter with regard to which we can afford to have a little national ipride.
I should like to put on record a comparison between the effect of our legislation, and the effect of the legislation in New Zealand, and New South Wales. A great deal has been said in the world at different times about the effect of the legislation in both these countries where compulsory arbitration laws exist ; it is sometimes said that there are no strikes there, and that they have found a panacea for these industrial difficulties which no other nation has found. When Mr. Beddoe, our Canadian trade commissioner went to New Zealand, I asked him if he would let me have a report in regard to strikes there in so far as he could get information and verify it on the spot. On August the 22nd last in a report which he sent to the department he gives a list of 16 strikes as having occurred in New Zealand within the preceding 18 months. If you make an allowance for the difference in population between the two countries, the strikes in New Zealand would amount to under their system of compulsory arbitration, 96, as
34U3

compared with 69 in Canada during a corresponding period. We had only 69 strikes in 1908, and if they had the same population they would have had 96. It is also of interest to note the effect of the enforcement of their law. Under the compulsory arbitration law the means resorted to by the state is to penalize employers, and employees when they do not abide by the findings. Suppose we had a similar law in Canada the effect would have been as follows : Had prosecutions for infringement occurred in Canada to a degree proportionate with the larger population of the Dominion there would have been during the last fiscal year no fewer than 9,672 employers, and 5,840 employees fined in our courts ; a total of 16,514 cases. This does not take into account the very considerable number of prosecutions in which convictions failed, so that it is not unfair to place the number of prosecutions on which the courts have been compelled to pass at 20,000. This comparison is made on the basis of 8 to 1 ; the population of New Zealand being in round numbers 1,000,000, and that of Canada 8,000,000. New Zealand has had 16 years experience of the Act, and this record obtains in the latest year, so that a country newly entering on similar legislation might reasonably expect to find the proportion of similar prosecutions higher. Then, New South Wales, which has also attempted legislation along compulsory arbitration lines, has had an experience hardly less satisfactory than that of New Zealand.
Mr. Harris Weinstock who was recently sent as a special commissioner from the state of California to visit Australia, in a special report with regard to New South Wales, states that the following figures as to strikes were given to him by the registrar of that State, having been taken from that officer's private file. In 1901, 2; in 1902, 12 ; in 1903, 11 ; in 1904, 11 ; in 1905, 36 ; in 1906 . 29 ; in 1907, 52 ; in 1908-in the first three months only-33.
, It is worth while comparing these figures for a moment, representing a state under compulsory arbitration, with the Canadian figures for the two years 1908-09, under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. The strikes in Canada during each of those years were 69 only, a total of 138 for two years. The strikes in New South Wales for 1906 and 1907, two years nearest the Canadian years (the New South Wales figures for 1908 are incomplete, though very high so far as they go) totalled 81. The population of Canada is in round figures about five times that of New South Wales. Were our strikes proportionate in number with those of New South Wales they would have reached during the two years the very high figure of 405 or over 200 a year, a higher figure than has been shown Mr. KING.
in any of the ten years during which a record has been kept in Canada.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Has the minister any statistics to show the percentage of strikes before the enactment of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act as against those since?


George Gerald King: Yes, certainly. The record has been kept in Canada for nearly ten years, and the statements that I have just been giving to the House are based upon the figures which are to be found in the annual report of the department; and if hon. members will take the trouble to verify what I have given to the House, they will find that since that Act passed we have in those industries to which the Act applies cut out some 90 per cent of^ industrial disputes by virtue of the legislation as compared with those which occurred before.	.	,
Just one further word m regard to the Grand Trunk strike to which my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has referred. It appears that some hon. gentlemen opposite are endeavouring to hold the government responsible for all that has taken place since the settlement of that dispute. To give the government no credit, or as little as possible, for the settlement, but to make it responsible for everything not entirely satisfactory that has taken place since. In other words because two ministers were present and did their best to 'bring the parties together and to effect a settlement they would make the government liable for the carrying out of any agreement that might be arrived at under the operation of the Industrial Disputes Act. If the help of the state to bring about a settlement of an industrial disipute is to make the state responsible for everything the parties do in working out that settlement, that is imposing an unwarranted responsibility on the government and going_ a length which I do not think this parliament would approve. In November 1906 there was a serious strike at Lethbridge in Alberta. The mines had been closed for some months, and the people of the prairie provinces were facing a fuel famine at the beginning of the winter. I was sent out as deputy minister to try to effect an agreement between the parties. An agreement was arrived at upon every point except on the matter of discrimination as between union and non-union men. On that point a compromise was finally affected, both the men and the company agreeing to a clause which I drafted as representing, fairly I thought, the view of both. But we could not get the decision of the company for some little time after the men had given theirs, as to the acceptance of the proposed clause. After waiting some days, I

received the following telegram from the manager of the company :
The managing director still thinks our clause fair to all parties, but under circumstances existing in country is willing to accept your substitute clause provided all other conditions are accepted.
In reporting to this government on that settlement I made this statement:
I showed this wire to the representatives of the men with whom I had gone to Indianapolis, gave them an assurance in the name of the government that the company had accepted the clause which I had drafted and the conditions agreed to at the joint conference, and an hour later the strike was declared at an end.
I mention this case because it is a parallel one to xne intervention or the government in the settlement of the Grand Trunk strike. The parties to the Lethbridge strike had been negotiating for a settlement. The miners on the one side and the company on the other had come to a final agreement. It was an agreement between these two parties. But what the miners wanted was that the clause referred to should be known publicly to have been accepted by both sides; and I said to them, as an official who had been sent to endeavour to bring about a settlement:
I will vouch for that; I will see that there shall ; be no misrepresentation on that point ; and on that pledge being given, the strike was declared at an end. What happened? The mines opened up, work was resumed, and there was no further trouble there for some little time. But what hon. gentlemen opposite contend is that if some trouble had taken place subsequently, the government of this country should have ibeen held responsible, simply because an officer sent by the government had witnessed a term in the agreement, and was prepared to vouch for that being one of the terms ot the settlement. That is what hon. gentlemen opposite are attempting to do in the case of the Grand Trunk strike. -Now, the Grand Trunk settlement was arrived at between the parties themselves, Mr. Hays representing the Grand Trunk Railway Company on the one side, and Messrs. Garretson and Lee representing "?e on the.other side. These parties Tiir'i-J' 6 ne&otiating. The hon. Minister of Militia and myself spent two or three days doing our level best to get these parties to meet together, and when they did meet, to keep them together until they could arrive at some definite settlement. Feeling was running very high. The company had refused to negotiate with these leaders. Here is a telegram which I received from Mr. Murdock:
Messrs. Garretson and Lee held conference with. Mr. Hays to-day without result. '
The Canadian leaders had been trying to get a conference, but had been unsuccessful, and they sent to the United States for these two men, who were the heads of their organization, brought them to Montreal, and sought a further conference, but without any result. When Sir Frederick and I reached Montreal, that was the situation. The parties were unwilling to meet together, and we had to bring all the pressure we possibly could upon them to bring them together; and when we got them together we had to do our best to keep them together for a couple of days until we got the terms of the settlement threshed out. But the terms of the settlement were terms as between the parties themselves, not between the government of Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway Company or between the government of Canada and the men. We were there as ministers of the Crown prepared to vouch for the terms that were in that _ agreement should they ever be questioned. That position we are prepared to take up to the present. How was our action in that regard viewed by the men themselves? Let their own records speak. I have here a volume of the Railroad Trainmen of September, 1910. In an article on the Grand Trunk railway strike at page 297, there is the following:


Mr. GORDON (Nipissing).: The hon. minister has said that he and the Minister of Militia took an active part in bringing about a settlement, and I would like to ask him if he thinks that either of the parties broke any of the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at ?


George Gerald King: Well, I would say this, that if I had been one of the parties to the dispute, I would not have carried out the settlement in the way it has been, but every man can do as I have done, draw his own conclusion. I am prepared to state the terms of settlement, but every one is competent to judge for himself as to whether they have been carried out or not. In this article to which I have referred, I find the following:
The strike on the Grand Trunk railway system which was commenced July 18 under the direction of the Order of Railway Conductors and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, was ended on August 2 at six p.m., when the agreement was signed by Mr. Hays, for the Grand Trunk railway, and the committee of the Order of Railway Conductors and Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen for the men.
The strike was not ended by my colleague, the Minister of Militia and myself signing any agreement, but by this agreement being signed by President Hays and the representatives of the men. Here was the position at the time of the settlement,

a3 described in this article, by the leaders of these organizations : Referring to th^ situation prior to the settlement the article goes on to say :
The company, however, was able to secure enough strike breakers to enable it to run 148 freight trains within the 24 hours ending at six p.m., August 2, handling an average of 22 cars per train. While this average of trains run was far below normal conditions, a start had been made in the freight service, and it was only a question of time when the entire service would be resumed.
I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite, when they are endeavouring to saddle the responsibility on the government, of the non-reinstatement of some of the men-I think the number is around 200. out of a total of 4,000 involved in this dispute-to bear in mind this statement I have just read of the men themselves. According to this statement, it was only a question of time, when the entire service would be resumed by the company. I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether, in view of this statement, considerable service was not rendered to the employees by a settlement being effected. Instead of only about 200 men being out of employment to-day, there would have been considerably more had that strike been continued.
Passenger service on the main line was but slightly impaired at any time during the strike, while the branch passenger line service was demoralized for about a week.
That is what ' The Trainmen ' say. The article continues :
The settlement includes the return to the service within 90 days of every employee who left it with the exception of those who can be proven guilty of illegal acts against the company. The settlement was effected principally through the efforts of the Minister of Labour, the Hon. Mackenzie King, assisted by Sir Frederick Borden, Minister of Militia, to whom full credit is given for their efforts in bringing about the settlement.
My hon. colleague and myself 'are generously credited with having brought about a settlement, but the terms of the settlement were agreed to by the parties themselves. The parties, I believe, would not have got together, if we had not worked as we did, and the fight would have gone on until the railway company and the workingmen and the country as well, would all have suffered tremendous loss.
Then in the Railway Conductor's Magazine, published by the other organization, I find at page 718, the following:
In connection with this settlement, the thanks of the Canadian membership and that of our entire organization as well, are due and tendered to the Hon. Wm. L. Mackenzie King, Minister of Labour, and Sir Frederick Borden, Minister of Militia, for their untiring efforts in behalf of the men, for the Mr. KING.
influence they brought to bear upon ithe Grand Trunk Railway management contributed in no small degree in producing the satisfactory result and the ending of the controversy.
That statement goes to show that the efforts of the ministers contributed to bringing about a settlement, but the men themselves are responsible for the settlement finally reached.
Similarly, in a pamphlet issued on the Grand Trunk Railway Central Vermont strike, by W. G. Lee, president of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, I find at page 10, the following statement:
The ministers of the Crown and particularly the Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Minister of Labour, and Sir Frederick Borden, Minister of Militia, were largely instrumental in bringing about a settlement of the strike. They kept in close touch with the strike throughout its duration and made the most of every opportunity to bring the two parties together.
There was the service that we had been able to render, but the settlement had to be effected by the parties themselves, when they came together.
They are due high praise for their interest in the welfare of the striking employees and of those affected by the interruption of the company's traffic. Their efforts in behalf of the men are appreciated by both organizations and by officers and individual members of the brotherhood.
Then Mr. Garretson, president of the Order of Railway Conductors, sent the following communication from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on August 10, to myself, and I believe sent a similar one to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Militia:
Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
August 10, 1910.


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

1 would ask permission to read just one further communication, which I hope will be a satisfactory answer to my hon. friends opposite. This is signed toy Mr. S. N. Berry, vice-president of the Order of Railway Conductors, and James Murdoch, vicepresident of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, and is dated, Windsor Hote' Ottawa, December 13, 1910
Windsor Hotel,	.
Ottawa, Dec. 13, 1910. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-In further reference to conference held yesterday between the Premier, the honourable Minister of Railways and yourself with a committee of unreinstated Grand Trunk employees, accompanied by the undersigned, at which meeting the facts in connection with the Grand Trunk Company's failure to equitably apply terms of settlement made when strike was called off were discussed.
The committee desire to assure you, and through you the government, that they deprecate the attitude taken by certain gentlemen (presumably well intentioned) whereby an effort is being made to hold the government responsible for the failure to apply the terms of settlement made. .
I hope hon. gentlemen will keep that sentence in mind when they try to saddle on the government every failure on the part of either of the parties to live up to the terms of the settlement.
We appreciate fully the assistance given both at the time of the strike, and since, by the government in its efforts to bring about on behalf of the Canadian public and the citizens of Canada who were involved in the strike a settlement, and an equitable carrying out of the terms of that settlement. It is definitely understood by the men interested and the undersigned that it i,s not on account of any failure on the part of the government that the present unfortunate situation obtains, but that the existing conditions are rather the result of the obstinate disregard for contract obligations on the part of Grand Trunk officials.
The assistance given so far in a conciliatory and mediating way by representatives of the government is much appreciated, but the committee would further request that if consistent the government should take further means, if possible, either by the appointment of a Royal Commission or in some other consistent manner to enforce from the officials of the Grand Trunk an acceptable carrying out of the agreement made and understandings reached.
It appears to the committee that the government can consistently lend its further aid in straightening out this matter when the fact is recalled that the unreinstated Grand Trunk employees who are asking for the carrying out of the agreement made, are placed in such a position on account of the fact that aliens or American citizens who are present in charge of Grand Trunk affairs, have repudiated an agreement made with Grand Trunk 108
employees and an understanding reached with ministers of the Crown.
It is insufficient for those American officials to hide behind the statement that they have carried out their agreement as ' acts are more forceful than words ' and the facts are that more than 200 reputable Canadian citizens who have not been guilty of any overt act are being wrongfully held out of service to satisfy the vindictive and retaliatory desires of officers in charge.
We would again assure you that if the government can consistently arrange to take any further action in this matter either by the appoinment of a Royal Commission or other investigation, that the employees will be governed by any decisions reached as a result of such impartial investigation.
Will you kindly advise at your earliest convenience as to any further action taken or contemplated by the government.
We remain, very truly vours, (Signed) S. N. BERRY,
Vice-President O. R. C. (Signed) JAMES MURDOCK,
Vice-President B. of R. T.
There is the attitude that the men involved in this strike take towards the intervention of the government. And I must say that is the attitude I would expect workingmen, with the sense of honour that I know workingmen to have, to take, in view of the service that was performed. They know what was done to help in bringing about the termination of that strike, and, being grateful, they deprecate, naturally and rightly, the attitude of gentlemen for political reasons trying to make out that the government in some way is responsible for any incident or failure on the part of one of the parties to live up, in the way which might be expected, to the terms of that settlement.


Haughton Lennox: I have something to deprecate too. I deprecate that the minister (Mr. King) should think it necessary to try to provoke difficulty for himself in getting his estimates through. He must be Irish, I think. He seems to throw down a challenge in order that a quarrel may be provoked. I would not speak at this time if it were not that the minister particularly challenged me by referring to me directly. The minister is on the wrong track. If I might use a vulgar expression which, probably, he would hardly appreciate, he is barking up the wrong tree.


George Gerald King: I am not aware of having challenged the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) in any way.
Mr.- LENNOX. The hon. gentleman (Mr. King) began his remarks with a reference to the hon. member for South Simcoe-I take it that he must have meant me.


George Gerald King: If I may be allowed, I think the hon, gentleman misunderstood. Mv reason for mentioning the Grand Trunk



strike was that it was referred to before we got into Committee of Supply. In my remarks I did not have any personal reference to any member of the House whatever.


Haughton Lennox: We will see. ' Hansard ' to-morrow will be our sufficient record as to what I say. The hon. gentleman (Mr. King) started by referring to the hon. member for South Simcoe, and he proceeded then to deal for a moment or so with the Grand Trunk strike. Then he wandered off to Lethbridge, and excused himself for that excursion by saying that the Lethbridge situation was illustrative of the position in the Grand Trunk strike. Then he wandered off to somewhere in the United States. I wrote a letter during the time he was discussing that matter, so cannot' profess to have followed what he said. But he did try to give the House the impression that hon. members on this side, notably myself as chief sinner, were attacking the government in reference to the Grand Trunk strike. Speaking for myself-and others can speak for themselves -I believe that all I have said about-the Grand Trunk strike in this House at any time has been in the form of two sets of questions put upon the Order Paper and the two or three questions that I asked this afternoon. And at that time I told the hon. gentleman distinctly through Mr. Speaker, who was then in the Chair, that I did not propose to pursue this matter until I had knowledge of the facts. The minister has thought fit to delay the passage of his estimates for several hours by bringing before the House-hoping, I suppose, to bring it before the country, but I do not think he will be successful in that- a lot of matter very eulogistic of the Minister of Labour. That we would naturally expect. Who can watch the course of the Minister of Labour and fail to be his admirer?-the gigantic work he is doing, and so on.


James William Maddin: If the hon. member will pardon me, I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, if the number of members present constitute a quorum? I have seen estimates before Committee of Supply when there were more members on the government side.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I find there are twenty-one members present-a quorum.


James William Maddin: Including one hon. gentleman who 'has just entered?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: The Minister of Labour (Mr. King) has not altogether emptied the House, and we can proceed. I would suggest to him that if we are to act harmoniously, he, at an early day, should discon-


George Gerald King: tinue his practice of to-night. We would take it for granted, if the minister would let us do so, that he is doing well. I will take it for granted, at all events, that he is doing as well as he can-that he intends to do well. But it is not necessary that the time of this House should be taken up in placing on record, and thereby burdening ' Hansard ', with a lot of stuff that may prove to be mere twaddle to a great extent. The minister says he has the certificates of the men, and that they being actuated by a sense of honour, could not say anything else than that the government had done all it possibly could for them. The men have not spoken yet at all. Some representatives of theirs, who may or may not have acted well, have spoken, it is true. It is by the result of what I referred to this afternoon that we shall be able to judge whether these men did wrell or not. We cannot judge by these letters; we will judge by the facts and by the results. The minister is trying to crawl out of it already. He says the government are not responsible: they intervened, it is true, but the men must take the responsibility through their agents, for the government was not their agent- that, I think, summarizes what the minister says. But the men know that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Militia intervened. That is a guarantee-or ought to be a guarantee-to the men that their interests will be-watched, and that they will not be thrown down. And if it turns out that the agreement entered into at Montreal between the representatives of the striking employees and the Grand Trunk railway was a gold brick; that the men thought they were getting an absolute and complete settlement of all difficulties, that the slate was being cleaned, that all differences were being removed, that they were being reinstated as if no strike had taken place, and that all would be reinstated except those guilty of violence-if it turns out that these men were thrown down, it will not redound to the credit of the government, but the government will be held responsible. That is what I want to say to the minister since he has challenged the position. And I want to tell him also that he intervened in this strike at a critical time. And he did not do much. All that he and the Minister of Militia did, as far as I can ascertain, was to get from the railway company finally a statement which they would not put in writing, that when they spoke of taking on these men as soon as possible, that meant that they would take them back within ninetv days. But what I am led to understand by the men themselves, whatever these representatives may have said to the minister, is that they believed when that strike was being settled by the intervention of the government that they were to be restored to the same

positions they stood in at the time the strike was called. If it turns out that that is not the case, I for one, and I have a right to speak of it in this House, whatever the agents may say, will say that the government is not without blame in the matter. If it turns out, on the other hand, as I hope it will, that these men were to have been secured in all their rights and the Minister of Labour did . not see to it that the agreement was broad enough to cover those rights, then too he will be responsible. If it can he placed in a better position than that I will be quite ready to say that I have no condemnation of the minister in that matter. I do not intend at this moment to make any charge of default on the part of the minister of any kind but, as I said this afternoon, when the proper time comes and when I have my facts, I will then, if they justify such a course, bring it up in the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In response to an inquiry which I made of the minister this afternoon as to why it was that he intervened in the case of the Grand Trunk strike, and not at Springhill, the minister has stated that in the former case he had a request, and in the latter he had not. Practically that summarizes the distinction between the two strikes. That he did not interfere in the case of the Springhill strike or tender his services for the purpose of mediating between the parties because he was not requested to do so. It seems to me that for that very reason the minister ought to intervene, and I say this with the utmost deference and good will, and because I have the interests not necessarily of my own constituents but of labouring men throughout the country at heart, and am prepared to believe that the Minister of Labour has their interests at heart as well. My contention is that if the Department of Labour is to be of full benefit to the people of this country it must exercise, if I may use the term, its plenary powers to go, and attempt to adjust differences wherever they may occur. If there is a fight on between individuals they get rather hot headed, they are not amenable to reason, and they battle away until one or the other-wins, it is a question of the survival of the fittest, and the man having the greatest brute force wins, but that does not necessarily mean that the better side wins. What is true of individuals is true of organizations and of nations. When two nations resort to the arbitrament of war, the nation having the greatest number of soldiers, and the greatest financial resources wins out, but it does not follow that the nation having the right side of the quarrel wins. In the case of industrial disputes, where the parties are at daggers drawn, as at Springhill, it is perfectly natural that they will not ask some third party to intervene.
I think the minister gave a very good reason why he should intervene in a remark he made with reference to the Grand Trunk strike. He said that no agreement would have been effected there had we, referring to himself and the Minister of Militia, not worked very hard. He goes to show by that fact alone that a third party coming in, not knowing either side of the dispute, and there only to bring the parties together, is able to accomplish a much greater work than can be done by the parties themselves. The minister was pleased to say that I could glorify myself if I could settle this strike. Allow me to say to him that there is a member of parliament covering every constituency in this Dominion, and that you could not have an industrial dispute without a member being affected. If you are going to place the responsibility of settling strikes on the members of parliament, why have a Minister of Labour at all ? Otherwise the duties of the department are simply clerical, they consist in getting statistics, and publishing the ' Labour Gazette ' which could be done by a staff of officials working under any other department. I did not like the attitude of the minister in attempting to make it appear that our efforts on this side were largely partisan. I did not see any attempt before the minister spoke on the part of members on this side to place the responsibility for the failure of the settlement of the Grand Trunk strike on the government.


George Gerald King: I was not referring to anything that took place in the committee, I was referring to previous discussions in the House when I spoke of these things.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: But a minister, a man clothed with authority, coming froim a long distance away, can do a great deal towards the settlement of a strike, whereas a member of parliament, who happens to be on the ground, who may know the conditions, who is himself a representative of some one_ political party has not the same opportunity of doing effective work as the man from the outside, or the man occupying a higher office. If the minister is to act as negotiator only in cases where he is called on, we might as well dispense with his services altogether, because the parties could call in a judge or a member of parliament or a clergyman or a professor ; but if we are to have the full benefit of a labour department, we should have a minister or a deputy or some competent man in the department prepared, wherever there is a labour dispute of any dimensions, to go to the scene of the trouble and stay there until a settlement m some form or another is effected.
I hope that the minister will see his way clear without a request to go down to Springhill, and I may say that if there
341a

is anything I can do I should 'be very happy to go along with him, because I believe in the interests of the men who are struggling there to-day, in the interests of the country, and of the community at large, if there is a possible means of settling that strike, it ought to be settled.


James William Maddin: The Minister of Labour in his speech to-night has gone to some trouble to paint a very good picture of the Minister of Labour. Lord Macaulay, in his essay on Warren Hastings, describes a distinguished gentleman who sat to Lely the painter, and who said to him: Paint me as I am; if you leave out one scar or pimple I shall not pay you a penny. I am quite sure that when the distinguished gentleman who occupies the portfolio of labour had finished adorning himself tonight he had such a halo around his head as would astonish Michael the Archangel. He decked himself with a wreath that contained everything from roses to sunflowers.
I would like to add to that wreath one thistle-only one-and I take it from a fellow countryman of his own, a good Scotch Liberal fellow newspaper man in the province of Nova Scotia. True his political faith was not always as good as it is at the present time. I refer to the Hon. Robert Drummond, member of the legislative council of Nova Scotia, and publisher of the maritime ' Mining Record.' There appears in an issue of that paper an article referring to a description of the Minister of Labour published in the Canadian ' Courier,' and I am quite sure that the minister cannot be held responsible for observations contained in the ' Courier.' But, these are the deductions and conclusions that the Hon. Robert Drummond drew from this article and published in his paper last August. He said:
The * Canadian Courier ' in an article highly eulogistic of Hon. Mackenzie King refers to him as the * boy minister.' No one dares to criticize any of Mr. King's actions without a swarm of liberal press bees swooping down on him. This raises a doubt in the minds of some, as to Mr. King's alleged towering abilities. If in the Department of Labour he has been a towering success, his works are all the praise he should need. We in Nova Scotia are not in a posi tion to fairly criticise the boy minister. He has never shown us any of the tricks of his department. Perhaps we did not give him the right opportunity. We did give him one opportunity but then it may not have been to his liking, and that perhaps accounts for his not making much of a fist of it. Indeed the boy minister acted in a way which could not be called other than boyish. There was a strike at Springhill and Mr. King came all the way from Ottawa to fix it up. On coming to the junction he found that Mr. Cowans was in Halifax. Instead of taking the next train to Halifax he sent a long telegram to Mr. Cowans and took the next train back to Ottawa. So like a boy.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Why did'nt he telegraph to find out if Mr. Cowans was at home before taking so long a journey. Was it because he was a boy and inexperienced that Laurier sent Sir Frederick to assist Mr. King in the Grand Trunk Railway strike. What is the use of beslobbering the boy over the settlement; any one with ordinary brains could have done all that the minister did with the government at his back. By and by when Canada grows bigger the Department of Labour will need a heavyweight. By that time Mr. King's boyhood days may be over and by age and experience he may be fitted for so ticklish a post. Give Mr. King an open field and no favour, but for pity's sake don't say he is a wonder because he does the work of his office to the best, of his ability.
And, Mr. Chairman, with the canniness of a Scotchman, Mr. Drummond would not continue by saying ' and that is not saying much.' In his eulogy of himself this distinguished gentleman to-night told us that he hoped hon. gentlemen opposite would not be obliged to take their lives in their hands as he had been. He did not indicate whether it was his physical or his political life. He told us since dinner that he had gone out to Lethbridge during the strike there when people were dying. He crowns himself with everything he can bedeck himself with, he makes himself a great hero indeed; in fact, I wondered how it was that he did not come back from Lethbridge with the Carnegie medal for heroism, or something of the kind.
However, Mr. Chairman, this distinguished gentleman has told us to-night about the strike situation in Nova Scotia, and he has given us the reasons why he did not intervene at Springhill. He was discreetly silent with regard to the county^ of Cape Breton, and with regard to the strike there in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I would like to say that when the minister makes the statement that he made here to-night that the difficulty of the labour situation in Nova Scotia was due to a war between the two unions, he is not stating what is absolutely correct. When he was asked to-night if he had received petitions himself against the Industrial Disputes Act asking for the repeal of it, and said that he had, but that they came from the United Mine Workers of America, I would remind him that in September, 1907, when this Act had been taken up by the Provincial Workingmens' Association at Halifax at their annual convention, and after they had studied it in all fairness and all reason, they unanimously passed a resolution which was submitted to the then Minister of Labour, the present hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) who, I am pleased to see in his seat to-night, asking for the repeal of the Act. The Minister of Labour tells us that the strike situation has some political significance in Nova Scotia. I want to remind

Mm again that before the United Mine Workers of America had taken up a position in Nova Scotia, and while that very resolution was receiving perhaps the due consideration of the Postmaster General, who was then the acting Minister of Labour, the miners of the Dominion Coal Company had a grievance, they called a special meeting of the council of the Provincial Workingmens' Association, that convened at New Glasgow, and who did the lobbying? The very gentleman who eulogizes in such a beautiful manner the Minister of Labour, the Hon. Robert Drummond, was on the scene. Not only did that special meeting of the grand council of the Provincial Workingmens' Association ask for a board of conciliation, but under such special auspices as they had on that occasion and with delegates from amongst the employees of the Intercolonial railway, from amongst the employees of Halifax and Truro, the miners of Cumberland, Pictou and Inverness, but they undertook to discuss, compare and study the Nova Scotia statute which has reference to arbitration, and the Industrial Disputes Act. Not only did they settle in favour of the Industrial Disputes Act, but these gentlemen from the various lodges undertook to name their representative on the board to represent the employees of the Dominion Coal Company, and with Mr. Drummond outside manipulating the discussion there was named Dr. Arthur Kendall, M.P.P., who sits on the Liberal side of the legislature of Nova Scotia. There was no United Mine Workers' in Nova Scotia then. I would like, however, to point out that the protests that came at that time from the Provincial Workingmens' Association have been followed since by protests from the United Mine Workers of America, numbers of which I have received from day to day, and some of which I have here in my hand to-night. I wish to say I have every sympathy with the Minister of Labour with regard to a situation of that kind. He talked about taking his life in his hands. I am prepared to take my political life in my hands and to stand w ith the Minister of Labour for the preservation of the Act if he will amend it, so as to make it a reasonable working Act. I wish to repeat, in order to make myself plain, that I am not in favour of the repeal of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, but I do wish the minister would take steps to render it more effective in practice and to remove the objections to it. I realize that this is new legislation, embarking in a new field. It is a new industrial tribunal, as it were, and naturally it is not a perfect one. The Canada Temperance Act, when it was passed originally in 1868, was over-burdened with imperfections, but in 1908-and I think as a lawyer I am safe in saying it-it is one of the most perfect pieces of legislation
to be found on the statute-books of Canada. And how was that brought about? As breaches of the Act arose, as offenders escaped the penalties of the Act, parliament amended it and by amending it perfected it. And in the light of our experience with the Industrial Disputes Act, I believe it could be so amended as to make it acceptable to employers and employees alike. I am not one of those who, if I build a dike to secure my lands from the overflow of the river and find that notwithstanding my efforts the water had inundated my lands, would say: Destroy the dike. No; I would seek the weak spots; I would look to the holes in it; I would repair these, strengthen the work, and try to make it a perfect dike. If the minister will seriously take up this Industrial Disputes Act, if he will follow the counsel given by the leader of the opposition in the resolution he moved in 1907, and which was talked out at six o'clock by the member for South Cape Breton of that day; if the Minister of Labour will take the counsel offered in that resolution to consult the employers of the country, and to consult the employees and labou? unions of the country and get them together and have each side point out the imperfections of this Act, I believe he would be able to secure a more perfect piece of legislation than we have at present. Surely there can be no objection to such a course as that. The minister Quoted statistics, and if we accept his figures (and figures can be made to serve almost any purpose) 91 per cent of the disputes that have arisen under this Act have been settled without a strike, and the remaining 9 per cent have been settled according to the decree of the board, or on terms less acceptable to the men who had asked for the board. Let me point out to the minister that this law was enacted in 1907, and since that year the cost of living has been going up in an ascending scale. From whom would the demand come for a conciliation board? I asked him if he would furnish this House some time with the percentage of the number of requisitions from employers and employees/. I will venture to prognosticate that 90 per cent of these petitions emanated from employees and not employers. Above all other times this is a time when employees should be receiving increased wages. This is a time when the cost of living is greater than ever before, and consequently the men must ask for an increase, and when they are refused they are met with this Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. They dare not strike until they get the board, and how do they get the board? They must ask for it. But is that all? No, Sir. They must accompany their application with a sworn statement that unless the board is granted there will be a strike. Is not that a beautiful

piece of legislation? Doesn't it encourage strikes? What are the men to do when the board decides against them? They are compelled, first of all, to swear that they will strike unless the board is granted, and when the board gives a decree that is not acceptable to them every principle of manhood forces them to make good the statutory declaration which they are compelled to send along with their application for a conciliation board. Let me tell the minister that it would be very interesting, to this House to have statistics to show how often the employer met the request of the employees when they presented their petition to the Department of Labour; how often they met it in a conciliatory way, and how often they stood aside and said: The men have no case, and we won't appoint anybody. The Act provides, in that case, that the government shall appoint a representative of the company. This forces upon the department a species of patronage which I have no doubt is quite distasteful to them. It forces them to look for some one to represent the corporation, and what is the re-, suit? We are told that politics creeps into these things at times. Is it not a fact that that corporation wherever it may be situated, from Vancouver to Sydney, or from the Great Lakes to the Arctic ocean, will invariably, through its representatives, proceed to Ottawa and say: We won't have anything to do with this board, and whilst under the statute it becomes your duty to appoint a man to represent us, you must be mighty careful whom you appoint. There is appointee No. 1, by the government, after the precautionary measures taken by the employer. What follows: The corporation, or employer, then goes to its representative appointed by the government and says: Don't you agree with the other representative as to a chairman. Don't you dare do it; you are appointed to represent us; we are very reluctant to have anything to do with this thing, but we instruct you now as our representative to be very careful; you must not agree on the third man. Then, under the law, at the end of five days it is up to the government again to appoint a chairman, and it is then the pressure is brought and that the representatives of corporations all over the country get around the department and say: You must be mighty careful in the appointment of the chairman.


George Gerald King: Will my hon. friend allow me to make a statement? While he is throwing out such suggestions as he is doing now I may say that in at least 60 per cent, or probably more, of the cases the parties themselves have agreed on a chairman. During the time I was deputy minister, I think there was one occasion when a corporation suggested to me the name of a man whom they would like as a chairman. I told the person who suggested Mr. MADDIN.
it to me very plainly that that man certainly would not be appointed, and that hereafter I would thank them if they minded their own business. No corporation and no individual has ever approached me since I have been minister, or brought any kind of pressure to bear as to who the chairman of the board should be, and any corporation or individual who ever does may expect to have his or its name publicly disclosed.


James William Maddin: The hon. minister has stated his position in matters of this kind, but I wish to tell him that he will spend a good many nights and Sundays_ before he will be able to disabuse the minds of the employees throughout the Dominion of Canada that where the government is vested with the appointment of two members of a board of conciliation the men are going to get a square deal from that board. The workingmen of this country know the power of corporation influence, and whilst the hon. minister cites one particular case, he does not give the name of that case. Then, he tells only of one instance where one of the parties affected, came to him. I wonder if he will go into the confessional now and tell us how often he was approached by members of this parliament who counselled him as to making appoints ments either as representatives of constituents, of their own, or as members of a board.


George Gerald King: I have consulted with the members on both sides of the House, with regard to members of boards. I am not aware of a single member of the House having come to me to ask me to appoint a single man to a board.


James William Maddin: Will the hon. minister go a step further and tell us the names of some of the members on this side of the House whom he consulted ?


George Gerald King: I cannot think of a name at the moment, but I think I can give him one or more.


James William Maddin: The hon. the minister thinks if he had time he could name one man. When it comes to the selection of a chairman, the government appoint him. I say this, without any apprehension of successful contradiction, that when a government which makes appointments of postmasters, harbour commissioners, overseers of fisheries and rivers and streams by the score, and makes appointments such as this government makes, which appoints men that have nothing to do, but draw their salaries-and their name is legion-I ask the hon. minister if he thinks the common labourers of this country are going to accept as bona tide, a tribunal so constituted that two out of three of its members are appointed by this government ?


George Gerald King: I have no hesitation in saying that I think the workingmen generally know that the appointments made have been eminently satisfactory, and that the hon. gentleman will be unable to cite a single instance where any chairman of any board or any appointee of the government has given ground to any one to believe that he has done other than fill his position honourably and fairly and in the best interests of all parties concerned.


James William Maddin: I have not made a study of all the cases under this- Act; they are not compiled and put into a volume which one can see in a law library. They appear only from time to time in the ' Labour Gazette.'


George Gerald King: They are all compiled in the annual report.


James William Maddin: Not by themselves. They are overwhelmed with a lot of rubbish.


George Gerald King: No, by themselves.


James William Maddin: I have not followed the decisions of conciliation boards in other provinces, but I am familiar with a number of those which have been given in the province of Nova Scotia. I do not complain particularly of any one who has acted, either as an appointee of the government or on behalf of a corporation, from my own personal knowledge of the gentlemen who have acted on conciliation boards in Nova Scotia. I am presenting to the minister complaints with which the labouring communities are pregnant, and which you will meet with on every hand, and the natural deductions which thoughtful men will draw from the decisions of tribunals so constituted as these * conciliation boards are at the present time. A dispute between the employees of the Dominion Coal Company and that company arose in the county of Cape Breton in the spring of 1909. A board of conciliation was applied for, and it sat during the month of April. While the board was sitting at Glace Bay. and witnesses -were going up and testifying as fo the discrimination against them on account of the union they belonged to, after Mr. Mackinly Cameron, a barrister of Glace Bay, presenting the case on behalf of the men, had called 15 witnesses who swore that on the morning after the night they joined the United Mine Workers of America, their lamps were stopped and they were refused employment, and when Mr. Cameron asked: 'do you think it worth while to call any more witnesses ?' Mr. Duggan, the vice-president of the company, said: * 1 will admit that there was discrimination, but it was without the knowledge or consent of the company, and the company regrets it, and will put an end to it,' While the board was sitting, over 500 men in the
employ of the company had been dismissed for no other reason than that they had joined the United Mine Workers of America. What happened ! If it had been a trial before the Supreme Court, the company would have been brought before the bar for contempt. It demonstrated its intention throughout the whole proceeding, not to be bound by any finding .of the beard, because, while the board was sitting, it went on erecting an eight foot fence, miles in length, surrounding its property, and stringing over it three strands of wire, carrying about 1,000 volts on which it put up notices: ' Danger, live wire.' This was done while the board was considering whether or not the company was discriminating against its employees. With the statement of Mr. Duggan, that there would be no further discrimination, those men returned to work. Matters went on smoothly for some time, and the number of 500 went up by the first of July to 900, and on the 6th of July the men called a strike-not for recognition of the union. You cannot put your finger on a single published utterance, or find a single officer of the United Mine Workers of America, from its president, T. L. Lewis, in the United States, or the president of district No. 26, in the province of Nova Scotia, Mr. Dan Macdougall, dowm to the president of the humblest local union in the province, who demands recognition. But what they did say, and what they had a right to say, wa;s this:
' You had no right to dismiss us, or any one of us, for joining the labour union of our choice.' I ask the hon. minister if he concedes to the people -of this country, what our statutes have afforded them, what has been made an exception to the law of conspiracy, namely, the right to form labour unions ?


George Gerald King: Certainly.


James William Maddin: The moment that is conceded he must agree with me when I say that labour in this country has the right to choose its own labour institutions and not the organizations which are the choice of the employers. That being the case it would be much better if the minister would deal equitably with the situation such as we have in Nova Scotia. It would be much better if he would deal fairly and frankly with the men and not take his version of the situation from this report which was furnished by his deputy under circumstances which I intend to speak of later on. It would be much better for him not to take his views from the columns of the ' Globe ' and of newspapers in Nova Scotia anxious fo make out that the strike was originated for the purpose of serving political ends. I would ask that he would deal fairlv with the situation there rather than believe that the strike was for the recognition of a union.


Mr.  F. L.@: Wanklyn, vice-president of the Dominion Coal Company, is in Ottawa to-day. He came .up from Montreal last evening and immediately got into communication with the Militia Department. He was informed as to the procedure necessary for the despatch of troops to protect the mines at Sydney and was advised that a requisition from the municipal authorities or the county judge to the district officer commanding w'as all that was required. This was secured from Judge Fin-layson. This morning Mr. Wanklyn received a message stating that the special military train bearing the Royal Canadian Regiment at a strength of 512 had left Halifax at 3.45 a.m. The despatch added that things are quieter this morning but that some tracks were dynamited last night and a rifle shot fired at No. 6 colliery. I think the arrival of the troops will end it all, stated Mr. Wanklyn this morning. My advices are that only 33 per cent of the men are on strike and most of these are unskilled labourers.- We propose to fight them to a finish.
Further on the despatch says:
Mr. Wanklyn had a further conference with the acting deputy Minister of Militia this morning and afterwards called upon Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He explained that his visit to the Premier was wholly personal and to advise him of the conditions in which he is naturally interested.
On the morning of the 6th of July we had a strike down in Cape Breton, and on the following evening there arrived in Ottawa the vice-president of the Dominion Coal Company, Mr. Wanklyn, who called, not on the Labour Department-no, but on the Minister of Militia, to tell him that the company were going to fight to a finish. Naturally, under the circumstances, he .called on the Militia Department and not on the Department of Labour.


George Gerald King: In what year was that?


James William Maddin: 


James William Maddin: In 1909. Mr. Wanklyn had come up to Ottawa for the purpose of consulting (the Minister of Militia and not the Minister of Labour. Mr. Wanklyn was' going to fight the men to a finish.
The hon. Minister of Labour has properly said that the last thing people want is a strike. He could picture the horrors of it, as I have seen them myself, time and time again before there ever was an Act on our statute-book. The men themselves do not want to strike, but I want to say to the minister that when he takes out of the hands of the labouring men of this country the only weapon they have effectively to enforce their rights and gives them no compensation, he is putting himself in a position which is anything but enviable.


George Gerald King: I hope my hon. friend does not intend to imply that anything of the kind is done.


James William Maddin: Absolutely.


George Gerald King: Nothing of the kind is done. The right to strike is not taken away in any manner whatever, but the parties have to wait until the statute is acted upon.


James William Maddin: That is an argument and an aspect of the case with which I propose to deal. But how does the Act work? The men say they have a grievance and the Act operates in the interests of the employers and not of the employees. The men want an increase in wages which the employers refuse to give, and the men require that increase to meet the increased cost of living. They must send their application to Ottawa and accompany it by an affidavit declaring that there will be a strike unless their demands are conceded. The minister has five days within which he must notify the opposite party. When the opposite party has been served with a notification, it must reply in five days and then it has five days within which to appoint a representative. And these two have five days more in which to agree on a chairman. If they do not agree within the five days, the Department of Labour or the Governor in Council appoints a chairman. In this way over thirty days may elapse before the' board is constituted. Then the board sits, and after they have arrived at a conclusion, if it be not satisfactory, the men dare not strike until another thirty days. What could work better, in all conscience, in the interests of the employers than just such a provision? We have an alien law so loose and easily handled that from across the borders are brought strike breakers. That was done in the Canadian Pacific Railway strike, four or five years ago, in the Grand Trunk Railway strike of last summer, and in the strikes of the Dominion Coal Company and in Cumberland county, and that will continue to be done so long as the government is so

partial to the employers as to have this law on the statute-book which it is nobody's business to enforce.
In the particular case to which I have referred, what happened? While the board was sitting, the Dominion Coal Company were" building their miles and miles of eight foot fences and stringing their wires by coming in contact with which two little boys were killed. That is what the company was doing during the not less than sixty days' notice they had of a struggle against organized labour. And what had the employees to do during those 60 days? Dig coal every day:-a public utility, therefore they must serve the public and incidentally earn more dividends for their employers. They must not cease to work under a penalty of $50 a day for every day they were not working. And think of these men who had petitioned for a board of conciliation-last week they reached their work by crossing an open field; yesterday they had to go round the end of a fence; to-day they have to go through a gate in that fence. And shacks are thrown up to shelter imported labour; every hardware store is canvassed for stoves and cooking utensils. Here was the enemy-if the employer can be called the enemy of labour? though I do not see why that should be, and I would like to see employer and employee come together and adjust their differences-here was the enemy preparing for war, while the men were forbidden to make any preparations. They had to raise a bank of 400,000 tons of coal while the employers were raising the shacks to shelter the scab labour that was to beat them out in the end.
The minister did make some inquiry into these conditions in Cape Breton. He did send down the Deputly Minister of Labour. But before I speak of that, I want to go on with the story of how they got the militia into the county. Mr. Wanklyn came up here on the evening of Wednesday, the 7th of July. And on. Wednesday afternoon shortly after mid-day, application was made to the mayor of Glace Bay, to the mayor of Dominion and to the warden oi the municipality of Cape Breton, the company having coal mines in all these different districts. They refused to requisition the militia, and application was made to His Honour Mr. Justice Finlayson. And I wish to say here, as an aside perhaps, as it may not be strictly pertinent to this inquiry, that His Honour Mr. Justice Finlayson. sitting in the county court there, was obliged to try day after day many cases arising out of the strike, painful cases-distresses for rent, evictions from tenement houses and so on; they were ground out by the thousand. The application was made to Mr. Justice Finlayson for the militia. And, while there have been one or two who questioned his integrity
and fidelity to his office in the discharge of his duties on that occasion, I wish to say here to-night, on the floor of parliament, that as solicitor for the men, their chief solicitor at that time, L found Mr. Justice Finlayson absolutely honourable, upright, fair, courteous and obliging from the beginning to the very end. Now, application is made to His Honour Mr. Justice Finlayson for a requisition for the militia. He granted that requisition. And what then? I regret that the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) is not here, but they actually posted the orders at ten o'clock on Wednesday morning in Halifax-mobilization orders for the regular troops. The Militia Act only provides for the regular troops being called out in the event of the local troops being inadequate. Mobilization orders at Halifax, ten o'clock Wednesday; Mr. Wanklyn calling on the Premier, to inquire about his health, Wednesday afternoon and the Minister of Militia, or the acting deputy Minister of Militia. asking for forces. These were the steps taken to settle that labour difficulty, and so the troops came down to Cape Breton. And what now, do you suppose? They are actually charging the people of Glace Bay, Dominion and the municipality of Cape Breton thousands of dollars for the expenses of these members of the regular militia of Canada. Was there ever anything so outrageous on the face of the earth? Who is paying these men to-day? Do not the people of Canada pay them? But those who asked for them, or have their services reluctantly thrust upon them must pay for these soldiers. Had there been no strike in Springhill the regular troops of this country would have been paid. Annually the Minister of Militia takes his seat here and calls upon us .to vote the money to pay these men; it is voted by this House and the country pays it. Why, then, should the municipality of Cape Breton, or the town of Glace Bay, or the tpwn of Dominion pay for these men when their services are required on account of a strike or an invasion? However, the minister did show his hand in the situation in Cape Breton. He sent down his deputy to the county, and that gentleman made a report which came to hand in this House some time during the last year and a copy of which I have now before me. He says, referring to the strike at Springhill that there were several grievances referred to, one being that of recognition of the United Mine Workers of America, others relating to conditions of work. The hon. minister told us this evening that he did not wish to intervene in the situation at Springhill because there it was a fight for recognition of the union. But his deputy lays before this House a report in which he says that there were several grievances at Springhill, one of which was recognition

of the union What has the minister done to alleviate the friction in the other ease? The men were paid by the ' box ' and what constituted a ' box ' was well known to be one of the^ vital questions One board of conciliation decided that 1,700 pounds of coal should constitute a ' box But the company wanted to change that, making a heavier ' box ' That was one of the things that the men protested against. Another question was the schedule of rates in connection with the mine. I wonder did the minister do anything to alleviate the circumstances in this case? His deputy reports that there were several grievances, one of which was the recognition of the United Mine .Workers of America. And the minister washes his hands to-day and says: We could not intervene the whole question was that of recognition of the union. This officer proceeded to Sydney and spent some considerable time there-I do not know just how many days. But he gathered a good deal of information. He points out that there was a conciliation board held in March, 1908. That is the board I had reference to that was so ably constituted by Robert Drummond and Doctor Kendall at New Glasgow, and which was participated in by delegates from all over the province who were members of the Provincial Workmen's Association. He says:
It is to be noted in connection with the above list of men prominent in the agitation that Mr. MacDougall, now President of the District Council of the United Mine Workers of America, was a member of the sub-council of the Grand Lodge of the Provincial Workmen's Association in March, 1908, when the existing agreement between the Dominion Coal Company and its employees was concluded before a Board of Conciliation and Investigation established under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and presided over by Professor Adam Shortt.
The deputy minister thinks it is his duty to incorporate in the report he lays before parliament the fact that the President of the United Mine Workers had actually signed and approved of a settlement, of a wage schedule between the employees and the company in March, 1908. Why, some newspapers in this country went so far as to say that the company could not deal with the United Mine Workers of America because they had a contract and they spell that contract in capitals in every Grit paper from the Halifax ' Morning Chronicle ' down to the Sydney ' Record.' They spelled it in capitals and they underlined it and put quotation marks around it and nursed it and nurtured it and held it up to the public and said: There is a contract, we cannot negotiate with these men because of. that contract. But the Deputy Minister of Labour knew there was no contract, there was an award accepted, not by the Provincial Workmen's Association Mr. MADDIN,
but in the very words of the deputy minister, by the employees of the company, and it was only by a majority of the employees, for there were a number of lodges of the Provincial Workmen's Association, whose representatives refused to sign the award or accept it. But one would think that when this gentleman came down to the county of Cape Breton to investigate the conditions that obtained there he might possibly have called on the representative of the riding. The hon. minister to-night recommended to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) that he should go down to Springhill and tell the men there what Mr. Butler had told him; in other words, he recommends the member for Cumberland to go down to Springhill and tell the men exactly what Mr. Wanklyn toTd the newspaper reporters in June, 1909:	We are going to fight them to a
finish, give us the militia. He recommends the hon. member to go to his constituency and inform those of his constituents who are on strike what Mr. Butler says. If that is his wisdom in this matter, if that is his judgment, if he thinks such action is incumbent on the representative of a constituency where a strike exists, I would think that his deputy, coming to Cape Breton, would have wired me as member for the constituency where the strike existed, and in addition to that the recognized solicitor of the men on strike. I was there in a double capacity, I was the member for the riding and the solicitor of the men.


George Gerald King: Does the hon. member mean to say that the deputy minister, when he was there, did not see him?


James William Maddin: I could not help seeing him.


George Gerald King: He told me distinctly that he made a point of seeing the hon. member, and he was instructed to do so.


James William Maddin: I am not taking issue with you there, nor are you taking issue with anything I said. I said I would have thought he would have notified me he was coming, either as solicitor for the men on strike or as representative of the county. Now if it had been Mr. O'Donohoe, who furnishes these plastic reports to the Trades and Labour Council, how he would have been notified and embraced on the arrival of the deputy minister. I received no notification. I saw Mr. Acland, in Glace Bay, with Mr. J. K. L. Ross, son of the president of the company, )vho drew $10,000 a year for doing little or nothing. I saw him accompanied by Mr. Dick, the sales agent of the Coal Company; I saw him going around with the nabobs of this concern. I rode from Glace Bay to Reserve Junction sitting across a sideseated

oar from Mr. Acland, and I was told he was the deputy minister. I had never met him, if he were in the House now he would tell you I had never met him before a passenger said: that is the deputy minister, and he was with these nabobs I have mentioned. He got off at Reserve Junction. That was his second day down in the strike district, gathering information for that report to lay before this parlia-. ment and yet up to that time he had not come to see the member for the county nor the solicitor for the men who were on strike. He knew where I was engaged from 8 o'clock in the morning until midnight in Glace Bay, and when I went home on a certain evening at 6 o'clock, I found a card: F. A. Acland, Deputy Minister of Labour. My good dame said to me: Mr. Acland left the card at the house and said he would like to see you before he left town; he is at the Sydney Hotel. And so I saw him and he was anxious to go over to the north riding to consult with the hon. member who represents that riding, where there was no strike. He was going over on the boat in a few minutes and he said to me, just before going to the boat: I would like to have your opinion about this matter. I said: Have you got the opinion of the men who are in charge of the strike? He replied that he had seen two or three of the executive officers, whom he named. I told him that they had authority to speak about the situation and could doubtless have told him all I could tell him. He asked me about the conditions of order there. I gave him my opinion about the militia. He has not incorporated it in his report. There was not a word in it that should not have been printed, although I felt like saying a good many that would not look well in print. This emissary of the Department of Labour who had journeyed down so far and who on the day on which he was leaving town left a card at my house in Sydney with a pretty positive knowledge that I was in Glace Bay, and would not get out until the evening, and whose anxiety to consult with the hon. gentleman, the member for Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie).


George Gerald King: May I interrupt my hon. friend. Knowing Mr. Acland as I do, I feel that any action of that kind is not of a sort of which he is capable. I know Mr. Acland to be honourable in the highest degree, and that in going on a mission of this kind he would do his utmost to see every party concerned. I am sorry he is not here at the present moment, but I will have no hesitation in saying that I am quite sure if he did not see my hon. friend the moment he arrived, it was not because of any direct intention not to do so, but that he had every desire to see every person he should see. The hon. member says
that Mr. Acland saw the representatives of the men, and I presume he thought it better to see the men themselves before he saw their solicitor.


James William Maddin: I have every regard for the hon. gentleman who acts as deputy for the Minister of Labour. I have not imputed nor do I impute to him anything disloyal to the minister. He was serving his master, he was under instructions. I submit that when this department sends a representative into a county, if it be the fortune of that constituency to be represented by a Conservative that is no reason why that Conservative or that representative of the people there should not be communicated with. Take other instances. In this House and during this session I had occasion to refer to the visit of the Board of Railway Commissioners to the county of Cape Breton. They acted in the same way and what was the report from the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte). Why he said it was through the courtesy of the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) who accompanied the board that we were going to have some necessary repairs done to the Terminal wharf in Sydney. I did not know, and was not told that the board were coming to the town or to the county of Cape Breton, but I was told that they were actually going to repair the terminal wharf in Sydney. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that if the Deputy Minister of Labour's efforts in Cape Breton had been of a conciliatory rather than an aggressive character, if he had succeeded in stopping the strike we would have been told that it was through the efforts of the hon. member for North Cape Breton, whom he went to see that very evening, that the strike had been amicably adjusted. I have no reference to being slighted personally. I have no desire to get in the private cars of the Board of Railway Commissioners or to ride around with them at all but I would like to know when they are coming to South Cape Breton, and I would like to extend them a little hospitality, and take them around the confines of the city. I would like to do as much for the Deputy Minister of Labour, or the Minister of Labour, when they come there in their official capacity, but, if they come like a thief in the night, if, I am only to see the Deputy Minister of Labour on a street car twelve miles away from the Intercolonial railway station at which he had landed, and then have him pointed out to me by strangers, I submit it is not doing justice to the man who is elected by the common people as their representative nor is it treating the solicitor of the United Mine Workers of America with the slightest measure of consideration. I hold the Department of Labour responsible for this, and not the

deputy. Common courtesy would have imposed on the minister himself, when he sent his deputy down there, the necessity of giving the instruction : Notify Mr. Mad-din that you are going down ; wire him, or, he could have wired me himself and we might have been able to discuss the situation. But no, this gentleman comes down, prepares a report and summarizes the situation on pages 11 and 12. He says :
Many people who are entirely opposed to the United Mine Workers of America and wholly friendly to the Grand Secretary of the Provincial Workmen's Association, state that that official's extended retention of office was a source of discontent among a number of miners. He had become well known to the officials of a number of companies, including the Dominion Coal Company, and had grown into the habit of dealing with the companies on behalf of the men without always going through the form of consulting the men's committees. In this and other ways he had aroused the suspicion and jealousies of a number.
And, now, Mr. Chairman, listen to this gem that we have from the student who went down to study the conditions. He says :
In addition, politics came in. Moffat is frankly a Liberal

I would like the minister to inquire from his deputy where his deputy found out that Moffat was frankly a Liberal. He says :
Moffat is frankly a Liberal, but claims not to have taken unfair advantage of this fact in his capacity as Grand Secretary. He was opposed for Grand Secretary some years ago by Mr. James Madden, now counsel for the United Mine Workers of America, and Conservative member of parliament for the riding.
There is wisdom for. you from the man who left his card at my house, and said that he would like to see me, the man who met me and who did see me but who did not ask me one word about it. In 1901, eight years before the strike, when a very callow youth, I did contest with Mr. Moffat for the position of Grand Secretary of the Provincial Workmen's Association. In 1906 when I ran for the local legislature in Nova Scotia, Moffat took the hustings and campaigned against me. I had the first Conservative majority within the town of Dominion, where he lived for ten years, and in which he took the hustings against me, that had taken place since the town was incorporated. But, in 1904, where was Mr. Moffat, this man who was frankly a Liberal f-supporting Stephen B. McNeil the Labour candidate, a man who could not find anything rank or vile enough to say against Alexander Johnston when he was contesting the county in the interest of the Liberal party and who won. Not content with going through the district, at the Lyceum, the theatres and the rinks', Mr. MADDIN.
he journeyed into the country districts, went amongst the farmers and fishermen, and gave them his opinion of Mr. Johnston and the Grit and Tory governments. That was in 1904. In 1906 he shot his bolt in favour of Kendall and Gillies, and in 1908 there was not a man in the Dominion of Canada in a position to say that he did not vote for me. I have no reason to believe but what he did vote for me. I may say that there is no political difference between us, he certainly did not take the hustings against me, he certainly had no grudge against me, and he certainly made? no canvass against me. On the contrary, I am assured by some of his brother grand officers of the Provincial Workmen's Association that I had his assistance and support in the campaign of 1908, and yet the deputy minister says that :
He was opposed for Grand Secretary some years ago by Mr. James Madden.
Whoever that may be. He doubtless thought it was I. He did not know my name or how to spell it, but he says that ' Mr. Madden ' ran against Moffat, ' who is frankly a Liberal.' I would like to find out where the deputy minister got that information. The whole thing summed up is that there was politics in the situation. True, the Sydney ' Record,' the Glace Bay ' Gazette,' and Mr. Pearson's papers in Halifax and Glace Bay said so, but, when they alleged that the strike arose out of politics, that it was promulgated and promoted for the purpose of making political capital they were uttering falsehoods, which were not only false but false with the knowledge of those who penned and published them. Political capital is ballots marked in favour of the party who seeks the political capital, and I want to review the political occurrences of the province of Nova Scotia, and show him that these base slanders are absolutely unfounded. In 1906 I had the honour of being a candidate for the local legislature in the province of Nova Scotia. I was running with Mr. Butts of North Sydney against Dr. Arthur Kendall and Neil J. Gillies of Glace Bay. Mr. Gillies was an underground manager at one time. He was a past Grand Master Workman of the Provincial Workmens' Association, and he was the candidate of the mining districts.
The hon. member for North Cape Breton had been elected for that constituency in the general election of 1901, he had a plurality of over 2,000 votes. Mr. Butts and I ran the election under those circumstances, and when the ballots were counted on the night of the 20th of June it was midnight before they knew whether Mr. Gillis or I had been elected, and on a recount of the ballots it was found that the Liberal majority of 2,000 plus which the hon. member for North Cape Breton had in 1901 had

dwindled down to 120. Where did these votes come from-a majority of over 275 from the town of Sydney Mines in the riding of North Cape Breton, and I led tire poll in Mr. Gillis' home throughout the southern mining districts. The miners in 1906 in Cape Breton county voted for Butts and Maddin. In the county of Pictou Mr. Tanner had a plurality of 454 in the town of Westville a small mining town and in the Back Mines district in the town of Stellarton, and away from the round house and the influence of the Intercolonial railway Mr. Tanner also had a majority. The complete returns from the province of Nova Scotia in the local election of 1906 showed that the Conservative candidates had a majority amongst the miners of Cumberland county of over 500, that the Conservative candidates in Pictou county had a majority among the miners of over 500, and that Mr. Butts and I had a majority in the county of Cape Breton of over 500. There was political capital among the miners of the province. In 1908 how was it? The hon. member for Cumberland took a majority of 500 out of the county of Cumberland, and a majority of 300 in the town of Springhill alone. Mr. Tanner who opposed the member for Pictou had a majority of over 500 in the county pf Pictou and in the county of North Cape Breton Mr. McCormack had a majority of over 200 in the town of Sydney Mines among the miners there. I stand 'here to-night as the representative of the votes of the miners of Cape Breton who gave me in the south riding a majority of between 400 and 500 in the mining districts. There was political capital again in 1908. And, you can run the whole gamut of the Grit newspapers in the province of Nova Scotia from the ' Morning Chronicle ' down to the Glace Bay ' Gazette ' or from ' Free Speech ' or the ' Vindicator ' down to the Sydney ' Record ' and they are all filled with the idea that the matter is promoted for political purposes. Why, Sir, the interest of the Liberal Conservative party in the province of Nova Scotia lies in continued work, double shift, opening up new collieries, steady employment, that would have meant more political capital to the Conservative party than a strike with its incidental horrors. The emigration which takes place, the people who leave the country whether the strike lasts for a week or a month going from the mining districts operates to the disadvantage of the Liberal Conservative party. And the Liberal Conservative party as a party was the only party who had anything to loose, and the Liberal party is the only party which had anything to gain by keeping the strike going and that may account for the diffidence and backwardness of the department in dealing with the situation of South Cape
Breton and Springhill. I have taken up more time than I intended when I commenced to speak and there are some publications that I would like to have before the committee and which I probably will present for their consideration at a future day.


Mr. McKENZIE.: I have listened very attentively to the observations of the hon. member for South Cape Breton. He has wandered over a very wide field, and has spoken about a great many things which I do not think on reflection he will consider have very much bearing on the question before the chair. I do not know that this House is very much concerned about the number of votes that were cast at Glace Bay in the local elections of 1906 or the number of votes that were cast at Sydney Mines, or the number of votes that may have been cast at some municipal election in different parts of Nova Scotia. If my hon. friend wants to make a general statement about the political complexion of the province of Nova Scotia he could sum it up in a very short statement; he can say that since confederation the province of Nova Scotia has been in the hands of the Liberal party continuously with the exception of one lean four years that it happened to be in the hands of the Tories. The people of the province had a taste of what they were capable of doing for one four years, and they pitched them out of office at the very earliest opportunity and ever since 1882 they never had a look in, to use a vulgar expression, in the government of Nova Scotia.


James William Maddin: I would like to ask my hon. friend what his observations, from the time he rose until the present moment have to do with the motivin'


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend has given such little attention to the business of this House this winter he possibly doesn't know anything that is going on.


James William Maddin: I wish to repudiate that on the spot. I paid as much attention to the business of this House as the hon. member, and the chances are, with a great deal more advantage to the country, and this is the time and place to say so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend may have had messengers back and forth to this House telling him what was going on, but I will venture to say that he graced this House very little during the session with his presence.


James William Maddin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make myself clear


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James William Maddin: You will get all the order you want. I would like to make myself

clear with regard to this matter. I would like to know what the hon. member means by ' presence ' in the House. I wonder if he conveys an imputation behind it; I wonder if he would like a Roland for his Oliver?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know what my, hon. friend means by a Roland for his Oliver. If he says that he is Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde and that Mr. Hyde was here and Dr. Jeckel was absent or that he is some double personage I don't know anything about it; all I know is that the honourable Mr. Maddin whom I regard as the representative for South Cape Breton has been absent in the body the most of the *session, and that he was not here is what I mean by saying that he was not present. That is about as plain as I can say it, and I think my hon. friend will understand it. He may have been better engaged, I am not making any insinuation.


James William Maddin: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Unless the hon. gentleman who has the floor permits, another hon. member may not interrupt.


James William Maddin: I will ask for his leave.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There are some explanations due to his constituents from the hon. member why he was not here, and he can make them.


James William Maddin: That is very good indeed, and I appreciate the courtesy and the big heartedness and the benevolent and the generosity of the hon. member for Cape Breton. If he wishes to put me in competition with himself or some other hon. members as to the number of hours I spend behind a desk in this chamber, I think he has perhaps sat longer behind his desk than I have. But there is this to say, that at any time that I was absent from my chair I was within the precincts of the House, and when I have been there I have contributed more to the development, improvement and welfare of this country in one hour than the hon. member usually does in ten hours, and have given less offence in doing so.
_ Mr. McKENZIE. I thought that according to the hon. member for South Cape Breton, it was left to the hon. Minister of Labour to give glowing pictures of himself; but it seems that there are other picture painters in this country, and they are of the class I heard described by the Minister of Agriculture once this session, as painters who paint things not, as they are, but as they would like them to be. That is about the description which the hon. member for South Cape Breton is giving of himself; but it is certainly not the picture of the hon. member which this Mr. MADDIN.
House knows. Now, the general complexion of politics in Nova Scotia can be put in very small compass. After iorty years of continuous Liberal rule, there is not one county in the province of Nova Scotia today represented altogether by Conservatives. Out of thirty-eight members in the provincial legislature there are I think five members representing the principles of the party of which my hon. friend boasts. That is all he has to encourage him in the conditions of local politics in the province. I do not think it was necessary for my hon. friend to introduce politics into this matter at all. He is not going to drag me into casting any reflection, one way or the other, on the men who were concerned in the strike in Cape Breton. My hon. friend would give you to understand that that strike was something like strikes in other parts of the province. As a rule, when men are out on strike, they are all out. It is a question of the men on one side and the corporation or employers on the other side. Such was not the case in the county of Cape Breton. It was simply a division among the men themselves, about one-half on one side and one-half on the other side; Provincial Workmen's Association men on one side, satisfied with the conditions under which they laboured with the company, stayed with the company; and on the other side the followers and supporters of the United Mine Workers. That was the situation. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton at once destroyed his usefulness to the people he represented by allying himself with one camp of the mep. It was his duty and his responsibility, as the representative of that county, as the representative of the Provincial Workmen's Association men just as much as the United Mine Workers men, to conserve his duty to them all by keeping clear and not becoming the lawyer or adviser of on.e party more than the other. The moment my hon. friend became the lawyer and adviser and strategist of the United Mine Workers men, that moment he lost the confidence of at least one-half the workingmen of his county, and made it absolutely impossible for the Department of Labour to consult him as to what should be done. I say that advisedly, because the moment the Department of Labour consulted Mr. Maddin, one-half the men would say, to the deputy minister: Of what use is it for you to come here as representing the Department of Labour and expect to do fairly by us when you consult the lawyer on the other side? Therefore it was advisable for the Deputy Minister of Labour to get his information elsewhere than from the solicitor of one camp which was engaged in a pitched battle at the time with the other. The hon. member says that I was consulted in the matter by the Deputy Minister of Labour.


James William Maddin: I did not make such a
statement. I said that the Deputy Minister of Labour, when he called on me, said that he wanted to go across the harbour to consult with Mr. McKenzie. I did not say that he did consult with the hon member or that Mr. McKenzie advised him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As men of affairs and men of some common sense, I think we are bound to draw the inference from the statement of the hon. member in regard to the deputy minister being in such a hurry that he would not talk to him, but wanted to go across the harbour and talk to the member for North Cape Breton, that the deputy minister was going to consult me about the matter in hand. In justice to the deputy minister, I must say that he never discussed with me anything connected with the trouble in the southern part of the county. There were troubles brewing in my own part of the county at that time. There was some rumbling that the men at Sydney Mines were coming out. Fortunately they did not. But they were negotiating for a conciliation board, and I spoke to the deputy minister about that. I felt that I had enough to do in trying to keep things quite in my own district without interfering with the southern district, and I did not interfere at all. The point I thought my hon. friend was going to make was in connection with the Industrial Disputes Act. He is a lawyer of some experience and capacity, and he has been dealing with that Act since 1907. He has had exceptional opportunity in this House of dealing with any weaknesses which he might find in that Act; but I have not heard of him making any suggestion as to how it could be made better or more workable than it is. I was thinking, before the hon. gentleman sat down, that he would give us some practical suggestions as to how this Act could be improved.
If there is anything the matter with this Act, why let us sit down and reason together and make it better. I am sure there is not a man here who would not be glad to do so; but at the same time, I must say representing as I do, a great many working men and some capital, that while I want to be fair to the labouring men, I must also, as a member of parliament, be fair to capital. Let us try and constitute a court which will deal fairly with both sides. I cannot understand that it is to the benefit of labouring men in this country that they should be advised or permitted to take an unfair advantage of their employers. I do not think that is what they want. What they want is a fair ' deal; and if this Act can be improved upon so that a better condition of things may be brought about and a fairer trial given,
I am sure no one will be more pleased than myself, but why should my hon.
friend spend hours threshing in this House the old straw, about the different things that happened when that unfortunate conflict was on at Glace Bay. I am sure he must admit that the strike was ill advised and badly conducted and resulted in disaster and defeat to the men. It has brought forth no good; and if the men had any grievances, I am sorry they did not meet with more success in having these grievances remedied. Knowing the labouring men as I do, I can say that there is not in Nova Scotia or anywhere east of Winnipeg, a class of people better paid, better housed or more comfortable than the miners of the county of Cape Breton. They are intelligent people, wishing to give a fair return to their employers and capable of understanding fair treatment if they are well advised. I think it is admitted by nine-tenths of the men who went on this strike, that they were ill advised and the hon. gentleman, who boasts so loudly of being their legal adviser, has nothing to brag about as regards the way in which the strike was conducted and concluded. These men were left at last to the mercy of the Dominion Coal Company without any protection whatever; they were left to shift for themselves without reaching any conclusion that will be beneficial to them.
I shall not say anything further about the political effect. We had an election down there a few days ago, and I shall allow my hon. friend to count the votes and let him tell the House what happened there last Thursday.
An effort has been made to show undue haste in bringing out the militia. The difficulty is, that when men introduce politics into everything, it is impossible for them to be fair. Does the hon. gentleman forget that the Militia Act has been on our statutes for over 30 years just as it stands to-day ? Does he forget that it is the product and creation of his own party friends, and that the clauses providing for calling out the military to help the civil powers are to-day just as they were from the beginning ? All that is necessary is to make certain affidavits and comply with certain provisions and no Minister of Militia can refuse military aid. My hon, friend tries to make political capital among men who do not understand these things by saying that the Minister of Militia had no business to send out the troops; but he will not dare say that Mr. Justice Finlayson would think of granting an order calling for the troops, unless the necessity for so doing was clearly established. The Mayor of Glace Bay was appealed to for further assistance in the way of furnishing policemen to keep the trouble down and what did he do ? What was the sage advice he gave ? I will give you aid, he said, 500 strikers to act as policemen. Did you ever

hear of such an absuidity ?	500 of those
who were on strike and against whom the property of the company had to be protected, the mayor suggested, should act as its guardians.	,
Another point my hon. friend tried to make, was that the county of Cape Breton was taxed for the payment of these men. I presume, as far as the municipalities are concerned, that we all have to pay our share. That is the law. If any municipality calls for the aid of the troops, it has to pay the extra expense, and that would have been the case in the county of Inverness, or Pictou, ot Guysborough, had the demand been made in any of these. Why were not the volunteer militia called out, my hon. friend asked._ He thinks there would have been a saving of money if they had been, but he knows very well, that he is not putting the whole truth before the House in that connection. The only charge against the town of Glace Bay or the county of Cape Breton is the_ difference between the cost of the militia from the barracks at Halifax and their cost when in active service on the field. When officers are engaged in the field they are paid higher wages than when in the barracks and I presume so also are the soldiers; and whatever may be the difference, it has to be paid by the municipality. I presume the county of Cape Breton had to pay the expense of transportation, but the same amount of money which would be paid these men in barracks is paid by the government and not one cent of that is paid by the county.
Hon. gentlemen opposite applauded the case made out by my hon. friend, but if they heard the case as it is being tried out in "the courts, there would be no * hear, hears,' from any hon. member on either side who understands the situation and the Militia Act. An effort however, is being made, to poison the minds of the people, particularly interested by giving them a false side of the showing. I do not think it is necessary to discuss this matter at any length. The only thing open to my hon. friend to show is in what way this Act could be improved. If he has any proposal to that effect, I am sure it will receive fair consideration at the hands of the government and this House, but so far, he has given us none, and therefore, he might well have spared us the meandering statements he has been making to no purpose.
He attacked the courts that have been constituted for the purpose of inquiries of this kind in the province of Nova Scotia, but when asked for particulars he had to admit that he had no fault to find with any one of them? What objection could he have to men like Prof. Shortt, or Mr. Justice Graham, of the Supreme Court of Mr. McKenzie
Nova Scotia, or Mr. Justice Paterson, or Mr. Justice MacGilvray, who have sat from time to time upon those courts? Why, my hon. friend himself has been a member of a conciliation court. He forgot to tell us that. And what was the result of his great wisdom as a member of that court? He was dealing with one of the mines of the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, and he signed, as the third arbitrator, a report which was signed by all, reducing the wages of the men.. He had not the slightest objection to the powers he was given as arbitrator, nor to any of the proceedings. And he came before the miners of Sydney Mines and read them a lecture, declaring that they should accept this result and be satisfied that the Act was giving them everything that was coming to them.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Was his decision just and proper?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not saying whether it was or not. But it was a decision reached under the operation of this Act. And if a just decision could be reached in that investigation by Mr. Mad-din and two other men, Prof. Shortt being one, what particular charm had Mr. Mad-din in connection with that inquiry that was not present at the other inquiry?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why did not the Minister of Labour do as Mr. Maddin did and bring about a correct decision?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster), who professes to be a-lawyer-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not professing to be anything; I am trying to understand from the hon. gentleman what he is driving at. Will he permit me to ask him a question?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will answer his first question, and then he can ask me another. He asks: Why did not the minister see to it that the decision of the board was a correct one?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why did he object-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will give the answer. Does the hon. gentleman sav that, if a decision of the Supreme Court is reversed bv the Privy Council the government should be called to task and told that they should see to it that the court shall give only such decisions as will be sustained? That is the position he takes when he asks why the Minister of Labour does not see to it that every decision given by a conciliation board shall be such as will be sustained by the men.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman, inadvertently, of course, has misunderstood what I said. I asked why it was not

competent for the minister to bring about a lust decision which he says Mr. Maddin brought about when he was a member of
a board?
Mi\ McKENZIE. Perhaps I am one of tnosc unfortunate Scotchmen upon whom a surgical operation must be performed in order to make him understand, but I must admit that I cannot understand the question of my hon. friend. There is an Act of this parliament which enables a court to be constituted under certain conditions, and he charges the minister who puts that law in operation with the duty of seeing to it that every court so constituted shall reach a decision of a certain character.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I say an equitable and just decision.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is equitable and just depends upon the viewpoint. What I might regard as equitable and just might be regarded as quite the contrary by somebody else. It depends upon whose ox is gored, as the old saying is. It is absolutely absurd to say that the power that appoints a judge or creates a court can be held responsible for the decisions that court may reach.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman .was a judge himself at one time, was he not?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes. I was, and I should have thought it very absurd, indeed, if the powers that appointed me had been held responsible for any eccentricity that might be found in my decisions. I think it would be as profitable for my hon. friend to leave me alone and let me finish the few observations I have to make.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Certainly.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: An effort was made by my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) to cast unfavourable reflections upon the member for Cape Breton m the local house (Dr. Kendall). I am sure Dr. Kendall does not require defence at my hands, so far as his efforts in support of the labouring classes are concerned, and I am not going to say anything further about it. But from what I can gather from the observations of the hon. member, they were entirely aimed at making political capital, and did not suggest anything that would better the conditions of the working men either in Cape Breton or in any other part of the province. I am sure that anything I say in answer to him must not be undei stood as opposed to doing everything possible for the working men of my county.
At the same time, I think it would be advisable for myself and my hon. friend (Mr. Maddin) to keep clear of being counsel for one body of our constituents as against a body on the other side if we hope to con-109
serve our usefulness in bringing them together. I commend the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) for having kept himself free from entanglements that would destroy his usefulness as a promoter of good understanding among these classes. Had the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) done the same he might have assisted the Department bf Labour in improving existing relations. I am sorry he felt it necessary to make such reflections upon the Minister of Labour; I am sorry to find a disposition on the part of hon. members of the opposition in this House to make attacks upon that hon. gentleman. If he were no good, if he were r.ot a credit to the party to which he belongs, to the government of which he is a member, and to the cause he represents, they would have patted him on the back and told him he was all right. It is an old saying that it is under the good apple-tree that you find sticks and stones. I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) can take it as a compliment that these attacks are being made upon him. I hope he will not take the observations of the hon. member for South Cape Breton in any way serious. They do not mean anything-he does not mean anything by them himself.
I can assure the hon. minister that the people of eastern Nova Scotia who have to deal with great industrial matters will have the same confidence in him, and, indeed, a great deal more, than if he were applauded by the hon. member for South Cape Breton. As I have said. I stand here as a representative of labour, ready and willing to bring about any betterments that may be made by the Court of Inquiry constituted to investigate any difficulties that may arise between capital and labour in any part of the Dominion of Canada, particularly the part that I myself represent.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: After a speech of half an hour by the hon. gentleman from North Cape Breton in which he said a lot about inferences he was compelled to draw, I do not know whether or not he is in favour of voting this money.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am in favour of the vote.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My hon. friend should have deferred arriving at that conclusion until a little later. Of course, in his speech there was not a word about party politics, no suggestion whatever on politics from this legal luminary who descended from the calm precincts of the bench to take part in party warfare. Turning the spear which he levelled against me back upon himself,
I would ask him to search his own conscience a little and see to what extent his nice little compliment to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) that his speech was so commendable and free from


C0MM0N8
[Stage Direction]
any party questions would apply to his own remarks. This hon. gentleman who goes upon the bench, who tries cases there and then leaves the bench after about two years' occupancy to go into the party strife of politics, into the most vigorous contests, 1 who escapes defeat by very small majorities and persistent running in all that party strife, who takes the time of this House for nearly half an hour on an item in regard to $27,300 without even stating whether he is in favour of the item being voted or not, has no justification for criticising as he did the address of the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Mad-din) who has made a very strong and important statement in regard to matters that did pertain to the item before the Chair. When the hon. member disparages the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) he forgets his own history, that he descended from the bench to take part in this very party warfare, and I think that we must not be blamed in the future if we pay no attention whatever to anything that falls from his lips in regard to this or any other matter.
The hon. member has said that the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) has made no suggestions, has shown nothing wrong with this Act. The hon. member for North Cape. Breton (Mr. McKenzie) may have been writing or reading letters in his seat, for he does very little else in the way of useful legislation in this House, or he would have heard as the rest of us did, the most pertinent suggestions as to the defects in this Act. As was prophesied by several of us, including the leader of the opposition, when this Act was being passed, it has turned out in a disastrous way. This Act is unfair and never can be made fair as it is drawn. The right of the men to strike is suspended until it is of no earthly use to them. As I illustrated two years 'ago when this was brought in it is like saying to the men : We will not prevent you from eating fruit, but you must wait until the fruit is rotten before you do so. It is the same sort of pretended benefit which is nothing but a gold brick. The man is not permitted to strike until the strike will do him no good or until there is nothing left to strike about or until he is starved to death, or must leave the country in order to avoid being starved. The Act is not working fairly to the workingman. If the Minister of Labour is not going to take any more interest in it than he has up to this time the only right thing to do is to repeal that Act and not have it on the statutejbook, where it is an invitation to people to believe that they have legislation that is some good to them but which is really nothing but a broken reed that gives way under them when they try to lean on it. The Minister of Labour must Mr. LANCASTER.
not trifle with this any longer ; he must make the Act workable so that the men will have some chance to get a reasonable arbitrament under it in time to do some good or else repeal the Act, and not pretend he is defending or protecting or getting justice for the labouring man. As we prophesied when the Act was drawn, the men are induced to believe that the government are acting as a guardian over wards, to see that they get fair play, and need not resort to strikes, to get these rights and remedies and yet nothing was to be done for them because the pull of the capitalist was of more importance to the government than the cries or screams or murmurings of the labouring man and his family. The Minister of Labour seems to-night to be perfectly willing to have a hypocritical piece of legislation on the statute-book which is of no use to the working man, and it would be better, safer, more honest to the workman to repeal the Act and say : You must look out for yourself as before, we are no guardians of yours. When a deputy minister is sent down to inquire into the merits of the case he seems to think that when he has pointed out that one man is a Conservative and the other a Liberal that is all that is required to form a decision. I do not think it is fair that the Minister of Labour should take the position he does in this matter, and I as a member of this House protest against this money being voted for any such purpose as the Minister of Labour appears to be using it for.
James William Maddin: In his remarks on this subject this evening the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), in referring to a possible excuse for the Deputy Minister of Labour not calling upon me when he came down to Cape Breton in 1901, stated that he should not have come to me, I being the solicitor for the men on strike, and therefore, that I was taking sides. I am very glad that it has remained for the. hon. member for Cape Breton to say that; I am very glad indeed that the gentleman who occupies the portfolio of Minister of Labour did not offer that as an excuse. He got up to defend his depuity and he said that he regretted this lack of courtesy, and that it was not intentional. What does the hon. member for North Cape Breton say with regard to a situation such as this? He says that the deputy minister should not have called on me, because, forsooth, I was the solicitor of one of the sides to the strike. Has he so little wit, has he so little judgment as to imagine that one union was fighting the other? The men on strike were fighting the com-* pany.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I certainly did not ; say so. I said that two bodies of men

were fighting each other, the United Mine Workers' and the Provincial Workmens' Association, that the hon. gentleman was the solicitor of one side of the men, not as against the company at ail.


James William Maddin: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The deputy minister did not see the hon. gentleman until he was through with both sides of the men and their officers. Then he saw the hon. gentleman.


James William Maddin: When he came to my house with his card, is the hon. gentleman going to impute that he was playing the hypocrite? Does he know that he had seen both sides before he left that card at my house? Did he call knowing that I was away, and that he would not see me?
I would like the hon. gentleman who is a lawyer, and an ex-judge to exercise the function of ordinary every day common sense which, as a jurist and a lawyer, and a member of this House, he has not always exercised, I would ask him to exercise it to-night and to explain it to the committee how the deputy minister left his card at my house during the day with the request to meet him unless he was pre-109J
pared to meet me when he came to my house. Was -he playing the hypocrite knowing that I was not there when he came with his card pretending that he .was friendly to me and willing to interview me? The hon. member for North Cape Breton places himself on the horns of a very awkward dilemma. On the one hand it is little credit to the hon. gentleman, and on the other it is little credit to the deputy minister. There is one observation that I wish to make. The hon. member for North Cape Breton stepped aside tonight to cast an aspersion on my personal integrity as a member of a board of conciliation, and spoke of how I had found against the miners down in Cape Breton at one time and had gone to a building and talked them into submission. He thought it an extraordinary thing that the member for South Cage Breton should recommend and approve a reduction of wages. The hon. member for North Cape Breton occupied the very seat on the county comt bench that is now occupied by the gentleman to whom I paid tribute to-night, and he did not always discharge his duties there with the dignity, fairness and uprightness that have characterized his successor, but rather with the attitude, and in the manner in which he has discussed this matter which is before the committee to-night. He referred to my acting on the board of conciliation, and he said that I had gone to the miners of Cape Breton and tried to persuade them to accept a reduction of wages. Earlier in the evening, while discussing this matter with the Minister of Labour, I pointed out to him that when the books of the company were exhibited to a member of the board it was not for the purpose of the public, but only for the information of the members of the board. Let me read to you from section 13 of the Act, the oath which a member of the board takes, and the oath which I as a member of that board, to which the hon. member refers, did take. It is this:
13. Before entering upon the exercise of the functions of their office the members of a board, including the chairman, shall make oath or affirmation before a justice of the peace that they will faithfully and impartially perform the duties of their office, and also that, except in the discharge of their duties, they will not disclose to any person any of the evidence or other matter brought before the board.
I made that oath, I accepted it with the responsibility that I would accept the oath of a judge in the Supreme Court or the county _ court or the oath of a wit-; ness giving evidence before any trii bunal. Acting under that oath, when the books of the company made it apparent to me as a representative of the men

that tor various reasons the increase in the wages of common labourers employed by the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company at that time could not, from the revenues of the company, be legitimately, honestly, fairly and equitably increased, I joined in a recommendation that a reduction should take place amongst another class of employees of the company. Who were they? Machine runners and shot firers at No. 3 Sydney Mine. Some of those machine runners, according to public and published evidence taken there earned as high as $14 per day-only a very limited number-but there was quite a number who made $7 and $8 per day. With a sense of fairness and equity,- which the men themselves appreciated when I had explained it to them, I thought that they might very well stand a small reduction in order that the common labourers receiving $1.35 might receive $1.43. I went out and submitted that to the men, and I put it up to them as I put up the policy gospel of the Tory party to them, and they accepted the one as they accepted the other. I ask the Minister of Labour if he considers Dr. Adam Shortt, the chairman of the Civil Service Commission an honest and an honourable and an upright man? What does the minister say to that?


George Gerald King: I hardly think it is necessary to answer a question of that sort.


James William Maddin: Would the minister place any reliance on his opinion of a fellow-member of the board?


George Gerald King: I believe the hon. member (Mr. Maddin) would be actuated by the highest sense of honour.


James William Maddin: That is not answering my question. I am absolutely indifferent to the opinion of the minister with regard to myself; what I ask him is, does he consider Dr. Adam Shortt, who has served.on nearly 30 boards of conciliation, who occupied the Sir John Macdonald chair in Queens University, who is the foremost economist of the Dominion of Canada, who is- recognized from Vancouver to Sydney as one of the most upright men in Canada; would the minister consider Dr. Shortt's opinion of a colleague on the board of conciliation as being sound and and worthy. Yes or no?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Go on.


George Gerald King: I have the very highest opinion of Professor Shortt.


James William Maddin: The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) might give his opinion when he is asked.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If you want it I have to say very plainly that you have a lot of
impudence to hold up a member


James William Maddin: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James William Maddin: I want the opinion in parliamentary language if the hon. member for 'Carleton can put it in parliamentary language.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can tell my hon. friend that if any member


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I am not sure that the hon. gentleman has a right to speak.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is asking me a question.


Haughton Lennox: I rise to a point of order. I ask that the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) be required to withdraw.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is all right. The hon. member for Cape Breton and myself cannot have any quarrel; he wants my opinion.


Haughton Lennox: If we are to have matters conducted properly we had better have this ended. I ask that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) frankly withdraw the statement he made. It is not a matter personal to the members concerned, it is a reflection on the whole House.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: 1 have considered the matter concluded. I understood the hon. member to withdraw.


James William Maddin: If the hon. member for Carleton cares to answer the question I propounded to the Minister of Labour, I give him the opportunity of answering it if he can do it in parliamentary language.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will try to answer in parliamentary language. I tell him that so far as I am concerned I think no member of this House has any right to address a question to the Minister of Labour and demand an answer in the way this question was put, and if I were the Minister of Labour I would not give an answer.


James William Maddin: Very well, you have not answered my question. In the report of Dr. Shortt to the Department of Labour on this occasion, he states that he found cases where men made from $3 to $6 and $7, and even $10 and $11 per day, and in one or two instances as much as $13 or $14 per day had been made. I concurred in a recommendation that a reduction be made from the wages of such men and applied to the wages of those who were receiving a smaller sum. To-night I am charged by the hon. member for North Cape Breton that when I was on a board I recommended a reduction, and that I went out to a building to the men to urge them to accept it. Now. Dr. Shortt in his report to the government has this to say, and it is only in self-defence and in justice

to myself that I venture to read the following from Dr. Shortt's report:
My colleague 911 the board, Mr. J. VY. Madam, as the nominee of the miners, had a particularly difficult position to fill, where the award of the board was so little attractive to some of the most influential of the miners. He not only maintained an independent and judicial attitude in arriving at the award of v-v. board, but accepted the fullest responsibility for the award and laboured most actively to secure its adoption.
That is a testimonial that I value as highly as the parchment I received with my degree from Dalhousie College ia 1100. -Now, Mr. Chairman, with this testimonial from Dr. Shortt in these circumstances, my integrity is to be impugned, and by whom? By an hon. member, who, after he had accepted the nomination to run for this House, filed a judgment in his court which was afterwards set aside by the' Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, by a gentler man whom the returns indicate, had no fewer than 125 men appointed as fish wardens in the county of Victoria, and to many streams where no one ever saw water flow during the months they drew the salary for guarding these streams- Little Mountain torrents, Black Brook and such places in the county of Victoria. That is the hon. gentleman who casts aspersion on my integrity, and my honour, and my character, when J was charged with the first and only judicial matter I had the honour to decide. This is my accuser. Why, Sir, I wish to say to you that with the oath I had taken under the provisions of this Industrial Disputes Act, with the knowledge that the men whom I represented had confidence in me, and with the endorsation which will live there in the lecords of this House, from such a man as Dr. Shortt, I think I may feel safe in laughing at the aspersions emanating from such a source as that.
I think it is only fair myself that I should reply to the personal observations made by the hon. member for South Cape Breton. I did not make any personal aspersion upon him about his position. Far from it; 'Hansard' will show' ."id not. I simply said he "was so satisfied with the working of this Act that he acted under it and gave a decision. I .said, and 1 was telling the truth, that he gave a decision recommending a reduction of wages. He has the very ill grace of making a reference to a decision of mine when I was on the bench. I would like to see or hear of any judge that was ever on the bench who had not some of his decisions reversed. There may bt a few but there are very few of them in this country I take it as coming from a man who has' no conception of the dignity of the profession to which he belongs, that he would descend to such low tactics as to make reference to the decision that a man may have given when he was on the bench which may have been reversed by the Supreme Court. That is the only thing in my history of fifty years in the county of Cape Breton with regard to my private character that he evidently thinks he can put his finger upon. I would like to know if the hon. member for South Cape Breton is prepared to make an open book of his conduct and his character in the county of Cape Breton for the few years he has been there.


James William Maddin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has put a question, and I would like to answer it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman cannot even answer the question unless permission is given.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am forced to make an answer. The hon. gentleman makes further reference to guardians who were appointed over fisheries. I say the statement is absolutely false, a deliberate lie, with the knowledge of its being a falsehood and a deliberate lie.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order. It is not allowable to attribute deliberate falsehood to any member of this House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I say the statement is a deliberate falsehood.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Even in that form I think the statement is beyond parliamentary latitude.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps it is. *


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: In that case I must ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will put it in another shape.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman is at liberty to change the statement to a form that is in order.


Haughton Lennox: I rise to order. I submit that when a member of this House calls your attention to the fact that another member has made a statement which is contrary to the usage of this House, before the hon. gentleman can make any further statement, he must withdraw the statement which you have ruled out of order. He must withdraw that statement absolutely before he can say anything more, and that is what I ask you to direct him to do.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think that the decision having been given, the hon. member for South Simcoe is correct. It is the right of the hon. member, before the

decision is given, to explain his words and to place what he has stated in another form which would be within the rules of the House. I think that in this case the decision has been given, and so I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I propose, if it is necessary, to deal with this question along the lines suggested by the Chair. If I were outside of this House I would not withdraw the statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If it is not parliamentary here, I would withdraw it. As I said, if I were outside of this House I would not withdraw it, I have the right now to put it in another shape.


James Davis Taylor: I rise to a point of order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order. ' The hon. member is, I believe, in the process of withdrawing the statement. The withdrawal is not necessary in a single word. He has announced his purpose to withdraw and has absolutely withdrawn the statement, and he is proceeding now to place it in what he considers it a correct form.
I am not aware of any cause of a point of order in what he has said. If the hon. member believes there is, I will hear his point of order.


James Davis Taylor: As I understand, the hon. gentleman aggravated the original offence by deliberately stating that he withdrew the offensive expression only, in response to the demand of the chair, and that if he were outside _ of the House he would repeat it. It is new doctrine to me, if that is a parliamentary withdrawal of an offensive expression. Now, I think it is due to the dignity of this House that we should have thorough understanding of whether we are governed by parliamentary rule


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the hon. member must adhere strictly to the point of order and not discuss the dignity of the House or any other matter.


James Davis Taylor: Mr Chairman, if necessary, I would like to appeal to the Speaker, because I think this is a very serious matter. I am serious, Mr. Chairman.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: 
Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the hon. member for Cape Breton wishes to discuss that point of order, Ee is at liberty to do it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have already stated that in compliance with' parliamentary procedure I have withdrawn the statement.
I say that the purpose of the hon. member for South Cape Breton was to charge me with dishonesty in my election, by saying that in order to get elected I had made appointments which I had no business to make. I say that he cannot sustain that contention; there is no evidence to support it, and I challenge him either from the records of parliament or anywhere else to sustain it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the point of order is clear. The hon. gentleman has stated that he withdrew the expression that had been objected to. To that he had added the expression that outside of the House he would deal otherwise with it. I think the point of order raised by the hon. member for New Westminster is correct, that it would be an evasion of a withdrawal to state that outside of the House he would do otherwise. But in the statement made by the hon. member for South Cape Breton at the present time of rising, he has clearly withdrawn without adding the objectionable portion, so that I believe he is now within the rules of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. member for New Westminster is serious in saying that he desires further information on this item, ( would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, because it is too late to continue to-night.


James William Maddin: Before the committee rises, I would not want the hon. member for North Cape Breton to go away with any misapprehension of my statement, wliich he takes so heavily to heart. I did not say that he had made a decision which was set aside. All our judges do that, because they are human. All of them give hcnest, well-meant judgments which are l set aside. What I did say was, that after

he had accepted a nomination he had delivered a judgment which was afterwards set aside. That is a mere statement of a fact, and I did not mention it because his judgment had been set aside. Any one's judgment is liable to be set aside.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.37 a.m., Saturday.

Monday, February 13, 1911.