PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 88) respecting the Bay of Quinte Railway Company.-Mr. Currie (Prince Edward).
Bill (No. 89) respecting the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company.-Mr. Lafortune.
Bill (No. 90) respecting the Indian River Railway Company.-Mr. Turcotte (Quebec).
Bill (No. 91) to incorporate the Pacific and Peace Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 63) to incorporate the British Columbia and Dawson Railway Company. -Mr. Burrell.	„
Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the British Columbia and White River Railway Company.-Mr. Congdon.
Bill (No. 68) respecting the Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company ,-rMi. Fowke.
Bill (No. 69) respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 72) respecting the Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway Company.-Mr. Currie (Simcoe).
Bill (No. 75) respecting the McClary Manufacturing Company.-Mr. Beattie.
Bill (No. 76) respecting the Ontario, Hudson Bay and Western Railway Company.- Mr. Tolmie.

[Stage Direction]
' The questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.'

*Mr. BORDEN (Halifax):: 1.	At what date will that portion of the National Transcontinental railway which lies between the River St. Lawrence and Moncton be completed?
2.	What work still remains to be done thereon ?
3.	How many men are now employed thereon, and what is the number on each contract?
4.	Has any and what provision been made for equipment thereon?
5.	At what date is it expected that this portion of the said railway will be in operation and ready to receive passengers and freight traffic ?


Mr. GRAHAM :: 
THE BEAUHARNOIS CANAL.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MONK :
1. Have the grantees of the Beauharnois canal carried out all the improvements and Mr. PUGSLEY.
development work which they were obliged to under the conditions of their grant? If not, what works have so far been omitted?
2.	Is there, in the deed of alienation, a proviso that the grant should become void in case of failure by the grantees to observe the conditions of their deed?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to resume possession of the Beauharnois canal, if it has a right to do so?
4.	Is the government aware that the said canal could be leased to-day upon far more favourable terms than it was to the actual grantees ?
5.	Has the government ever had an estimate made of the value of the franchises and privileges of the said canal which have been alienated? If so, when and by whom?
Mr. GRAHAM :: 1.	Yes.
2.	There is no explicit proviso to that effect, but the whole lease is subject to terms and conditions thsrein enumerated.
3.	The government had not considered the matter.
4.	The government is not so aware.
5.	No estimate was made of the value of the franchises, which, naturally should depend upon the enterprise of the lessees; but an estimate, however, was made, by the superintending engineer, of the horsepower that could be developed without extansive and costly alterations, viz.: 2,259 hors 2-power.
* Mr. MONK ;
1.	Were the privileges or rights upon the Beauharnois canal ever advertised to be tendered for before they were conceded to the present users or their predecessors? If not, why not?
2.	To whom was the concession of said privilege made in the first instance and at what date ?
3.	Did the concessionnaire make a regular proposal in writing previous to said concession? If so, at what date, and to whom was said proposal addressed?
4.	What was the amount paid by the concessionnaire for the use of the said Beauharnois canal ?
5.	What is the amount of annual rental payable by the grantee or his assigns?
G. What is the term or duration of the alienation so made by the government of said Beauharnois canal?


Mr. GRAHAM :: 1.	No.
2.	The lease was first grantsd to Messrs. McIntyre and Robert in virtue of an order in council dated 14th October, 1907.
3.	Yes, April 21, 1904, addressed to th? Minister of Railways and Canals.
4.	$12,000 per annum.
5.	$12,000 per annum.
6.	The lease was granted for 21 years ; being renewable for two further consecutive periods of 21 years.

*	Mr. MONK :
1.	At what date and by whom was the proposal for the alienation of the Beauharnois canal made first to the government?
2.	Did the government have a special report prepared upon the state of the said canal before deciding upon its alienation, and by whom was such report made?
3.	What power is it possible to develop with the said Beauharnois canal?
4.	Is the rental to be paid by the lessees or grantees subject to increase with the increase of power developed?
5.	Is there any proviso in the agreement allowing the government to control the terms which powder will be sold to the public?
6.	Has the government spent any money upon the canal in question? If so, what amount and upon what objects?


Mr. GRAHAM :: 1.	October 9, 1903.
2.	Yes ; by the superintending engineer of the Quebec canals.
3.	This is a variable quantity depending entirely on the volume of water derived from Lake St. Francis.
4.	No.
5.	Yes ; clause 6, of the lease.
6.	None since the granting of the lease.
*	Mr. MONK :
1.	What is the total cost to the country of the Beauharnois canal to date?
2.	What is the total revenue derived by the government from the grantees or lessees of the said canal since the date of its alienation?
3.	Are any arrears of rental or payments due at present from the holders of the canal to the government? If so, what is the amount thereof ?
4.	Why are not such arrears collected?
5.	Have the rights of the original grantees or coneessionnaires of the canal been transferred since the first alienation? If so, how often and to whom?


Mr. GRAHAM :: 1.	$1,902,501.10.
2.	$42,000, grantees. $11,244.15, other l;ssees.
3.	None.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Yes, only ones, original grantees assigned their lease to the Canadian Light and Rower Company.


MONTREAL MILITARY SCHOOL.
*Mr. MONK:: 1.	Has the government selected a site for a military school-or station at or near the city of Montreal? If so, where?
2.	What is the size of the property selected, and from whom has it been acquired?
3.	What is the purchase price of said property, and by what department was it acquired in the first instance?
4.	Is the property now in the possession of the Militia Department, and when is it intended to utilize it for military purposes?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes, at Longueuil.
2 190 acres. The property was acquired from various individuals in 1846-7 by the Honourable Board of Ordnance for the purpose of a tete du pont on the east side of Hochelaga bay, below St. Helen's island for the defence of Montreal.
3.	Not known.
4.	Yes. Action is now being taken to commence construction on the proposed barracks at the earliest possible date.


RIVIERE DBS PRAIRIES.
*Mr. MONK:: Is it the intention of the government during the coming season to finish the work of cleaning and deepening the back ^ river oi Riviere des Prairies, between St. Vincent de Paul and the Lake of Two Mountains in the province of Quebec?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: There is an amount in the estimates now' before parliament for continuing the improvement to navigation of the Riviere des Prairies.


THE QUEBEC BRIDGE.
*Mr. MONK:: 1.	Are the members of the Board or Commission of Expert Engineers in charge of the plans and construction of the new Quebec bridge receiving their salaries regularly?
2.	What is the total amount paid to them for salary to date?
3.	Have the members of the said board agreed upon the said plan or design ?
4.	Have tenders been called for construction of said bridge?
5.	When will said construction begin?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$78,551.61.
3.	The question of design is still being eensidered.
4.	Yes. [DOT]
5.	As soon as the contract is awarded work will be begun on the superstructure. The work on the substructure has already begun.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	In the contract for the Montreal new
central post office, did the drawings of the architect, in regard to the electric fixtures, call for 3-inch tube for the arms, both pendants and brackets?	.
2.	Is it a fact that the arms in quesbon are only |-inch?
3.	What is the difference of cost between the two in material and in labour?


William Pugsley: 1 and 3. An outline sketch submitted to intending contractors was not intended to give the size of the pipe to a fraction of an inch, since the pipe is tapered to a point at the end. The contractor had to submit

a sample for approval, which was done, and the sample approved.
2.	Yes.


*Mr. MONK:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to provide without further delay at the general post office in the city of Montreal suitable facilities for mailing and registering letters, and for the purchase of stamps?
2.	When is it expected that the increased accommodation at said post office will be available for the public?
3.	Has the contract for interior repairs and alterations been awarded?
4.	If so, to whom has said contract been given, and what is the date agreed upon for completion of the said works?


William Pugsley: Plans for the remodel, line of the older portion of the Montreal post office to bring it into harmony with the new annex, and thus to provide increased post office facilities and accommodation have been prepared and are now .under consideration.


FENIAN RAID VETERANS.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	What is the estimated number of surviving veterans of 1866 and 1870 who were on active service?	_
2.	How many veterans received pensions for *wounds received, and how many families of those killed received pensions in respect of said raid?
3.	What was the total amount of said pensions granted or the yearly amount thereof?
4.	How many of said pensioners are still surviving, and what is the yearly amount of such pension list?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	The government has no knowledge.
2.	Twenty-six veterans and eighteen families.
3.	$6,940.50 total yearly pensions originally granted.
4.	Seven men, six widows, $1,937.35.


POST OFFICE, STE. THERESE.
Mr. NANTEL:: 1.	Has the government purchased a piece of ground on which to build a post office in the village of Ste. Therese, in the county of Terrebonne?
2.	If so, when was this land acquired and from whom, how much was paid for it, what is the population of Ste. Therfese, and what are the revenues of the post office?
3.	When does the government intend to build the proposed post office?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) April 6, 1909.	(b) W. Desjardins,(c) $5,000.	(d) About 3,000.	(e) $1,800.88
in 1909-10.
3.	No decision has been reached.


William Pugsley: 


CANADIAN GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):
1.	Is the Canadian Guardian Life Insurance Company operating at the present time under a Dominion charter:?
2.	Is the government aware that the company, as alleged, has been publicly charged by Toronto 'Saturday Night' of November 12, 1910, with being in an insolvent condition, and as having paid its last dividend of 5 per cent out of capital and not out of profits?
3.	Is the government aware that this company, as charged, by the Toronto ' Saturday Night,' has sold stock, taking in payment for the same notes, in direct contravention of insurance regulations?
4.	What steps has the government faken, in view of the above, to protect the people from the operations of this company?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	The company is carrying on business under a license issued pursuant to the Insurance Act (Canada).
2.	The Insurance Department is aware
that the company has been charged with being practically insolvent, and with having paid its last dividend of five per cent out of capital, and not out of profits. The same issue, however, of ' Saturday Night ' states as follows:	'It must be borne in
mind, of course, that the policy-holders of the company are amply protected as the government has on deposit in its vaults at Ottawa sterling debentures in the name of the company to the amount of $54,000.' The fact of the payment of the dividend referred to is mentioned in the last official report issued from the department.
3.	Yes. The government is not aware, however, of any insurance regulation forbidding the acceptance of promissory notes for stock subscribed, but until actual payment thereof such notes are not allowed as assets of the company.
4.	An exhaustive examination of the company's affairs has been going on for some time, and is still in progress.


MEDICAL INSPECTION OF IMMIGRANTS.
Mr. MACDONELL:: Is it the intention of the government to provide efficient medical inspection at the ports of embarkation, or on the steamships on the voyage out, for the purpose of preventing, as far as possible, the admission into Canada of immigrants afflicted with tuberculosis, as requested by a deputation consisting of Messrs.
E.	Gurney, W. J. Gage and other Toronto gentlemen interested in the suppression of tuberculosis, which waited upon the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior at Ottawa, shortly before the Christmas adjournment of the House?


Mr. OLIVER.: The representations of the deputation are under consideration.


PURCHASE OF GARDEN SEEDS.
Angus Claude Macdonell: What means does the government adopt in the purchase of garden seeds for the Department of Indian Affairs for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, to insure the procuring of the best seeds at the lowest current prices, and does the government advertise in the public press? If so, to what extent, and what other means are adopted in order to reach the seed supply men, and to secure the competition of all engaged in this business?


Frank Oliver: The department asks for tenders, by letter, from all the principal seedsmen of the Dominion, as per list under, and awards contract to lowest. The department does not advertise, as the quantity required is small-not amounting to $300-and would not justify the expense of advertising.
There are no restrictions as regards inviting tenders. All seed merchants known to the department are written to and given full particulars of what is required, and the nontract is always awarded to the lowest tenderer.
List-Messrs. Robert Evans & Co., Hamilton; Messrs. J. A. Bruce & Co., Hamilton; Mr. J. A. Simmers, Toronto; Messrs. W. Rennie & Co., Toronto; The Steele-Briggs Seed Co., Toronto; Messrs. Darch & Hunter, London, Ont.; Messrs. Graham Bros., Ottawa; Mr. K. McDonald, Ottawa; Mr. Jos. Skinner, Ottawa; Mr. R. Alston, Winnipeg; Messrs. Fleming & Son, Brandon; Messrs. A. E. McKenzie & Co., Brandon.


MANUFACTURE OF MATCHES.
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	How many match factories are there in Canada, where are they located and what is the number of employees?
2.	How many match factories in Canada use phosphorus in their manufactories, where are they located and how many employees are engaged in the industries?
3.	How many cases of bone disease have *occurred, to the knowledge of the department, among these employees, due to the use of phosphorus ?
4.	What, if any, expense will be entailed upon match factories by abandoning the use of phosphorus in their business?


Mr. KING:: 1.	According to the census of 1906 there were in Canada at that date three factories, situated at Hull, Que., Halifax, N.S., and Hampton, N.B., respectively, and employing in all 278 employees. According to more recent information obtained by the Department of Labour, it would appear that the number of persons employed in these three factories has since decreased to about 230.
2.	So far as is known, all of the match factories use phosphorus, though some matches are also made without phosphorus. The factories using phosphorus,
with location and number of employees are as follows :-


The E.   B.@: Eddy Co., Ltd., Hull, Que., 200 (about); the Eureka Match Factory, Halifax, N.S., 14; The G. & G. Flewelling Mfg. Co., Ltd., Hampton, N.B., 13.
3.	Several.
4.	In other countries where a substitute for phosphorus has been used, the expense involved by the change has been slight. It is variously estimated at from very little to 5 per cent at the most.


ST. LAWRENCE SHIP CHANNEL.
Mr. LACHANCE:: 1.	Are there in the St. Lawrence channel between the port of Montreal and the high sea any places where there is less than thirty feet of water at low tide ?
2.	If so, what are those places and what is the depth at low tide?
3.	Is the government going to carry out the work required in order that thirty feet at low tide shall exist throughout, and where will they be executed?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	St. Thomas bank (below Quebec), 25 feet at low tide. Average rise of tide, 16 feet. Cap a la Roche, 27i feet at low tide. Average rise of tide, 5h feet. St. Augustin Bar, 22 feet at low tide. Average rise of tide, 14 feet. Advantage is taken of the tide to obtain 30 feet and more at these places.
. 3. Yes. At Cap a la Roche and St. Augustin, and St. Thomas channel, below Quebec.


GOVERNMENT BOOKKEEPING
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	During the last financial year who were the persons engaged in bookkeeping and keeping track of receipts and expenditures with the salaries separately and the total salaries in the Department of the Minister of Finance, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the De-nartment of Railways and Canals, and in the office of or under the Commissioners of the Transcontinental railway?
2.	What was the total cost last year of the Auditor General's Office?


Mr. MURPHY.: The answer is as follows:-


THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
[Stage Direction]
Name.	Salary.
T. C, Boville	$ 5,000 00
H. T. Ross	
4.500	00W. L. Blair	
2,100	00E.	L. Brittain	
2,200	00J.	R.	Forsyth	
2,225	00T.	C.	Saunders	
2,225	00J. A. Clayton	
1,787	50F.	A. Coffin	
1,937	50L.	B.	Cohoon	
1,600	00S	J.	Jenkins	
2,100	00T. McNichol	
2,100	00J. E. Rourke	
1,787	50
Name.	Salary.
C. S. Seott	$ 1,137 50
A. F. Bill	
1,537	50G. B. Burns	
1,487	50E. Caphert	
1,600	00G. E. Finlayson	*	
1,237 50I1'. Grierson	
1,600	00G. W. Hyndman	
1,562	50T. Lawson	
1,487	50J. G. Macfarlane	
1,400	00J. It. Morton	
1,600	00C. F. Street	
1,199	97C. E. Turgeon	
1,600	00V.	Woodland	
1,400	00J. H. Wright	
1,400	00
Mrs.  L. A.@: Black	 900	00


Miss   L.@: Macdonald	 900	00


Miss   D.@: O'Neil	 750	00


Miss   F.@: Bates	 687	50


Miss A.   J.@: Estabrooks	
775	00W.	P. Gill	
537	50


Miss   P.@: MeMinn	 800	00
Total salaries Department of Finance	$112,553 89
Note.-The greater number of these officers are not engaged in bookkeeping but are, some more, some less, indirectly engaged in keeping track of receipts and expenditures. The actual number wholly engaged in the united work of bookkeeping and keeping track of receipts and expenditures, is comparatively small.


THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
[Stage Direction]
Chief Accountant's Branch. $37,864 36 Chief accountant and comptroller, A. Kingston
[Stage Direction]
Barthe,	G.	R	
1,475	00Bartlett,	E.	E	
1,275	00Bedard,	J.	B. E	
1,425	00Bourget,	0	
1,775	00Bruchesi, J	
1,600	00Casey, Miss M.	M	
315	81Ilesautels, R	
1,077	10Dionne, E. (deceased).. ..	1,600	00Dube, T	
1,375	00Gagnon,	P.	E	
1,600	00Gordon,	John	
1,375	00Ilay, N	
1,025	00Hayes, Miss E. V. (resigned)	'..	285 26Johnstone, J	
987	50Keely, Robt	
1,375	00Lemay, J. A	
800	00Lemieux, Miss E. (resigned)	
281	25Minard, D. McR	
1,775	00Morin, J. A	
1,125	00McGovern, Frank	
800	00Mackay, C. S.	A.... 1,600	00MacKay, L J.	
1,475	00
McPherson, Miss H. G.
(transferred)	
587	17Pare, Arthur	
1,600	00
Mrs.   Y.@: St. Jean Smith
(transferred)	
666	60Steward, J. H	
1,400	00


Miss   L.@: B.... 1,775	00
Thivierge, J. A	
1,375	00Valade, Miss A	
800	00Anderson, Miss	F. L.. ..	213	67Collector of Revenue.	$ 3,025 00Jones, Miss M.	S	
800	00Smith, E. T..	Collector.. 2,225	00


Charles Murphy: Paymasters.	$ 5,750 00
J. Cauchon, Winnipeg.. . .$ 1,450 00 L. P. Dallaire, Three Rivers 1,000 00 J. Ewing, St. John, N.B...	1,300	00
C. N. Macdonald, New
Westminster, B.C.. ..	2,000	00_______
Grand total	$46,639 36


THE DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.
[Stage Direction]
A. Boyle, chief acct	$2,100 00
J. B. A. Boudreau, asst.... 1,887 50
V.	H. Steele	
1,937	50E.	W. Gilbert	
1,837	50J. M. Lalonde	
1,700	00W.	J. Quinn	
1,537	50R. Frechette	
1,400	00A. H. Dame	
1,050	00C. E. Goodall	
1,000	00F.	J. Boulay	
850	00C. W. White	
1,550	00M. S. Wainwright	
750	00J. B. Laehaine	
500 00
Total for the Marine and
Fisheries Department. $220,611 23 THE DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND

[Stage Direction]
Salary
Name.	per
annum.
G.	A. Bell	$ 2,800 00W. C. Little	
2,225	00W. V. Cope	
1,600	00A.	M. Dechene	
1,450	00R. S. Falconer	
1,450	00R. F. Jamieson	
900	00W. A. O'Leary	
1,012	50C. M. Dennenny	
333	36B.	C. Waddell	
525	00Total for Railway Department	$12,295	86

[Stage Direction]
Name and Occupation.	Salary per month.	Salary for 12 ^months.
	$ cts.	S cts.
D. Hoctor, chief accountant....	250 00	3,000 00A. T. Govv, accountant	
R. M. J. McGill, asst, accountant 	166 66	2,000 00150 00	1,800 00W. R. Saults, clerk and inspector	135 00	1,620 00E. L. Parent, clerk and inspector	135 00	1,620 00R. Lagimodiere, clerk	110 00	1,320 00R. H. Lang „ 	110 00	1,320 00H. Charland 	110 00	1,320 00F. J. Lozier .« 	95 00	1,140 00G. L. Taillon h . 	85 00	1,020 00M. J. Kilt „ 	70 00	840 00A. C. Kerr ,, 	60 00	720 00D. J. Leddy «. 	65 00	780 00A. Beaudry, stenographer 	110 00	1,320 00T. Roberts h 	70 00	840 00A. B. Macklin, construction accountant	135 00	1,620 00F. T. Tory, asst, construction accountant 	100 00	1,200 00J. Galpin, clerk	GO 00	720 00Total for Transcontinental Railway Commission	24,200 00

[Stage Direction]
2.	Total cost last year of Auditor General's office, $107,140.40.

Mr. BARKER:: 1.	How many tons of charcoal pig iron were imported into Canada during the year ended 31st March, 1910?
2.	At what ports of entry did such importations take place, and what quantity at each port ?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	The imports of charcoal pig iron into Canada during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1910, amounted to 596 tons.
2. The' ports at which this charcoal pig iron was imported are as follows:
	Tons.
Montreal		. . . . 280
Windsor, Ont			 288
Whitby, Ont		.... 28
TECHNICAL EDUCATION	COMMISSION.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds):: 1.	At the present rate of progress when does the government expect that the Commission on Technical Education will report?
2.	Is the government aware that the so-called investigation is alleged to be of an exceedingly and unnecessarily discursive character ?
3.	How many pages of so-called evidence have been accumulated by the commission to date?
4.	What previous knowledge, training or experience in this important subject was possessed by each member of the commission?
5.	Where was the commission and what was it doing when last heard from?
6.	Up to the present time what facts or
information not hitherto available have been discovered or brought to light by the commission?	.
7.	What has been the cost of the commission up to the present time?
8.	What is the estimated total cost?
9.	What is the programme of the commission for the present year?


Mr. KING:: 1.	It is expected that the commission will present its report before the end of the present year.
2.	No.
3.	It is estimated that the evidence taken thus far will, when fully transcribed, amount to about 4,500 pages.
4.	The knowledge, training, and experience of each of the commissioners has been such as to specially qualify him tc render valuable service on the commission
5.	The commission is at the present turn in session in Ottawa and is engaged upon the preparation of an interim report and a digest of the evidence taken throughout Canada to date.
6.	Until the report of the commission is received, it will not be possible to answer this question.
7.	Expenditure to January 1, 1911-$21,-314.45.
8.	It is expected that a supplementary estimate of $7,000 will be required to covei the cost of the commission for the present fiscal year. In addition to the estimate oi $25,000 which was voted last session, it is proposed to ask for a like appropriation for the expenses of the commission during the fiscal year beginning April 1, next.
9.	The commission will first complete its inquiry in Canada and will afterwards pro eeed to Great Britain, Europe, and the United States, where a study will be made of the systems and methods of technical instruction obtaining. The commission will probably hold further sessions in a few of the principal centres of Canada before completing its report.


HOMESTEAD INSPECTORS.
Mr. BRADBURY:: 1.	How many homestead inspectors are employed by the Land Department in the Dominion constituency of Medicine Hat, and what are their names?
2.	Where are their headquarters, and what are their duties?
3.	What are their salaries, and what allowances, if any, are paid them?
4.	Does the department furnish them with horses and rigs for travelling, or do they pay their own travelling expenses out of their salaries?
5.	Do these inspectors furnish a diary of the work done hy them to the department or to any officer in the employ of the Land Department?
6.	Where and at -what duties were these inspectors employed between June 28 and 30, 1910?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Homestead inspectors are not appointed according to the boundaries of the Dominion constituencies. But the tracts apportioned to the following inspectors lie wholly or in part in the Medicine Hat constituency: Messrs. Letellier O'Connor, Medicine Hat; Samuel H. Simmons, Lethbridge; Charles Grayson, Calgary; John E. Leismer, Didsbury; Adam Link, Lethbridge; A. W. Brooks, Medicine Hat.
2.	See No. 1 for addresses.
The duties of the inspectors are to report on matters relating to Dominion lands.
3.	Salaries: L. O'Connor, $1,200; S. H. Simmons, $1,200; C. Grayson, $1,300; J. E. Leismer, $1,200; A'. Link, $1,500; A. W. Brooks, $1,500. Allowances paid inspectors, actual travelling expenses.
4.	The department furnishes travelling outfits, and pays travelling expenses.
5.	Yes. Diaries are furnished to the agents, who forward them after examination to the inspector of agencies for the district.
6.	Information not available at head office.


BOOT CONTRACT BY MARINE DEPARTMENT.
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	Were tenders called for naval boots by the Department of Marine in November, 1910?
2.	What specification form was used, what was the quantity of boots, and what time was allowed for their delivery?
[DOT]3. What bids were received, from whom, and at what prices?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded, and was this the lowest tenderer?
United States are insisting that all officers of American boats shall be American citizens and shall reside in the United States?
2. If so, is it the intention of the government to communicate with the American authorities with a view to permitting these officers to reside in Canada?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	The government has been so advised.
2.	The matter is receiving consideration.


GOVERNMENT STEAMER 'MINTO.'
Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	No.
2.	None.
3.	None.	[DOT]
4.	No contract was awarded by the Department of Marine.


IMMIGRANT INSPECTION.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	Have any exceptions been made by the Immigration Department in connection with the enforcement of the order in council of May 9, 1910, in cases where the immigrant is not going to a brother, father, or child, and does not possess the fifty dollars required?
2.	How many such exceptions have been made during the last eight months?
3.	Did the department decide to reject one Berel Swertlove, who came on the ' Mount Temple?' If so, what were the reasons for deciding so to do?
. 4- Did the department receive communications from responsible citizens of Montreal asking that the said Berel Swertlove be permitted to land, and guaranteeing he would not become a public charge?
5.	\\ hen was the said immigrant deported, on what vessel, and how much was paid by the department while he was being detained, pending appeal?
6.	Has the department received any complaints regarding the said order?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Between the 20th of July and 10th of December, 1910, all persons otherwise eligible were admitted if going to guaranteed employment, thus placing all other laoourers on the same footing as farm labourers for the time being. It cannot be stated how many persons came in under this arrangement, as the exceptions have not been separately recorded.
3.	Yes. Because he had hot the required money qualification, was not going to any one of the relatives mentioned in the order in council, or to any assured employment.
4.	Yes.
5.	December 11, 1910, on the ' Lake Manitoba.' Nothing was paid by the department while he was being detained, pending appeal.
6.	Yes.


UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION OFFICERS.
Mr. PARDEE:: 1. Is the government aware of the alleged fact that the immigration authorities of the Mr. OLIVER.


Mr. STANFIELD:: What is the .name, place of residence and occupation on ship of each member of the crew, men and officers, of the ss. 'Minto' ?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1. Answer is as follows:-


LIST OF OFFICERS AND CREW ON C.G.S. &quot;MINTO.&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Name.
Occupation.
Place of Residence
Allan Finlayson... Master. John McPherson.. Mate..
Charlottetown,
[Stage Direction]
Charlottetown,
McGregor Fraser . W. Sencabough...
Joseph Maloney .   .@: M. C. McDonald..
J. R. Davis	
J. T. Lantz	
Noah Garnhuin-
Brent Mclnnes.. .
John Sellers....
Pilot	
2nd Mate____
Operator....
Purser


Checker ....: Steward....
Waiter	
Waiter	
Waiter	
P.E.I. Pictou, N.S. Georgetown, P.E.I. Georgetown, P.E.I.
Charlottetown,

Charlottetown,

Charlottetown,

Charlottetown,

Charlottetown,

Charlottetown,
Aneas McCormac.
Nicolas Pelly..
Thomas Ogar....
Messman. .
Cook	
Asst, cook..

Cardigan, P.E.I. Pictou, N.S. Charlottetown. P.E.I.
John McPherson..	Carpenter ....
Sam Donovan		Watchman ...


Benj.   G@: Freeman Weather-	Seaman	
bie		Seaman


Ernest Langill.   ...@: Seaman


Edward Stanley ..: Seaman


Moses Gallant ....: Seaman	
Solomon Gallant..	Seaman	
Neil Campbell....	Seaman	
James Currie		Seaman


Ernest Langill.   ...@: Seaman	
Josepli Ferguson..	1st Engineer..
W. H, Clark		2nd Engineer.
John Davies		3rd Engineer..
Wood Island, P.E.I.
Charlottetown,

Tracad e, P.E.I.
Georgetown,

Cardigan, P.E.I.
Peck8 Station, PEI
Cardigan, P.E.I.
Charlottetown,


P. K.I.
[Stage Direction]
Rustico, P.E.I.
Ruatico, P.E.I.
Pictou, N.S.
Pictou, N.S.
Pictou, N.S.
Dundee, P.E.I.
Charlottetown,
[Stage Direction]
Charlottetown,
[Stage Direction]

C.G.S. "MINTO"-Con.
Name.	Occupation.	Place of ResidenceAlfred Roebuck...	4th Engineer	Charlottetown, P.E.I.Philip Fougere....	Oiler	Georgetown, P.E.I.William Meek....	Oiler	Charlottetown, P.E.I.Harry Crockett...	Oiler	C h arl otteto wn, P.E.I.Thomas Butler....	Fireman	Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Alex.   C@: Fireman		Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Charles Ferguson.	Fireman ....	Mount Stewart, P.E.I.Rob Smith	Fireman . ..	Charlottetown, P.E.I.William Worthy .	Fireman	Charlottetown, P.E.I.Joseph McLur	Fi reman	Charlottetown, P.E.I.Gordon Musick....	Fireman	Charlottetown, P.E.I.W illiam Hoyle	Fireman	Charlottetown, P.E.I.Harry Galbraith..	Fireman . ...	Charlottetown, P.E.I.John Budreau	Fireman	Charlottetown, P.E.I.William Taylor...	Fireman	Charlottetown, P.E.I.


PROPOSED FISHERY TREATY.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: On Friday last my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Mid-dlebxo) asked me whether the treaty between Great Britain and the United States concerning fisheries in the waters contiguous to Canada and the United States has been put in operation. I have to answer that it has not yet been approved, and the proclamation to put it in force has not yet been issued.


HAGUE TRIBUNAL AWARD.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: With respect to the recent negotiations concerning matters dealt with by The Hague Tribunal, there has been a statement in the public press that the Minister of Justice, and perhaps some other member of the cabinet, have come to an arrangement with the government of the United States. Has the right hon. gentleman any announcement to make?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think I will be able to make a statement to-morrow.


THE GOVERNOR GENERAL.
Mr. LEWIS.: Has the Prime Minister any announcement to make in reference to the statements in the press as to whether the Duke of Connaught is coming as the next Governor General?


Wilfrid Laurier: The government has no official knowledge on this matter, but I can say to my hon. friend that the present Governor General is still in office, and we have not received any official notice of his retirement from that position.


CHARING CROSS BANK.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES moved for :
A copy of. all correspondence, letters, telerams, reports and papers of every description etween the liquidators of the Charing Cross Bank or of A. W. Carpenter or any one on their behalf, and any member of the government, or official thereof, regarding the affairs of .the Atlantic, Quebec and AVestern railway, the Quebec Oriental railway, or the new Canadian Company, Limited.
Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) were present I would tell him that there is no such correspondence at all, but in his absence I will let the motion go.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order being called for Mr. Lancaster's motion, No. 4 on the Order Paper:
Mr. LANCASTER.: I had intended to go on with this motion to-day and had an arrangement with some hon. members to that effect, but 1 understand the Prime Minister wishes not to proceed to-day, and I am content.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am thankful ti my hon. friend for his courtesy. It would not be convenient for this side of the House to go on with the motion to-day. It can be fixed for Wednesday or Monday next at the convenience of the hon. gentleman.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think Monday would be a suitable day, but I cannot say just at the moment. At all events, it will not be before Wednesday.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
Copy of all correspondence between the Finance Department, or any of its officers, or any members of the government, and any persons or corporations with reference to the incorporation of the Farmers' Bank, or to circumstances in connection therewith-Mr. Foster.
Copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, contracts, papers and memorials in the possession of the government relating to the establishment of a fast Atlantic service between Canada and any other country; also with reference to an ali Red Route, Cable, or Telegraph service, between Canada and any other country, within the past fifteen years.- Mr. Armstrong.
Copy of all applications, petitions, letters, telegrams and other documents and correspondence, and all orders in council and certi-
[Stage Direction]
ficates, relating to or connected with the establishment of the Farmers' Bank of Canada and its operations.-Mr. Taylor (Leeds).
Return showing what amount the government paid Mr. F. H. Chrysler, K.C., for professional services between May, 1896, and 31st March, 1909, and what amount during the financial year ending 31st March, 1910; what amount since 31st March 1910; what amount is now due by the government to Mr. Chrysler; and in what transactions or cases Mr. Chrysler is now engaged in for the government.- Mr. Lennox.
Copy of the mailing list, and names of all parties to whom the Department of Labour mailed or otherwise sent copies of the 'Labour Gazette' during the year 1910, and of the names of all correspondents that report to the department on labour topics for the purposes of the 'Labour Gazette.-Mr. Currie (Sim-coe).

Mr. AMES moved:: For a return showing what will have been the total expenditure upon, in connection with or in consequence of, the National Transcontinental railway up to the 31st of December, 1910, and what amount it is estimated will be required to complete and fully equip the said road between Winnipeg and Moncton?


Mr. GRAHAM.: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition had a question covering half the information asked for in this motion. I have been trying to get that information and hope in a few days to be able to answer the question and make this return as well.	-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. FOSTER moved:: For a return showing the names of the United States consuls or consular officers in the Dominion, the districts over which each has consular authority, the scale of fees which is exacted by them for certification of exports to the United States and the number of certified lots of goods exported under certificate during the year 1910?
He said:	With reference to the last
clause it may not be possible to get that in its entirety, but what I want is what can be got.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. RHODES moved:: For a copy of all instructions or communications from the Department of Public Works or any officer thereof, or the Minister of Public Works, to the chief architect, or any other architect, with respect to the preparation of Mr. LANCASTER.
plans for the construction of a post office building at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia, and all other post office buildings or public buildings to be used wholly or in part by the Post Office Department, for which votes have been passed during the period from January 1, 1908, to December 31, 1910.


William Pugsley: When we were discussing the item of the Parrsboro post office the other evening, my hon. friend asked if any instructions had been given with regard to it, and I said that if he would make a motion I would have the information brought down immediately. He has now enlarged the motion so as to include all instructions which may have been given by the minister or any official of the department with regard to any public buildings throughout Canada. I have no objection at all to the motion, but it will take very considerable time to get all that information. If he will limit his motion to information regarding the Parrsboro building, I will get that information immediately, and he might perhaps give another notice of motion later on.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret that it is necessary to ask for so much information, but the fault, if there be any, is entirely with the hon. minister. My question was not confined to the Parrsboro building, but was made in order to get information for the purpose of comparison so that we m ight know if different instructions were given regarding post offices in other constituencies. In this respect I am simply following out the hon. minister's own suggestion, and it seems to me that this is the only way in which I can get this very necessary information.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend surely cannot be serious, because he did not ask, me, when we were discussing the Parrsboro building item, as to instructions with reference to other buildings. To give the instructions regarding all the public buildings throughout Canada would entail considerable work. That will not inconvenience me in the slightest, because the work will have to be done by the officers of the department, but it will take considerable time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will have to wait.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 6) to amend the Interest Act.- Mr. Miller.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 3) respecting the hours of labour on public works.-Mr. Verville.

On section 3,
Mr BLAIN.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman introducing this Bill whether the large number of resolutions passed by different labour organizations and other bodies had reference to the amended Bill or -the Bill as originally introduced?


Mr. VERVILLE.: Some may be on behalf of the first Bill and many others on behalf of the Bill as amended.


Mr. BLAIN.: Will the hon. gentleman say if any are in favour of the amended Bill and how many?


Alphonse Verville: I could not say exactly.


Richard Blain: Can he name one of these bodies that endorse his amended Bill?


Alphonse Verville: Large organizations.


Richard Blain: Any organizations.


Alphonse Verville: I can name all the trade unions of Montreal, and a great part of the province of Quebec. That I know for a fact, because I am directly in contact with them.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The difficulty in dealing with this subject is just what i-3 indicated by my hon, friend from Peel (Mr. Blain). The hon. member for Maisonneuve introduced a measure which was very broad in its application, and in favour of which a large number of labour organizations sent out requests in various forms. But the difficulty is that during the time these organizations were considering the Bill as printed, the hon. gentlemen, after it was read a second time, produced amendments in committee which entirely alter its meaning, substance and effect. During the time this evolution was going on, the labour organizations and other public bodies were pouring in their requests on members to support the Bill. I must confess to my utter inability to understand whether these public organizations are endorsing the original Bill or the amended Bill. And, to complicate the matter still further, the government, apparently, is taken into the entire confidence of the hon. member who introduced the Bill. After the Bill was introduced, the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) admitted having seen the amendments, or certain of the amendments before they were read here by the hon. member (Mr. Verville). A little later, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) told us that, so far as he was concerned, he objected to the extension of the Bill to cover such public works as dredging and wharfs, showing that that hon. gentleman also had been taken into the confidence of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville). And, after the Bill has been caucussed and considered on the government side, tin 55
hon. member for Maisonneuve asks us for God's sake not to make a party matter of it. How are we to consider this Bill? It is difficult to say whether it is a matter of public interest or of party advantage that this Bill is before the committee. It is too important a matter to be played with in that fashion. It is a subject that has been before the country, and before this House for many years. I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Verville) when he says that the subject should be approached in a calm, judicial spirit, and without party bias, but with consideration only for the public interest and the interest of those whom it especially affects. But, how are we to consider the Bill in that light when, after the Bill is brought into the committee for consideration, after hon. members have consulted their constituents about it and have learned the opinions of those who are most interested, mey are confronted with a Bill which is entirely different and concerning which only part of the House has been informed? It was pointed out by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) when the Bill was last before the committee, that everything that was in the Bill, except a two hundred uoiiars' penalty could have been provided by the government by order in council. That position has not been met. The government could have dealt with the matter just as they dealt with the fair iwage clause in' the government contracts. It simply provides that in contracts to which the government is a party, labour should be; regulated in the manner specified in the Bill. That could all have been done by order in council.
But we must make the best of what we have. I would like to get information from the introducer of the Bill as to the opinion expressed by labour organizations, whether that opinion endorses the Bill as first introduced or the Bill as it is now. With that information, we should have some idea of what measure these organizations are asking for and supporting. I should like to move some amendments to * this section before it goes through. The sections already passed, I think, are entirely inappropriate in a Bill of this character. Had the Bill remained as drawn section 2 would have been appropriate, but it refers, in the great part, to something not now in the Bill. It shows exceptions to the application of the Act, but when you read the application of the Act under section 3, which is the only one left, there is no application to the matters excepted by section 2. Altogether, the measure has been drawn in such a manner and so hastily and ill-advisedly amended, that it is almost unintelligible. But, as I have said, we must make the best of what we have. I would suggest to the mover of the Bill-and would move it



if he adopts the suggestion-that section 3 be amended by inserting the words f or permitted ' immediately after the word ' required ' in line 26. The Bill provides that men shall not be required to work more than eight hours. But we all know that if the word ' required ' were the only one used in such a case, evasion would be so easy that the law would be practically powerless. An employer of labour can easily find pretexts and excuses under which the men would be practically compelled, though not ' required/ to work for longer hours. Unless the words ' or permitted ' are inserted, the Bill will be of little effect. I would ask the hon. member (Mr. Yerville) to consider that amendment. I shall have another one to suggest later on.


Alphonse Verville: Under the Bill men are permitted to work more than eight hours, provided they are paid at least time and a quarter. I do not wish to go to the length of saying that a man shall not be permitted to work beyond certain hours. I do not think that would be fair, nor would anybody regard it as fair.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: There is no conscientious advocate of the nine-hour day or the eight-hour' day, who does not state distinctly that one reason why he advocates the limitation of hours is that more people may be employed and fewer left out of work. The hon. member (Mr. Verville) is violating the very foundation principle of the eight-hour day.


Alphonse Verville: I guess I understand the proposition as well as the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) does.. When I state that sometimes men must work unusually long hours, I know; I have done work enough in my life to know about that. Circumstances sometimes arise under which work must be done speedily and yet you cannot put on two or three shifts a day. Men may have to put in a few hours extra to finish work within a certain time. And it would not be fair to put men, in such a case, in the position of violators of the law. That is the very reason why I provided in the clause that if men work beyond the hours specified, they shall be paid at least time and a quarter. That does not say they shall not be paid more. Some men now are actually paid time and a half or even double time for overwork. Some at the present time are working on single time, therefore I have put in the minimum number of hours. That is the reason why I struck out the word ' permit,' and replaced it with the word ' require,' because they are already permitted to work. Every hon. member in this House knows that there are cases which cannot be treated in any other way.


Angus Claude Macdonell: 


Mr. GOODEVE.: I understand the principle of 40 hours of labour per week in the same manner as it is understood by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell), and I agree with him that the principle for which the workingmen of this country have been advocating would be destroyed if the grjel and selfishness of any individual labourer were allowed for the sake of earning an increased salary or emolument, to occupy the time that should be or might be given to other men in the same class of labour. I think that is really the principle, or one of the chief principles, which has been at the back of the agitation in favour of short suing the hours of labour. I am also satisfied that the numerous resolutions that many members of this House have received in the interest of labour refer, not to the Bill at present before the House, but to the Bill as originally introduced by the member for Maisonneuve. We also find that previous to the introduction of this Bill last session, a select committee had been appointed to investigate this subject, and authority rwas given to that committee, under the Minister of Labour, to employ expert counsel, and to get expert advice m the matter. We find that a very large sum of money has been expended, a large number of witnesses of all classes, both of those interested from a personal standpoint, and those representing the interest of labour, as well as employers of labour, have been heard before that committee, and there has now been brought down to us a book containing nearly 800 pages of evidence taken by that committee. I find, too, that that evidence has been summed up by a paid expert Prof. Skelton, who has been brought before this committee, and I presume that the Bill as introduced this session is based on his summary of that evidence. If not, what was the use of this large expenditu-e of time and money, if the Bill was not to be based on th-3 evidence before the committee? I think that is a reasonable position to take. Now, what was the evidence as placed before the committee and as) summed up by the expert whom the Minister of Labour employed, and in whom he seems to have had confidence? We find in this report a summing up of results, in various places and under various conditions, and this voluminous summing up, along with the voluminous evidence, fill, as I say, about 800 pages of this blue-book that I have before me. Let ms first quote from the evidence of Prof. Fisher, of Yale university, and see what he says in regard to these hours of labour. On page 315 the witness, speaking of Prof. Fishe:, says :
This commission was appointed to make a comprehensive investigation into the causes of deterioration or advance in national vitality.

And in regard to the working day, I would like to read an extract from Prof. Fisher's remarks. On page 45 he says: 'The present working day is a striking example of the failure to conserve national vitality. In order to keep labour power unimpaired, the working day should he physiological-i.e., it should be such as would enable the average individual to completely recuperate over night. Otherwise, instead of a simple daily cycle there is a progressive deterioration. A reduction in the length of the work day would be a chief means of improving the vitality of workmen, as well as the worth of life to them. The fatigue of workmen is largely traceable to their long work day and serves to start a vicious circle. Fatigue puts the workman in an abnormal frame of mind. He seeks to deaden his fatigue by alcohol, tobacco, exciting amusements, and excesses of various kinds. The momentary relief which he thereby obtains is purchased at the expense of an increasing susceptibility to fatigue, resulting sooner or later in complete depletion of his vital energies and in the contraction of tuberculosis or other fatal diseases. The decrease in the length of the working day has not diminished the output.
This is an extract from the report of Prof. Fisher of Yale university, who was appointed to investigate this question of shorter hours of labour, and it is on a par with the speech of the Minister of Labour, which the leader of the opposition referred to. Now, let us see what Prof. Skelton, the expert appointed by the governmenti says in r egard to it. On page 368 he speaks of the effect of Shorter hours of labour :
In the light of the experience of other countries m eight-hour legislation it may be pos-61 a e j'0 summai*ize briefly a few conclusions.
And first, as to the end proposed ? Men will answer this question differently, as they lay the chief stress on the making of men, or the making of goods, or the making of money. I rom the viewpoint of the social and cultural effects of shorter hours, there is little disagreement from the conclusion that a lessen-mg of the average hours now spent would make for good, in giving men more opportunity tor making the acquaintance of their families, more (Opportunity for self development and recreation, more opportunity for taking an intelligent interest in civic affairs. Undoubtedly with the minority the larger freedom will be abused, and the shorter day in the workshop means a larger evening in the saloon; yet few who question the wisdom of greater leisure on this ground would go the logical length of saying that the working day should be lengthened to cut off entirely the leisure that may be abused, especially in face of the undoubted fact that it is precisely long hours and exhausting toil which are the surest inducements to dissipation.
Then further, I will quote from page 361 :
Q. What was the date of the reduction to 54 hours?-A. I am not quite sure whether it was 1870 or 1871. The great reduction in hours came it may be noted with the increase in the price of coal in the early 70's; the wages, ad-55J	,
justed on a sliding scale basis rose so much that the men preferred to take some of the gain in shorter hours rather than in higher wages. It may be noted also that the average output per man per day was greatest in the. shortest hour districts.
So you see that one of the points which this gentleman was asked to inquire into, was the output of labour, and the expe.-t evidence given was that a reduction in the hours of labour would not result in a decreased output. We find the same result in the 'experience of the British War Office, where they employ a large number of men at strenuous labour. This is what Prof. Skelton says of that experience :
The results of this reduction are wholly favourable to the advocates of shorter hours. After eleven years trial, reports were sought from the two government departments chiefly concerned, and - were published by the Board of Trade in 1905. The War Office, the employees of which had been granted a reduction of 51 hours per week, stated that when the 48-hour week was first adopted it was anticipated that there would be a saving of time m stopping and restraining work at the breakfast hour, work not beginning till after breakfast under the new system, and also a saving of light and fuel.
It was also expected that a later hour of starting work would ensure greater regularity of attendance, that there would be an improvement in the physical condition of the men and an increase in their power of production. The fact that the reduction in the hours of work had not reduced the output, or increased the cost of it, in private factories in which the experiment had been tried, also led the War Office to assume that the cost of production would not be increased in their workshops. It is stated that these anticipations have been justified, and that it is clear that no extra cost has been incurred by the public on account of the reduction of hours, nor has the output of the work been diminished.
These quotations by experts after careful investigation of the experience of large employers of labour, are confirmed by reports of experience in Great Britain, Australia and other countries, and the conclusion reached is that shorter hours of labour, while improving the physical and social well being of the labourer, have not diminished the output, and have not increased the cost. Surely that was what this House wanted to know, surely that is the reason and the argument advanced by ' the Minister of Labour as to why he was anxious to have this committee, and to get all the information possible upon these particular points. In the face of that, he brings down this Bill, and evidently the first Bill had been sent broadcast through Canada, owing to the large number of returns received, we would appear to be playing false to the workmen of this country if -without giving them an opportunity to consider the Bill we are now considering we should lead them to support a Bill


Mr. KING.: As several references have been made to myself and to information which the government had in advance of the other members, alleged to have been given by the hon. member of the House who introduced this Bill (Mr. Verville), I might say, for the information of hon. gentlemen opposite, that the amendments which were submitted by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) were not seen by me until the day on which they were introduced in the House. That day we did have a conference before the Bill came on, and the hon. member communicated to me the nature of the amendments which he proposed to move, and I assured him that if these amendments were moved he would certainly have my support in them. On the same day, in introducing the amendments, he gave them to every member of the House. The Bill was* reprinted and the Minister of Public Works has had before him the reprinted Bill just as every member of the House has had, therefore we are all practically in the same position in that respect.


Morley Currie: If I remember rightly, these amendments were handed to the Minister of Labour and the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill and the minister agreed on certain amendments. When it was up for discussion there was an attempt made to have the House accept these amendments without their being read. I forget whether these amendments were tabled that day or not.


George Gerald King: They were.


Morley Currie: After the discussion the Minister of Labour tabled them.


George Gerald King: The Minister of Labour did not table them at all. They were tabled by the hon. member who introduced the Bill, and the amendments being several in number it was suggested by the leader of the opposition that it was better to have the Bill reprinted. To refer to another point, I think the leader of the opposition as well as the member for Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) expressed the opinion that what is being aimed at by this legislation might be put through by order in council, and that being so it was difficult to see why there was need for legislation at all. But, time and again hon. gentlemen opposite have objected to the amount of work that is being done by order in council which they said ought to be done by wav of legislation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Which ought not to be done at all.	[DOT]


George Gerald King: The hon. gentleman says there should be no legislation by order m council.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, I say that a good deal is done by order in council that ought not to be done at all, whether by legislation or by order in council.


George Gerald King: I think hon. members generally will agree with me that a new principle of this kind ought to be considered by the House before any action is taken by the government. It is true that the action on the fair wage resolution was taken by order in council, but the resolution was first introduced in the House and fully discussed. It would be a mistaken course, in my opinion, for the government to proceed by order in council on such an important matter as this before getting the opinion of the House upon it. I understand the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr Macdonell) is that after the word required ' there should be inserted the word * or permitted/ so as to make it read that no labourer, workman, or mechanic shall be required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one day. Do I understand the hon. gentleman to mean that the workmen cannot be permitted to work on any other work during the rest of the day?


Angus Claude Macdonell: The suggested clause means what it says.


George Gerald King: I would like to get a definite answer before expressing an opinion upon it.


Morley Currie: I do not think auy legislation we could pass would prevent a man cutting wood for his stove after he had worked eight hours on a government work.


George Gerald King: I would like the hon. member (Mr. Macdonell) to state definitely if

when he says a man should not be permitted to work any more than eight hours in one day, he means not only on government work, but on any other work for which the man would obtain remuneration.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Labour will understand that the opinion of any member in this House would have no effect whatever on the construction of a statute.


George Gerald King: If a workman is to be permitted to work only eight hours on government work, and is then permitted to work on other work, and receive remuneration for it, it is questionable whether the object aimed at by the hon. member (Mr. Mac-donell) would be attained.


Robert Laird Borden: Evidently the Minister of Labour misunderstands me. What I said was that any assurance from the hon. member from Toronto, or any other member as to the meaning of the statute, is of no value at all. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) might say he understood it to mean one particular thing, but the courts would not be influenced by his opinion, or the opinion of any other hon. member.


George Gerald King: I agree with that, but the opinion of the hon. member would have a very great effect on the attitude of the members of the House towards the suggested amendment, and, if the wording is not sufficient to carry out the intention then other wording could be found. I want to find out what the intention of the hon. member (Mr. Macdonell) is.


Angus Claude Macdonell: We are dealing with a Bill respecting the hours of labour-on government works and that is all that is in the mind of hon. members, and it is all that is in my mind. I apprehend that we cannot say to a man who works on a government work and complies with the law respecting it as to the hours he shall work, that he cannot go home and split his own wood or do his own chores or anything else he pleases in his own private life during the rest of the day. What I have in mind is simply the operation of the Act with regard to hours of labour on public works.


George Gerald King: Then I would point out that the explanation of the hon. member answers the argument he put forward in moving his original motion. He said that the effect of it was to limit the quantity oi work that should be done and that the only purpose of having an eight hour day was to leave more work for other men to do. Now the hon. gentleman says that is not what he proposes at all but that he would permit a workman to spend the additional time working in some other man's field. A clause enacted in that language


George Gerald King: would not I think be satisfactory to the workingmen.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I wish to correct the hon. minister. I had no intention of saying, nor have I said anything which would lead the hon. gentleman to take such a meaning from my words.


George Gerald King: On what ground does the hon. gentleman ask the House to say that a man shall not be permitted to work more than eight hours a day?


Angus Claude Macdonell: On the ground that the Act is absolutely worthless and meaningless without such a provision.


George Gerald King: That is not an answer.


Morley Currie: If the Minister of Labour continues to argue in a circle he will convince the House that the Bill as it stands is absolutely useless to the workingmen. Does he propose, after a man leaves a public work at the conclusion of his day s labour, to have a broad arrow stamped on his forehead indicating that he cannot do anything he desires to do during the rest of the day. It would be most extraordinary legislation to pass in this House to say that a man cannot do what he pleases after he ceased his day's labour on a government work. All that this legislation proposes to do is to prevent a man from working on a government contract longer than eight hours a day. If it is necessary to work any extra hours during the day somebody else would have to come in and do it. It might be necessary for the contractors to employ two gangs of eight hours a day each in the summer time, and if that were done, more employment would be given to more people. That is the object of eight hour legislation. Any one who pays heed to the reports read by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) will know that such is the object of those who are studying the welfare of the working classes. What my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) wants the legislation to say is that a man shall not work more than eight hours a day on a government work, but the Minister of Labour wants to follow- the workingman to his home and prevent him doing any other kind of work during the day, which on the face of it is an absurd proposition.


George Gerald King: If I understand the proposal it is that if one contractor is employing men for ten hours a day and another is employing them for eight hours a day on a government building, the eight hour a day man can leave off work on his building and go and work on the building where the men are working ten hours.


Angus Claude Macdonell: If an eight-hour day is made uniform on government work, there would be no man working more than eight hours.


George Gerald King: But the hon. member must bear in mind that in addition to government work, there is private work, and while this Bill does not go further than government work, it has to be considered in relation to private work as well.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. minister is in doubt about the application of the words, ' or permitted,' his mind must be in absolute chaos as to the application of the words ' or required ' in the original Bill. If he does not know what these words apply to, he had better re-draft his Bill, and bring it in again when he does understand it.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: On the last day the Bill was before us I asked the Minister of Labour a few questions which he was not permitted at the time to answer, as it was just before the adjournment. I would like to ask him what the government intends with reference to this measure. First of all, does it intend that the eightihour labour shall be paid the present per diem wage? That can be easily answered yes or no.


George Gerald King: This is not my measure, but I think I pointed out that there were two or three considerations which the government had to keep in mind in any legislation of this character. There was its position as a model employer. There was also the fact that the government was a trustee of public funds, and as such I for one did not see that it would be justified in passing legislation which would say that a man should receive ten hours' pay for eight hours' work. As I understand the legislation, the payment is to be by the hour, and, having regard to the position of trust which the government occupies, I do not see how any member of this House could advocate anything else.


William Sora Middlebro: Then I suppose I may fairly assume that that is the reason the hon. Minister of Labour struck out clause 8 in the other Bill, -which fixed the rate of wages.


George Gerald King: I must take exception to hon. members continually referring to these amendments as having been made by the government. As I have already pointed out, the amendments were brought in by the hon. member who introduced the Bill, not by the government.


William Sora Middlebro: My understanding of this matter is that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) brought in a certain Bill, that that Bill was submitted, quite rightly, to the Minister of Labour, that the result of that submission is the Bill which we have before the House to-day, and that it is not upon the voluntary initiative of the hon. member for Maisonneuve
that clause 8 was struck out, but that all the clauses which were in the former Bill and which are not in the present Bill have been struck out under the guidance of the Minister of Labour.


Alphonse Verville: When I first brought the Bill before the House, the famous clause which the hon. member is speaking about was not in it at all, and it was said that I wanted to reduce men's wages. This year I put that clause in the first Bill, and then it was said, why shoqid I go that far, and compel men to give ten hours' pay for eight hours' work? I for one believe it is not fair for this or any government to put a clause in a Bill providing that you shall pay so much to a man to do work. I am willing to leave that to be settled by the men who do the work themselves. It might be urged as a reason for such a clause that in the fair-wage clause it is stipulated that government contractors shall pay so much per hour, but that means only that they shall pay according to the conditions existing in the locality where the work is going on. It was suggested also that the same thing could be obtained by an order in council. But an order in council could be repealed by another order in council, whereas if we' have legislation, that can only be repealed or amended by parliament. I have confidence in the government, but I have more confidence in the House as a whole. That is the reason I bring the measure here. So far as wages are concerned, I do not think it is the labour people who are asking for a clause to regulate them. Any increase of wages they want they can obtain for themselves.


William Sora Middlebro: Then I understand that the hon. member's position is this. Under this Bill, he does not expect the labourer, if he works only eight hours, to get as much pay as he has been receiving in the past.


Alphonse Verville: I will answer the hon. gentleman in this way: It will -come later on. It will be through the efforts of organized labour and in no other way. I do not want to legislate in that matter.


William Sora Middlebro: Then I think we have got to the roots of the matter. It will be through the efforts of organized labour that any increase of wages or decrease of labour shall come. Does the hon. member himself intend that under this Bill the man who works eight hours shall not get as much pay as he does to-day?


Alphonse Verville: I would like to see a man getting the wages of fifteen hours for eight hours work, as far as I am concerned. But that is not the question.


William Sora Middlebro: Is it because the hon. gentleman applied to the government


Alphonse Verville: No.


Mr MIDDLEBRO.: 
George Gerald King: I am certainly.


Morley Currie: 
Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection at all to answering my hon. friend. It is not difficult to see what is the game going on the other side.
A.' CURRIE (Simcoe). No more than on that side.


Wilfrid Laurier: When this Bill was int roduced by my hon. friend as roughly drafted, it was riddled with objections by hon. members opposite.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: In legislating on this question, it was considered perhaps preferable not to undertake to regulate the hou:s of labour on so vast a scale as was intended by the first Bill.


Morley Currie: Considered by whom?


William Sora Middlebro: 


Wilfrid Laurier: By this committee of the House of Commons.


Morley Currie: I thought perhaps it was by the right hon. gentleman.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then my hon. friend came to the conclusion that it would be better perhaps that instead of leaving the Bill as drastic as it was, he would make a more moderate and modest beginning. Therefore, he proposed the Bill as now amended.


George Eulas Foster: Then it is his Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: But strange to say as soon as the amended Bill came before the House every hon. member opposite became in favour of the first Bill. We could not have that expression of opinion the first time ; but as soon as my hon. friend was inclined to meet the views of the other side as expressed by them-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Not at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: Everybody then said this Bill does not go far enough, we are in favour of the first Bill. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition said he was in favour of the first Bill, and so did my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie). Well it is very easy, if they are in favour of the first Bill, to restore it. If my hon. friend wants to know who is responsible, for my part I am ready to take my share of the responsibility. He asks how is the Bill to be construed? Does it mean that the labouring man will be compelled to work only eight hours a day, and that he will ibe given the same wage a3 if he worked ten hours. For my part, I say no. The Bill does not intend anything of the kind. If it did, I would not be in favour of it. We have at present legislation providing that in all government contracts the labour contractor must pay to his men the current wage in the locality in which he is working out his contract. If it be in British Columbia or in Toronto, the labourer is called on there to work, I understand, only eight hours per day and receive a certain remuneration. If in Nova Scotia, I dare say the current rate is for a ten hour day, so that the labourer would receive the current remune ration for that length of day. If in any part of the country the rate is so much for ten hours, it would not do to compel the labourer to wo :k only eight hours and then give him the privilege of drawing a wage for ten hours. Therefore, as I understand it under this Bill the working man will not he compelled to work more than eight hours and will receive a wage equivalent to that eight hours ; but if he chooses he may work longer and be paid more. What is the object of this legislation? The labour organizations have been struggling for years, not only in this country, but

throughout the civilized world, to have the day of labour limited to eight hours. This legislation has been accepted in some countries, and the object now is to have this measure adopted in this country with regard to certain kinds of labour and nothing else.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend is entirely in error as to what took place when the Bill was originally introduced. I have looked up the ' Hansard ' and I find that the Bill was brought up for second reading on the 15th of December. The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) introduced it in a short speech, taking less than a column of ' Hansard * and the motion that the Bill be read the second time passed unanimously.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Therefore, every one in this House committed himself to the principle of the original Bill as proposed by the hon. member for Maisonneuve.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend has said that these amendments were afterwards introduced because of the *emphatic opposition to the Bill from this side. Why, the reverse is the case. The very fir3t thing that transpired after that was the statement in committee by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) that certain amendments were to be introduced. I quote from ' Hansard ' :


Alphonse Verville: I move that the words 'in the open market' be striken from the clause.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: Is it the intention of the government to put this Bill through and to accept it as a government measure,?


George Gerald King: The mover of the Bill has stated that he will propose certain amendments in the committee and the action of the government will be determined by the nature of the amendments. If the amendments are satisfactory to the government the Bill will be carried through; if not the government will not lend its support.
It transpired afterwards that the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) knew perfectly well what these amendments were when he made that statement. That is the exact situation. Then more o: less of a debate arose and finally I suggested that we should have a statement from the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) as to the exact purport of the proposed amendments. He gave the amendments to the House, and as they were rather involved, it was suggested by some one on this side that they could not be very well understood unless the Bill were reprinted. And the Bill was reprinted [accordingly. In the course of the discussion the other day I said this :


Robert Laird Borden: I am supporting the principle of the Bill as originally introduced, but not this Bill, which has absolutely no shadow of principle behind it.
That is the exact situation as I know it.


Richard Blain: May I ask the hon. Minister of Labour if the Dominion Trades, and Labour Congress endorsed this amended Bill?


George Gerald King: I understand that it has had no opportunity to consider the Bill as yet; but on the other hand, I believe that the executive of the Trades and Labour Congress have expressed their preference for the first Bill.


Richard Blain: Did they endorse the original Bill?


George Gerald King: I think so. I think they have also said they would prefer the original Bill to this one, and I would say frankly that I think many workingmen would probably prefer the first measure it they could get it. The reason the hon member introduced these amendments is that he feels that the Bill, as originally introduced, could not pass at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Why?


George Gerald King: Because hon. members opposite would not give it their support.


Richard Blain: The government would not give it its support.


George Gerald King: I was going to suggest to the hon. member that he should give hon. gentlemen opposite an opportunity to show how far they are willing to go in supporting this Bill, and that he should withdraw the amendment to the original Bill and let them vote on the Bill as it first stood.


Richard Blain: And what would be the position of the government upon it?


George Gerald King: I have stated my posith n. I think that the original Bill goes too far, and, as one member of the government. I am not prepared to support it in its entirety as it stands. Some hon. members opposite have spoken as if they would support it ; I think they should be equally frank and I am suggesting to the hon. member (Mr. Verville) that he should give them an opportunity to do so.


George Gerald King: If the provisions of the minister (Mr. King), for the purpose of giving this chance to the opposition, is prepared to have the Bill defeated, by withdrawing the amendments to the Bill and presenting it to the House in a form in which he himself cannot support it?


George Gerald King: If the provisions of the original Bill were defeated, the hon. member would be at liberty to bring in his amendments. But we should then

know how hon. members opposite would vote on the original Bill.


George Eulas Foster: Is that according to the latest parliamentary practice?


William Sora Middlebro: Is there anything in the Bill to prohibit a contractor from refusing to employ a man who says he will work only eight hours a day in accordance with the Bill?


Alphonse Verville: No, we cannot put anything of that kind in the Bill.


William Sora Middlebro: Suppose a contractor for a government building decides to employ only such men as work ten hours a day; have the eight-hour-a-day men who are supposed to be given some relief under this Bill, any remedy or recourse?


Alphonse Verville: The man who works more than eight hours gets time and a quarter for his extra time. I do not think any contractor will seek to pay time and a quarter for the mere pleasure of having his men work more than eight hours.


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Verville) has not answered my question. Is there anything to prevent a contractor refusing to employ a man who says he works only eight hours a day?


Alphonse Verville: No.


William Sora Middlebro: Then, the contractor has power to refuse to employ a man who works only eight hours a day?


Alphonse Verville: He has that now.


William Sora Middlebro: There is no improvement in that respect?


Alphonse Verville: No, because that is the general law.


William Sora Middlebro: There is no improvement in the rate of wages either. Now, one more question. Suppose a public work going on in a district where the wage for a certain class of labour is 40 cents an hour for a ten-hour day. If the fair wage clause were applied to this eight-hour schedule, would that mean that the men would be prevented from working two hours and prevented from earning eighty cents, making their wages $3.20 a day? I would like to have the Minister of Labour answer that question.


George Gerald King: The government, in preparing the fair wage schedule, takes the current wages in the district. Under this eight-hour law the fair wage schedules will be prepared as before. The eight-hour law will apply automatically, and the man will be paid at the rate per hour under the schedule.


William Sora Middlebro: And it would cut down the wage in that case by eighty cents a day?	'	1


George Gerald King: 


George Gerald King: The man would be paid at the current rate per hour, whatever that might be. And if he works ten hours a day, he would be entitled to time and a quarter.


William Sora Middlebro: But the intention of this Bill is that a man shall only work eight hours a day, and there is a penalty on the contractoB if he works more. Now, I am trying to understand this' Bill. I understand that, in a district where a certain class of labour is paid at 40 cents an hour, being $4 for a ten hour day, if this Bill comes into force it is the intention of the government under the fair wage clause to cut that down to $3.20 a day.


George Gerald King: It is not the intention of the government to cut down anything; it is the intention of the government to be governed by the legislation passed by this House.


William Sora Middlebro: Well, I think I shall not be wrong if, in discussing the matter I put it my way. It seems to me there is very little in this measure as it stands. Subsection 2 of section 3 of this Bill reads:
The provisions of this section shall, as respects the hours of labour, apply to work undertaken, by the government by day labour.
Does that apply to all work undertaken by the government not under contract, or is that limited to work on public buildings?


George Gerald King: I take that to mean all labour commonly spoken of as ' day labour ', as contrasted with labour employed by contract for a period of time.


William Sora Middlebro: It makes no difference then, whether this labour is done upon a public building, or in dredging or anything else?


George Gerald King: If it is day labour.


William Sora Middlebro: I am glad to know that. It is the intention of the Bill that the eight-hour rule shall apply to all day labour employed by the government.


George Gerald King: Yes, that was pointed out as one of the main features of the Bill

that it not only relates to contracts for public buildings, but governs all labour employed by the government on a day labour basis.


William Sora Middlebro: Then, if the government undertakes the construction of the Quebec bridge, as I understand the interpretation given by the minister, all the labourers will work only eight hours a day.


George Gerald King: If they are hired on a day labour basis-yes.


William Sora Middlebro: If they are hired on the monthly basis, it does not apply?


George Gerald King: No, they are not day labourers.


William Sora Middlebro: If they are employed on a two day labour basis, it would not apply?


George Gerald King: The hon. gentleman's (Mr. Middlebro's) remarks disclose the fact that he is not familiar with the practice in the building trade. The expression ' day labour ' is one well understood.


William Sora Middlebro: Would the minister consider a man employed by the month a day labourer?


Alphonse Verville: I would like to answer that question-


William Sora Middlebro: I am asking the Minister of Labour: would he consider a man employed by the month a day labourer?


George Gerald King: A day labourer might be employed by the day for a week, a month or a couple of years. If he were not under a monthly contract, but were employed by the day, I would regard him as a day labourer.


William Sora Middlebro: Would he regard a man employed by the week at $15 a week a day labourer?


Mr. DEVLIN.: He might be a labourer, not a day labourer.


William Sora Middlebro: I want to know the intention of the government in this matter.


George Gerald King: If his term of hiring is so much per day, I would regard him as a day labourer, whether he worked for a week, or six months, or a year.


William Sora Middlebro: If he were hired by the week, or month, or any other term except a day, he is not a day labourer?


George Gerald King: I have stated it as plainly as I can state it.


William Sora Middlebro: The minister will see that it is easy to employ a man for a term of two days, a week, or a month, and in his case the provision of this Bill would not apply. So, we have very little left in the Bill. The Bill as at first introduced applied to many cases which are not covered by the amended Bill:
Contracts for the erection, remodelling, construction or repair of all public works, such as post offices, custom houses, armouries, Intercolonial stations, freight sheds or locomotive equipment, wharfs, piers, breakwaters, railroads, canals, dredges, navy yards, arsenals,
-and many other cases which I do not take time to read. And the government have finally cut that down to apply simply to contracts on public buildings by the hour, and, if a man works two hours less, he gets two hours' less pay. And the government expect the workingmen of this country to
accept that Bill as a just measure of the milk of human kindness about which the Minister of Labour was so eloquent in this House.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I regret that the Prime Minister has seen fit to endeavour to make a party question out of this matter by accusing hon. gentlemen on this side of the House of playing a game. There has been a game played here, but not by the opposition. We all remember what happened on the second reading of this Bill. As has been pointed out by the leader of the opposition, the gentleman who has made this Bill a special study-that is, the original Bill I am speaking of-moved the second reading by a speech in support of the Bill as printed and distributed, and of that Bill only; and the Minister of Labour allowed the motion for the second reading to carry. The hon. member who is in charge of such legislation, or of the cabinet's conscience in regard to such legislation, if it has a conscience, or of the government policy; if it has a policy, the Minister of Labour allowed that second reading of the Bill without a word of protest, the Bill as originally printed, the Bill that was before the House. Did he not commit himself to that Bill? Did he not distinctly approve of that Bill by allowing the second reading to carry, and the House going into committee? Then, as soon as he gets a chance, the Minister of Labour says-and I will not do violence to his language by shortly sum-rr arizing it-he said that he had discussed this matter with the hon. member for Maisonneuve, and because of some amendments that the member for Maisonneuve was willing to submit to, he, the Minister of Labour, was in favour of passing the Bill as it was going to be amended. The Minister of Labour was playing a game. Which side of the House has been playing the game, if there was one being played? It was the member of the cabinet particularly in charge of that sort of legislation who allows the Bill, as printed and distributed, the only Bill before the House, to pass its second reading, without any suggestion whatever that it did not suit him. He committed himself to that Bill in allowing that motion to carry'. Now that hon. gentleman has the temerity to stand up here and say that he proposes to ask the member who is in charge of the Bill, not to keep his agreement made between these two hon. gentlemen, but to withdraw the amendments which he, the Minister Of Labour, had stipulated for when he sat down and allowed the second reading to carry-playing a game upon this House, playing a game on the members of the opposition with regard to this Bill. And now the right hon. gentleman throws that aspersion upon this side of the House, that we have been playing a game, while we have

only diligently been trying to make this legislation suitable to the country.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The right hon. gentleman agrees with me, he approves of the statement that we have been diligently trying to improve this legislation. It was the -Minister of Labour who had made this secret agreement with the proposer of this Bili, which was to be carried out, and this House unanimously committed itself to something else, to the principle contained in the original Bill. And instead of the Prime Minister advising the committee to rise and see what could be done by the Minister of Labour and the member for Maisonneuve, instead of allowing other persons to come in and see what is behind this Bill, they, the government, are wasting the time of this House by this strange kind of proceeding. The Prime Minister sees fit to justify all that happened here by throwing an entirely unwarranted aspersion across the House that hon. gentlemen of the opposition have been playing a game in regard ta this Bill. Now, the Prime Minister ought to set an example in this House, and he ought to stand up and withdraw that expression. There is no warrant whatever for saying any such thing. The Bill was read a second time by the consent of the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour then said that he had only consented to it because he had a secret compact with the proposer of the Bill that certain amendments would be made, and the Minister of Labour says he was not in favour of the Bill which he voted for on the second reading unless those amendments were made.


George Gerald King: I presume the hon. member intends to be perfectly fair. I think if he reads the speech made by the mover of this Bill on the second reading he will find that he stated to the House that he intended in committee to give the House certain amendments. That .information he gave to every one- who was in the House at the time.


George Eulas Foster: Do I understand the minister to say that the mover of the Bill, on the second reading, gave the House to understand the nature of the amendments?


George Gerald King: What my hon. friend from Maisonneuve said was this, on pages 1440 and 1441:-
I want to introduce in this country, as they have in other parts of the world, a measure providing that the eight-hour principle shall be applied to a certain class of works. I am not so particular about the amount of work that it is applied to, provided we have on the statute-book, as they have in other countries, a measure of this kind. Having adopted the principle of this Act it may be that in a few years we will be in a position to extend it to other Mr. LANCASTER.
industries. I am willing this evening if we go into committee to present some amendments. I know that some hon. members are of opinion that the Bill is rather radical in some respects, and in so far as it respects individual concerns, I would be willing to go even beyond the Bill that I have before the House at the present time. But, of course, I also consider the application of that measure, and consequently I am anxious that it should pass not only this House but the Senate and become the law of the land. When the Bill is in committee, I shall present some amendments which I am sure will meet with the good will of members on both sides.
That is what the hon. member said in moving the second reading of the Bill. He stated that he would introduce some amendments to limit the scope of the Bill, and any member of the House had an opportunity, if he was not satisfied with that statement, to ask him then the nature of those amendments, the nature of the amendments being to restrict, to limit somewhat the original scope of the Bill as first introduced. The second reading has to do with the principle of the Bill. Now I endorsed heartily every word the hon. member said, I endorsed the principle, and supported the second reading of the Bill. The information I had with regard to the amendments was such as any other hon. member could have had by asking for it. There was no secret agreement of any kind, any member could have asked what those amendments were, but no one did, every one acquiesced in the Bill passing.


Richard Blain: Did not my hon. friend have possession of these amendments, and did he not consult with the hon. member for Maisonneuve when he made that speech to the House?


George Gerald King: Certainly.


Richard Blain: But no other member of the House had that information, my hon. friend is aware of that. The point is that no other member of this House had that advantage.


George Gerald King: But it was open to any member of the House, as it was open to me, to ask the member for Maisonneuve what amendments he proposed to move. But no member on the other side of the House chose to ask him that question, they were prepared apparently to vote in the dark.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman himself did not ask for it, the hon. gentleman in charge of the Labour Department of the government did not ask, because he well knew, by virtue of what he had said before, what the amendments were, and he was willing that the second reading of the Bill should carry, having satisfied himself, before any hon. gentleman on this side of the House was informed, of the nature of the amendments. Now the hon. gentleman

never said a word of these amendments on the second reading of the Bill until after the second reading had been carried, that is of the Bill as originally introduced. He voted for the second reading by retaining to himself some secret arrangement with the hon. member for Maisonneuve, and thereby committed himself to the second reading of the Bill as originally brought in. Now he seeks to get out by saying that hon. gentlemen on this side have had the same information as he had. When would they have had that information? They would have had no time to understand it before the Speaker put the question. The hon. gentleman had the information hours, perhaps days before and had time to consider it, he knew the purport of what he was doing. Whether it be a party question or not -and the Prime Minister seems anxious to make it a party question-the Minister of Labour should have informed the House what information he had which would cause him to sit silent and allow the second reading to carry. He did not see fit to do so, he did not see fit to obtain approval of his action from this side of the House, and he sits silent when the Prime Minister accuses this side of the House of playing a game and suggests that the amendments he stipulated for be withdrawn. Again I say that a game was played-not a very profitable game,-but it was played on that side of the House and not on this.


Alphonse Verville: I stated when I moved the' second reading of this Bill that it did not go far enough to suit me. Every one in this House knows that my ideas are more radical than those of many other members on this subject. That being the case if I was permitted by the House I would be willing to go ahead with the first Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member says if he was permitted by the House. What is to prevent him proceeding with his legislation?


Alphonse Verville: First of all the knowledge of every member of this House of social questions, because they have not had time to study these practical questions.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Alphonse Verville: It is a iact, you may laugh all you like, you may have lots of theory but very little practice, as far as hours of labour in industry are concerned.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has not apprehended my question. He intimated that he had been prevented by the House from introducing legislation which his radical views would cause him to favour. He now says we are educated up to his point of view. If that were the fact he should place the proposed legislation before us and ask us to deal with it.


Alphonse Verville: I am willing to withdraw the amendment that I have made to this Bill and to consider the old Bill, clause No. 4.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Why don't you do it?


Alphonse Verville: Then I will withdraw it if I am permitted by the House.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Will the hon. gentleman be allowed to withdraw his proposed amendment?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Mr. Speaker-	.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Does the hon. member oppose this withdrawal, or may the hon. member withdraw his motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sure.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).: If the amendments are not withdrawn, I would like to be permitted to make a few remarks upon what appears to me-


George Eulas Foster: I would like to understand the position. Is the amendment withdrawn or not? The Minister of Labour suggested from the wise and broad standpoint of long parliamentary practice and usage that in order to carry out a little scheme of his own the amendment should be withdrawn and then the original Bill should be thrown into the face of the House and at the same moment he declared that he would oppose the original Bill. That seems to be the kind of parliamentary practice to which the Minister of Labour owes his fealty. Does the Prime Minister think that becoming to a parliament like this? I do not think so, I think the Prime Minister does not want the amendment withdrawn. We are here as men and legislators, to do our work in a parliamentary fashion and not as a set of school boys under the guidance of the Minister of Labour to chuck back and forth as though in a game of shuttle-cock, an amendment and a first motion in order to get some little party advantage. Let us get our party advantage, if we want it, in a parliamentary way. Surely the amendment is not withdrawn on that suggestion?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, it is not. My hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) is not as familiar as I am with the wiles of my hon. friend and his friends. If he had my experience he would understand that no one on the other side desires this amendment to be withdrawn. They all thought the Bill as first introduced wa3 too drastic.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: I give the credit to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) that he is in favour of the first Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I always have been.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Wilfrid Laurier: And so on, and so on, this is only a sample of what took place.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Does the First Minis-BiU?0nS1der	* said as opposing the


Wilfrid Laurier: No, but I
construe it as giving some motive why the Bill should not be proceeded with. My hon. friend did not dare to oppose the Bill but he was quite willing to put obstacles in its way and to prevent it becoming law. That is the attitude taken by the opposition.
GOODEVE. The Prime Minister has stated that no member of the opposition objected to the introduction of amendments. I strongly objected in these words to be found at page 1448 of ' Hansard '.
As one who is inclined to support and who has supported the principle of the eight-hour day, and eight-hour labour. I strongly object to the position taken both by the Minister of Labour and the member introducing the Bill. I think the course being taken is very unfair to every member of this House.
I said this in reference to that very point.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend has justified what I have been saying all along, namely, that gentlemen opposite were opposing the Bill, one from one motive and another from another motive.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: No, Sir, I was opposing the amendment to the Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: Every hon. gentleman opposite was pretending he was in favour of it but every one had objections.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I object to being misinterpreted. I say to the First Minister that my words applied to the proposed amendment, because I supported the principle of the Bill as brought in. I do not wish to be misquoted.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then my hon. friend would be prepared to vote for the Bill as originally introduced?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Certainly.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very good, but there are certain of his friends who will not agree with him, and amongst others the member for Grey.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And the Minister of Labour.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, and I may include myself, because as the Bill was originally proposed I think it was too drastic. My hon. friend from Kootenay says he is in favour of the Bill as introduced, and if that be so he cannot object to the Bill as amended. He could say

that in his opinion the amended Bill does not go far enough, but that is no reason why he should not adopt the Bill as it is proposed. My hon. friend from Maison-neuve (Mr. Verville), as I understand, is acting as a member of the Labour Council and as a workingman and he thinks this Bill is a step in the right direction. He tells us very frankly that the Bill does not go as far as he would like it to go either in its amended form or in its primary form as introduced, but he says he is anxious to have the principle of an eight-hour-day consecrated into law in this country, and he tells us that he does not ask for more at this moment than that we should recognize that principle. It is no answer for hon. gentlemen on the other side to say that they would vote for this Bill if it went further or if it applied to this kind of labour or to that kind, because the question is whether we are in favour of the principle of the Bill. The House has affirmed by the second reading of the Bill that it is in favour of the principle and now we have supplied the application of the principle. My hon. friend from Maisonneuve has stated with very great frankness that this is a new principle in the social question, and one which is subject to very great objection in many quarters, and he tells us he will not go so far as he intended to go originally but that he will be satisfied for the present if the measure should be applied to gov4 ernment contracts, not of all kinds, but of certain kinds. That is tire question we have before us, and it seems to me we should proceed with the Bill as it is amended. If gentlemen on the other side think it is too restricted it is open to them to propose that the Bill should go further, but certainly the principle contained in it ought to be given effect to.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I do not uphold the principle that before this House passes any legislation it should appeal to the country or to those particularly interested for an opinion so as to shirk responsibility. But, I do say that when the Bill as originally introduced has been sent out to those interested for their opinion and has received the endorsation of those interested in labour, it is very unfair to bring in a Bill of this kind which is a totally different Bill altogether, and which has not in its present form been passed upon by the labouring people of this country. We all know that when the Insurance Bill was introduced the insurance people were invited to come here in a body and they were heard for weeks before a committee of this House. The same was the case with the Co-operative Bill and the Banking Bill and Bills of that kind applying to capital. I do not say that it is the duty of parliament to endeavour
to shift its responsibility in this way, but
1	do say most emphatically that the Bill was brought in with the recognition, at least, of the government, expressed through the Minister of Labour, and that Bill as originally introduced was sent out to the labour organizations of the country, and the members of this House have received letters from these various associations asking them to support that Bill. In view of that, is it not fair that when this emasculated Bill is introduced, which really does not grant the principle which the First Minister has contended for, that the labour organizations should have an opportunity of knowing of the change in the Bill and deciding whether or not they would ask members of parliament to support it in its present form? The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) has made it quite clear that there is absolutely no principle in this amended .Bill at all. Think of the absurdity of the Minister of Labour standing up here this afternoon and telling us that subsection
2	of section 3 of the Bill is an independent clause and may be applied to every man employed in day labour. Why, that is merely a subsection, and if what the Minister of Labour said were true it should be and would be a separate section of the' Bill. This incident simply shows how little the Minister of Labour understands the Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no doubt whatever that the labour organizations for which my hon. friend (Mr. Good-eve) seems to speak would prefer the Bill originally introduced in this House to the Bill in its amended form. But the Canadian people are not composed only of the working classes; there are other classes, and these other classes object to the Bill. I can understand very well that although the working classes would welcome this measure even if it were more drastic than when first introduced, still they realize that there are other interests to be considered, and they are willing, as is the case in regard to most of such legislation, to take the principle in an amended form and to accept less than they would like to have.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: How do you know they are willing to accept this amended Bill? That is the real point. The right hon. gentleman must know that the original Bill was placed before the people for their opinion and that this amended Bill was not.


Wilfrid Laurier: I take my opinion from the man who introduced this Bill, who is a workingman himself and who is a member of the labour organizations, and who is willing to take this amended form of the Bill in order, as he says, to make a beginning and introduce the prin-

ciple. I have no doubt whatever that if the workingmen thought they could get more they would seek to obtain it, but my hon. friend (Mr. Goodeve) knows that few reforms which have been achieved have been proposed just as they were conceived by those who proposed them. No reform has ever been introduced in any country as it was conceived by the mind of the re-fo-mer. These great reforms have to be brought on piecemeal. My hon. friend (Mr. Verville) introduced his Bill a few weeks ago, and I have cited the opinion of prominent members of this House who believe that it was altogether wrong to interfere in any way to prevent a man working as many hours a day as he wished. It is in view of all these objections that the mover of the Bill has agreed to amend it and to support it in its amended form. It is open for my hon. friend from Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) to say: I will have the Bill as it was first introduced. But, because the Bill is not as broad as my hon. friend (Mr. Verville) would wish to have it, that is no reason why the hon. member for Kootenay should oppose it altogether, if, as I conceive, he wants to be logical.


Arthur Meighen: When the Bill was first introduced I offered a few words to explain my attitude towards such legislation. I did not intend, nor did I in any way misdirect my intention, to offer any opposition to the Bill as originally proposed. To the principle of the eight-hour day, properly applied', I assent. To the Bill as introduced now I do not assent, because in it I see no principle whatever. The hon. Minister of Labour has been told by the parties who have urged the Bill that there is nothing of it left except a halting and faltering step in the direction they indicated and a halting and faltering step is always made by a halting and faltering government. The hon. minister says that no great reform ever comes excepting piecemeal. I think he will acknowledge that the abolition of the corn laws in Great Britain was a great reform; will he point out the piecemeal steps that led to the abolition of the corn laws? If there were a firm and manly step taken towards eight-hour labour, it would not be opposed by those who recognize the principle. But in this Bill there is no step at all. I cannot conceive of an eventuality in which the labourer is going to be assisted to eight hours labour by this Bill. If it were designated properly, it would be called, not an Act respecting the hours of labour on public works, but an Act to legalize overpay of government employees. Under this Act a man can make a contract to work eight or ten or twelve or as many hours as he pleases or as the employer can screw out of him. The conditions of labour are going to prevail just as they were before. The employer can go into the labour Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
market and ascertain what labour is being paid, and make any contract with his men that he can now make with them and is hampered by this Bill in no way whatever. It means just this, that men employed on government work and paid by the government shall be paid more than men employed on the same work by other parties, that is to say, it legalizes payment of men employed by the government at a higher rate than otherwise would obtain, and that applies only to day labour. If we are going to move in the direction of an eight-hour day, let us move sensibly. Let us apply the principle where it will do most good, let us apply it to the factories-to those conditions where long hours of labour are most oppressive, and to those classes of our population who can least stand long hours of labour. Let us have some rational principle behind it. Perhaps the Minister of Labour will remind us that most of these cases are beyond the jurisdiction of the government. Suppose that is true, let the same considerations prevail wherever the government has jurisdiction. But let us not have an irrational arbitrary Act such as this, applied only to those employed by day labour by the government. It would be as rational to enact that a man who works on the north side of a building should be employed eight hours while the man who works on the south side should be employed ten hours. It would be as rational to say that a man six feet high should work eight hours a day, while a man under six feet high should work ten hours. There is no principle in the Bill whatever. If the government will amend this Bill to make it mean something, to make it a logical start in the direction of eight-hour labour, I do not think it will meet any objection on this side of the House. I do not think the Prime Minister can point to a word uttered on this side of the House indicating that it will be opposed; but when he introduces a Bill based on no rational principle at all, tending not in the slightest degree to alleviate the conditions of the workingmen, he cannot expect it to be supported here.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand my hon. friend, then, to be against this Bill?


Arthur Meighen: I am against the amendments.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is in favour of the first Bill?


Arthur Meighen: If the first Bill were before the House, I would propose an amendment even to it. _


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: But certainly not the amendments proposed by the father and the stepfather of the Bill.


William Sora Middlebro: May I ask the Prime Minister if his interpretation of subsection 2 of section 3 is the same as that of the Minister of Labour, namely, that it applies to all work undertaken by the government and is not specifically limited by the provisions of section 3 to buildings?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will answer my hon. friend when we come to section 3.


Angus Claude Macdonell: We have had from the Prime Minister an announcement a few moments ago that the government desires to stand behind the amendments in the form in which they are now before this committee, subject to such changes as may commend themselves to the wisdom of the committee. That being so, I wish to direct the right hon. gentleman's .attention to the amendment proposed to section 3. No matter what discussion takes place, we must admit that the language crystallized in the Bill will be the language that will voice what is done, it is not the speeches which hon. gentlemen may make here. Therefore, it is very essential to express accurately what we are enacting. The right hon. gentleman said that we are all practically committed to the principle of the measure, but that we differed as to the extent to which the principle should go. Now, this section provides that every contract shall contain a stipulation that ' no labourer, workman or mechanic shall be required to work more than 48 hours in any one week.' There is no law that requires any one to work, and if this provision is applied to every government contract, you will be affirming something that is meaningless. The workmen of this country sell their labour freely in the labour market, and unless you provide that no labourer, workman, or mechanic shall be ' required or permitted ' to work a certain number of days in the week or a certain number of hours per day, a contractor will be at perfect liberty to refuse to employ any man who will not work more than eight hours a day or 48 hours a week without violating this section. You must put something in that will prevent the contractor from compelling men to work more than the stipulated time, otherwise the clause is meaningless. You should add the words ' or permit ' so as to make the clause effective and prevent the contractor employing men for more than eight hours per day.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: By his amendment the hon. gentleman would prevent a labourer who worked ten hours from being paid for the two extra hours.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I am not arguing that point at all. What I say is that under the section as drawn a contractor may employ men to work ten hours per day. But the idea of this measure is to 56
restrict the hours of labour to eight hours, and there is nothing in this Bill to enforce that restriction.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Under this section a man cannot be compelled to work more than eight hours per day, but if he be willing to work ten hours the contractor must pay him for the two extra hours.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The contractor can stand at the gate and say to each man: Are you willing to work ten hours? and if he refuses he will not engage him. But if he agrees to work ten hours he will take him on.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: But in that case he must be paid for the two extra hours.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Is this a Bill to provide for the wages of the men, or to regulate their hours of labour?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: It is a Bill to prevent a man working longer than eight hours unless with his consent, and in the latter case he must be paid for the extra hours.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Where will you find that in the Bill?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: In section three. If a man consents to work more than eight hours, the section provides that the additional hours shall be paid for as overtime at the rate of not less than time and a quarter.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Suppose a contractor on government work is working his men ten hours per day after the Bill goes through, people will say that the contractor is committing a breach of the Act, and my hon. friend from Maisonneuve will be scandalized. What then takes place? The government inspector goes to the contractor and charges him with working his men ten hours instead of eight, and the contractor replies: Yes, I am, but the men are willing, I did not compel them, I did not. require them, they are willing. But that may have been the only condition on vdiich the men could have got the work at all. That is the point, if my hon. friend can see it.


Morley Currie: I wish to draw attention to another matter in connection with this clause three. Every one knows that government contractors invariably delay work until late after harvest, when there is an abundance of labour and labour is cheap, and also that they carry on a great deal of their work in early winter, when men are also plentiful. There is a clause here I do not understand, but which, perhaps, the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), who is so clear on these matters, may be able to explain. There is an exception in cases of extreme emergency. But who is to say when a case of extreme emergency exists?



Is it the government, or the Minister of Let our, or the contractor, or the workingmen? Another thing to which I wish to draw attention is this: I pointed out that the hon. member who introduced the Bill has violated one of the cardinal principles of the labour unions in permitting men to wcrk more than eight hours. He has violated another labour union tenet in this Bill, and a very important one. Where union labour is employed invariably time and a half is allowed for overtime, and he wishes men to be employed on government contracts with only time and a quarter for overtime. How can he explain that?


Alphonse Verville: Is the hon. member (Mr. Currie, Simcoe) sure that where union labour is employed they always get time and a half for overtime?


Morley Currie: That is what they demand.


Alphonse Verville: The hon. member should know that in many cities, including cities of considerable importance they are only getting single time, and, in some cases time and a quarter, and in others time and a half. Time and a quarter is fixed as a minimum under this Bill. Now, to answer some of the hon. member's .other objections-
Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe) What about the ' extraordinary emergency ' clause?


Alphonse Verville: That clause provides:
In this Act. unless the context otherwise requires, 'extraordinary emergency' means an emergency that cannot he foreseen, such as might be necessary for saving life or property and not causes which depend for their emergency solely upon economical methods of works or importance of rapid construction.
That is about as broad as we could get it, I think. Of course, I am not a lawyer, and perhaps words could have been used that would explain the idea better.


Morley Currie: Who is to say *when the emergency is ' extraordinary '?


Alphonse Verville: If it is a government contract, the government should surely have something to say on that point. Now, the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) stated, and so did the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that I violated some of the principles of unionism.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I did not state that.


Alphonse Verville: All right. Suppose the government has given a contract for concreting, and it has come to the fall of the year when the days are short and when frosts may lie expected. The contractor may be at the mercy of the weather to a Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).	.
certain extent, and in danger of losing a lot of money. Surely, in such a case, a man should be permitted, for a couple of weeks, to work longer hours. It is impossible in such a case to have men work in two shifts, because the days are short. I can point to just such a case in practice. But, when there is overtime, it must be paid at time and a quarter, and no man will pay time and a quarter merely for the pleasure of working his men long hours.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) expressed a desire to withdraw these amendments that the Bill might be considered as originally introduced. Is that still his desire?


Alphonse Verville: According to the expression of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), it would seem that that is not the right way to go about it.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I was in favour of the original Bill; I am opposed to the amendments. My reason is that, under the terms of these amendments, a man may be working under the Public Works Department, and, within a hundred yards, a man working on the Intercolonial, and to one of these the rule would apply and not to the other. It is because of this discriminatory feature that I oppose the amendments. At Pointe du Chfine in the county I have the honour to represent, a certain class of work comes under the Intercolonial. And within twenty yards work goes on, a large proportion of which comes under the control of the Department of Public Works. There would be discrimination in these cases. For that reason, I oppose the amendment, and if opportunity is afforded, I will give expression to that opposition in a tangible way


George Gerald King: As to the insertion of the words ' or permitted ' as proposed by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) I desire to ask my hon. friend if, in the agreements which workmen make with their employers, which often contain the condition that a man shall not be required to work more than eight hours, and, if he works overtime, shall be paid for overtime, has he ever seen the words ' or permitted ' used?


Angus Claude Macdonell: I am not familiar with the details of these arrangements, but the Bill as originally introduced had the words ' or permitted.' And every other similar law that I have ever seen anywhere -and I have seen many of them as passed by other countries including different states of the American union-had some such expression as ' or permitted.'


George Gerald King: That does not answer my question.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I have answered it.


Robert Laird Borden: Do I understand the ihon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) to say that I objected to him withdrawing his Bill?


Alphonse Verville: I understood the hon member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Alphonse Verville: And the leader of the government-


Robert Laird Borden: I did not understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Verville) to make any allusion to me, but some hon. gentleman did so understand him.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I wish it to be understood that the objection to the withdrawal of these amendments did not come from this side of the House. It was the leader of the government who objected.
DEVLIN. And the hon. member for North Toronto.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand quite well that no one on the other side will accept responsibility with regard to this legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that does not come very well from the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), considering that the government will not take the responsibility of going on with the Bill, although this legislation is directed solely to labour on government works. One would suppose this to 'be pre-eminently a case in which the government would introduce the legislation and take the responsibility of it. But I did not rise to say that but merely to say that, as I understood,' Uie argument of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) it seemed to me to be very fair. The Bill as now proposed by the hon. member for Maisonneuve has merely this practical effect : You can employ on government works men for any number of hours per day you like, provided you pay them not less than time and a quarter for everthing over eight hours. That is the result of this Bill.


Alphonse Verville: Subject to contracts of course.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the net result, it seems to me. You can employ a man for any length of time per day you wish, provided you pay not less than a time and a quarter for everything over eight hours.


George Gerald King: The fair wage clause would still apply to any government contract, that is to say, the current hours in the district. No contractor could work his men beyond the current hours in the district, and they are fixed by the practice prevailing in the trade there.
56J


Robert Laird Borden: That does not depend on anything in this Bill.


George Gerald King: No, but the hon. gentleman says that a man could employ another for any length of time he wished. He could do so, but the inducement to do so is removed by the fact that for the extra two hours he has to pay what is equivalent to a penalty of an additional quarter time in the wav of wages.


Robert Laird Borden: I was alluding merely to the terms of the Bill ; I do not know about the regulations outside. Whatever may be the force of those regulations, they continue, whether this Bill passes or not. Therefore, so far as the terms of the Bill are concerned, it seems to me that the net result is what I have just stated.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Do I understand that the member for Maisonneuve, after what has been said by the member for North Simcoe and others as to the absolute chaos of this emergency question, proposes to leave that emergency question with nobody to say when an emergency exists. Is it the minister who makes the contract who shall say when an emergency exists? The hon. gentleman is leaving that matter in a very slipshod condition, when he says: * Except in case of an extraordinary emergency ' :


Alphonse Verville: ' Emergency ' is defined in the Bill.


Mr. CROTHERS.: I do not wish to support or oppose this Bill in silence. There are several thousand workmen in my constituency, and I want to give them' an opportunity, through me, of saying that they have sufficient intelligence to recognize this amendment as a delusion and "a sham. It seems to me that no benefit can accrue to the workingmen with reference to the number of hours that they shall serve any day, unless longer hours be made prohibitive. How are things to-day as they stand without this Bill? A contractor and a labouring man can enter into any agreement they choose, that the latter shall work for eight hours, or ten hours, or twelve hours, or six hours a day. That is the condition of the law to-day. Under this amendment that liberty is not interfered with in any way. The contractor may still enter into a bargain with a labourer to work for fifteen hours a day if they so choose.
At six o'clock committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: At six o'clock I was endeavouring to point out the utter futility of our enacting this measure with a view to assisting the workingmen in any way. I

find nothing within the four comers of this Bill, in fact, it is admitted by the promoters of the Bill that there is no provision in it restricting the hours of the day to eight. It is admitted that if this Bill were enacted the employer and employed would be in the very same position that they are to-day, that is, they could agree between themselves upon the number of hours that the workman should work in the day. It is true that one hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Devlin) pointed out the provision in the latter part of section 3:
Additional hours if worked shall he classed as overtime and paid for at a rate of not less than time and a quarter.
If you look at it for one moment you will see there is nothing in it for the benefit of the workingman. Take an actual case. Suppose that the length of the day in the part of the country where a public building is being erected is 10 hours, and that the v/ages are $3 per day. A mechanic comes along and asks the employer for work. The employer says: Yes, I can give you work. What wages are you giving? Twenty-five cents an hour for the first eight hours and 50 cents an hour for the last two hours, which will make you $3 for the 10 hours. That will be strictly within the provisions of this Bill. If the wages be $2 a day the employer says to the labourer: I will give you 174 cents an hour for the first eight hours, which will be $1.40, and 30 cents an hour for the other two hours, the 9th and 10th.


George Gerald King: In all of the schedules attached to the government contracts fihe rates of wages are fixed at so much per hour, not so much per day. I think in assuming that the rate will be fixed at $3 a day the hon. member has no regard to the schedule of our contracts.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not familiar with the provisions to which the hon. member reiers.


George Gerald King: That is what I thought.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: But I fancy there is nothing in them to prevent just what I suggested.


George Gerald King: Yes there is, that is just the point; the contract stipulates that the employer must pay a certain rate fixed in the schedule, that is, the rate under the fair wages resolution, which cannot be departed from by a contractor.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We are at present simply discussing the provisions of this Bill. As I said, I am not familiar with any other provision but this Bill, so that there is nothing within the four corners of this Bill that could by any possibility be of any advantage to the worker. But we are told that it is desirable to establish a principle.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: What principle is there in this Bill? There is no principle in the Bill at all, if you confine yourself to the Bill itself. There is not the principle of eight hours to the day. That is not in this Bill, because it remains open, as I said, to the employer and the employed to make any bargain they choose as to the number of hours the workingman shall work. In order to protect the workingman you must make it prohibitive, that he shall not work longer than a certain number of hours per day, because without that you leave the employee, as he is to-day, or as some claim he is, at the mercy of the employer. That is the very thing that some of the workingmen desire to have done away with. There are workingmen who do not want this Bill at all, who want to be perfectly free to work as many hours as they choose, but I admit that many unions have agreed to support the Bill as originally introduced by my hon. friend from Maison-neuve (Mr. Verville). But there is no principle in this Bill at all. A principle is a rule or something of that kind that is to apply to all cases or certain classes of cases. If that is a fair definition of a principle there is no principle here. Even if for the sake of argument, it were to be admitted that eight hours a day is recognized in this Bill, it does not apply, this Bill does not propose it should apply, to any class of work except on public buildings. As a principle, I am opposed to an eight-hour day. I am very strongly opposed to it, and I know there are hundreds of workingmen in the city I represent who are opposed to it In the first place, I am opposed to it because it provides in many instances too many hours for a day's work. There are in my city many men working at kinds of work where I think they should not work more than four or five hours a day, that is before furnaces, in places -almost intolerable, hot, uncomfortable, unhealthy, exhausting. Four or five hours a day is quite long enough for men engaged in that kind of work. Therefore, I am opposed to fixing eight hours a day. I think it is too long. Eight hours is too long for a man to work in a mine, where he has no sunlight oi fresh air, or comfortable or healthy surroundings. Eight hours is too long for the glass blower to work. There are many kinds of work where I would be distinctly opposed to permitting men to work eight hours. There are other kinds of wiork where I should be opposed to restricting the time to eight hours. I quite agree with my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that it would not be wise to attempt to restrict the hours in farming operations to eight. My sympathies are and always have been with the toiling many, rather than with the privileged few, and I am quite anxious to do anything within reason, within the power of this House, to improve the lot of the

workingman, and if a Bill were thought out properly and certain hours fixed for certain kinds of work I would be most anxious to support it. Women and children are working too long in factories, but it is utterly impossible to apply an eight-hour day as a principle to all kinds of industry. I am opposed to this Bill because it does not promise any relief to the workingman, and there is nothing within the four comers of it, as I have said, that will tend to assist or help the workingman. I am opposed to the principle; I do not want to be tied up,
I do not want this Bill to be passed and then to have it said next year or two years from now: You agreed to an eight-hour day for that class of men. That is work that least demands interference on the part of this House. We all know that many, although not all, men employed on government work feel that it is perfectly legitimate to do as little work as possible and get as much pay as possible for that little work.
I believe, speaking generally, that they do less work than men who are employed by private employers. I, therefore, think you are beginning at the wrong end entirely in making any attempt to limit those who are in the service of the government on public buildings only to eight hours. Then, think of the confusion that would arise. A contractor having the erection of a public building would have to employ subcontractors, he would employ a subcontractor to do the tinsmithing, to put on the eave-troughs. The tinsmith has 15 or 20 men at work. The few working on the building, if there is anything in this Bill, which is very doubtful, would work only eight hours, while the men working on the adjoining, building might be working 10 or 12 or 14 hours. The Minister of Labour gave us a reason for the author of this Bill proposing these amendments, that the original Bill could not be carried in this House, but I have yet to learn that there is anything that cannot be carried in this House that has the support of the Prime Minister. To say that the original Bill could not be carried in the House is tantamount to saying that the Prime Minister would not support it.


Mr. LENNOX.: He said so himself.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It seems to me that the government is responsible for the passage of every Bill that passes and for the rejection of every Bill that is rejected, and if the Prime Minister desired the original Bill to pass and thought it in the best interests of the working people of this country it was his duty to say so, and if he had said so there is no question but that it would have been carried. The right hon. gentleman tells us that he is in favour of this present Bill, which really does not amount to anything. I [DOT] do not want it to
be understood that the workingmen in my city are so wanting in intelligence as not to be able to see that this Bill is a delusion and a sham. If the author of the Bill, assisted by the Minister of Labour and perhaps by the Prime Minister, had deliberately set to work to submit a Bill to this House that was utterly useless as benefiting the workingman, they could not have succeeded better. I have become tired of the number of Bills that have been submitted to this House and passed with the apparent intention of humbugging people outside this House. We had the Anti Combines Bill of last year, which was of that character, and we have now this Bill, introduced apparently for the purpose of enabling the government to say to the workingmen of this country: We have tried to do something for you, we have passed an eight-hour Bill, while at the same time they know that this eight-hour Bill so called will be of no use whatever to the workingmen either now or in the future. There is no principle in it; there is nothing whatever in it to improve the present condition oi the workingman. I therefore have no hesitancy in opposing this Bill; I know that the workingmen in my city would oppose it if they were here, and for the reasons I have stated.


Mr. CYRIAS ROY (Montmagny).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, it may be the result of my lack of experience, being one of the younger members of the House without much practical knowledge of the rules of parliamentary debate, without that wisdom which enables older members to take the proper means for forwarding their personal views, but I see no reason whatever for this protracted debate on the principle of a public Bill, which principle has been sanctioned by the House a few days past. I fallowed the debate closely this afternoon, and observed that it concerned itself entirely with the principle of the eight-hour day. Now, according to my interpretation of the rules of the House, as soon as a Bill has gone through its second reading, the principle of the Bill is thereby sanctioned by the House. It appears strange to me, therefore, that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Crothers) as well as those who preceded him this afternoon, should assert that there is no principle whatever involved in the Bill. That looks very much like giving one's self a certificate of inconsistency, seeing that they never uttered a word of protest when the Bill was brought up for its second reading.
It is contended that theTe is no principle whatever contained in the Bill now before the committee. Well, in the original Bill there was at least this principle involved that any man employed by the government, either on contract or by the day,

could not be held to work for more than eight hours a day. Hon. gentlemen on the other side opposed this Bill, and its promoter for it should be observed that this is a public and not a government Bill- the promoter of the Bill, who is at liberty to do whatever he pleases under the circumstances, stated this afternoon that he was ready to withdraw the amendments he had introduced. Now, what did these hon. gentlemen opposite then do? They did not take up his proposal, as they were intent on getting a statement of the governments views in connection with this Bill which is not a government measure.
One cannot fail to see that hon. gentlemen opposite have been trying to make political capital out of this discussion. It seems to me that whenever a private member introduce a Bill having for its object the promotion of the public weal, hon. members on the opposition as well as on the government side should cast aside all party considerations and take up the Bill solely on its merits. Far from taking such a stand, hon. members on the other side, as I noticed, have been constantly trying to induce the right hon. leader of the government and the hon. Minister of Labour to state the government's views in this connection. The hon. Minister of Labour stated _ that the government would (accept the Bill as amended. What more is required?
I understood on behalf of the opposition
at least that is what I gathered from the utterances of one or two of its members- that if the promoter of the Bill agreed to withdraw the amendments submitted by him and introduced anew the original Bili, they would be willing to support it. Now, were the leader of the opposition in his seat just now, I would inquire whether he is ready to endorse that proposal made by some of his followers, that is to say that they would be willing to support the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Maison-neuve should he withdraw his amendments and submit the original Bill. If these gentlemen are ready to support such a proposal, let them say so. It is only fair to ask them such a question in the same way that they challenged the government to state their views in the same connection. They challenged the government to state their position, and the government's answer was that they approved of the Bill as amended.
If the Bill as amended is now before the House, it is owing to the hostile stand taken by the hon. gentlemen opposite. The promoter thinking that he would not succeed in getting his Bill through as originally drafted, and being satisfied that half an apple was better than no apple at all, proposed the amendments which are now before the House. I repeat it, the member for Maisonneuve finding that he was un-Mr. ROY (Montmagny).
able to get his Bill through as submitted in the first instance, introduced some amendments.
To-day they are content with opposing the Bill as amended, but some hon. gentlemen on the other side are opposed to the *original Bill as well, and amongst others the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat. We are not even in favour, he said, of the voting by this parliament of an eight-hour day. As for himself he will vote against this Bill. Well, I consider it contrary to the rules of parliamentary debate to impugn the principle of the Bill at this stage of the debate, since that principle has in the meantime been sanctioned on the second reading.
True, I am only a young member, but it seems to me that this protracted discussion on the principle of the Bill is not warranted, seeing that such principle had previously carried and that its promoter had himself made known his intention to submit some amendments. As just then nobody on the opposition side inquired as to the purport of such amendments, then the principle of the Bill went through, and it only remained for us to discuss each section separately. Had we followed that course, the opposition would have had an opportunity of expounding their policy and submitting amendments towards improving the Bill.
the hon. member who has just spoken stated that he was opposed to the eight-hour day; that an eight-hour day was too long. For certain kinds of labour he thought six hours and even less would be enough. Now, had we followed the regular course he would have had an opportunity of submitting his amendments.
To conclude, I am of opinion-of course, I am speaking only for myself-that an effort has been made to get political capital out of the discussion of this Bill in regard to a question of public interest, but introduced by a private member and not at all on .behalf of the government. As regards myself, and that may be the result of the great desire of a young member to be of service to his constituents, but I think I have been sent here to concern myself with questions solely on their merits. Accordingly I would like the gentlemen to see the opposition discuss this Bill on its merits and not with a view to getting the government into a trap. Consequently, it seems to me that the debate should have taken another trend, and if I am in order I suggest that we should proceed with the discussion of the Bill in committee, section by section, seeing that its principle has already been sanctioned by the House.


Mr. CROSBY.: We have had this Bill before the House a number of times. I remember it in the last two sessions, and I believe it was here a considerable time

before I came to this House; and it seems to me that every time it comes before the House it is in a worse condition than before. Last year it had in it a good many things that are not in it now. Its promotor was prepared to introduce an eight hour day for everybody in connection with government works. That is to say, if a man who had a factory entered into a contract with the government, he would have to put everybody in his factory under the eight hour system in order to comply with the Bill. Objection was taken to that. I do not think any of the members who desired to vote for the Bill wanted a provision of that kind in it. But the principle we did adopt was that the Bill should apply to all government works, whether carried on by the government itself or by contract with the government that all construction works in connection with railways, canals, public buildings or other kinds of public work. That is the principle I stand by to-night. The reason the Bill was withdrawn last session was simply that some of the lawyers said that it was not very well worded. I said at that time that I believed we could rectify the wording of the Bill in committee, so as to make it fulfil what was intended. Before this session we were accustomed to only one father for this Bill; but this session there came suddenly a stepfather in the person of the Minister of Labour, and this afternoon wre discovered another father, a foster father, in the person of the Prime Minister. He had to take up the Bill because the other two fathers became very weak or neglectful, and he undertook to help them out of the difficulty. The right hon. gentleman say this is a class Bill. I do not call it a class Bill at all; if it were, I would not support it. This is a Bill for the masses, not the classes. It is a Bill to protect the workingmen. As the Minister of Labour said, we have to get all reforms piecemeal, to get in the thin end of the wedge, and there is no better place to put in the thin edge end of the wedge for the eight hour day than in the public works of the country. Who are the men who have built and are keeping up the public works of this country but the masses? Who sent us to this parliament but the masses?-and 1 hope that when some of these hon. gentlemen appeal to these masses, they will be treated as they have treated the masses in connection with this Bill. The principle of the Bill is all right. Few hon. members know how eloquent the hon. Minister of Labour can be if they have not had the opportunity of hearing him before boards of trade and other bodies throughout this Dominion when he is not held responsible for what he says. On such occasions he is prepared to say almost anything on behalf of labour. But to-day
he tells us distinctly that if a workman wants to work only eight hours a day he will be paid for only eight hours. On other occasions the hon. gentleman waxed eloquent over the poor workingman who only saw his wife once in a while and his children never, and she did not know why, and he wanted to cut down the hours of labour in order that that man might have an opportunity to go home and see his wife and children. But under this Bill a man is induced to go on and work more than eight hours in order to be paid for a time and a quarter. I do not approve of that. I want an eight hour day which will be eight hours and no more on public works, and I want men to be paid a decent wage for those eight hours, so that they will be able properly to support their families. The hon. Minister of Labour should be ready to stand by his guns and back up that principle. But this afternoon the hon. gentleman has changed his tune, and he says a man should have a choice whether he works eight hours, ten hours, or twelve hours; but the longer he works after eight hours the more money he gets, so that he may want to work twelve or fifteen hours. We do not want the workingman to work more than eight hours, and we want to see that when he finishes his eight hours' work he takes home enough money to support his family decently. I am in favour of the eight-hour day, and the principle of it is to prevent a man working longer than eight hours, so that he may have more time to spend at his home and that the larger number of men may have work. This Bill has been before us so very often that it reminds me of a company which came to the city of Halifax a few days ago, and I thought the hon. member from Maisonneuve and the hon. Minister of Labour were in it, because the show was advertised as ' Hello, Bill,' and I never knew two men who could shuffle a Bill and perform with it so well as these two hon. gentlemen have been doing for the last five or six years. Speaking of the labouring classes, being one of them myself, I want to give them as high a name as possible and call them workingmen, and T believe I voice the sentiments of the workingmen of this Dominion as fairly and honestly as any man in this House. I have been always with the workingmen, I have been brought up with that class and I still remain in it, and I am proud to be in that class; and I say without fear of contradiction that there is not a labour organization in this Dominion that will favour this Bill as it is to-day. An hon. friend says that there is nothing in the Bill. There is plenty in it. It is full of humbug.
This Bill is the greatest piece of humbug ever attempted to be perpetrated on the working people. Men who are better


Mr. CROCKET.: I regret that I was not in the House when the question of the limited application of this Bill was under discussion. As I read the amended Bill, it applies only to cases of men working under a contractor, who has a contract with the government for the construction or repair of a public building or work undertaken by the government by day labour. For my part, I am unable to see on what ground the government grants the eight-i hour day to these classes of labour and refuses it to men employed directly by the government in government workshops. It seems to me that any reason that goes to justify the application of an eight-hour day to the classes of labour here specified applies with greater force to the case of men directly employed by the government, working steadily in workshops often under more oppressive conditions than those affecting the classes referred to in this Bill,. I would like to have an explanation from the Minister of Labour or the introducer of the Bill as to the ground of this distinction.


George Gerald King: That has been stated several times, in answer to similar questions. It was thought that, as this Bill involved a new principle, it was advisable to limit the scope of it at the outset that time

177&
might be given to see how the new principle thus applied would work out. This is the rule followed in other cases. For instance, when the Civil Service Commission was appointed, the inside service was brought under its control, but the outside service has not yet been brought under that control. It was thought best to see how the new measure would work. In this case, we are simply applying a principle ordinarily used in legislation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does not the case of a man employed permanently by the government, working week in and week out in a confined shop appeal with greater force to the minister than the case of a man employed temporarily, for a few days at a time, under the day's labour system?


George Gerald King: I think there is a decided difference. Men employed permanently have many considerations that are not extended to men temporarily employed. They are frequently allowed for time when they are off through sickness. They have also the advantage of permanence of employment which is usually regarded as advantageous by working people. They are quite frequently given two or three weeks' holidays without loss of pay.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I desire to express my full concurrence in the remarks of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmer-son) on this subject. I think the Bill unjustly discriminates against men employed in government workshops. Has the minister received any representations respecting the proposed amendment to this Bill from the workmen employed on the Intercolonial?


George Gerald King: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the promoter of the Bill (Mr. Verville) received any such representations?


Alphonse Verville: I have. I received a communication from Moncton signed by the secretaries of different organizations. But the fact that there is dissatisfaction in Moncton does not stop me, any more than did the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway men were at one time dissatisfied. The Canadian Pacific Railway men are now satisfied and state plainly that, as the Bill does not hurt them, there is no reason why they should not help others. Two years ago they had an eight-hour day on the Intercolonial, but I am sorry to say, they petitioned the government for a ten-hour day.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did I understand the hon. member to say that the Intercolonial men were satisfied with the Bill as amended?


Alphonse Verville: No, I said the Canadian Pacific Railway men were satisfied. I
am sorry to tell the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) that I have letters from his own city asking for a ten-hour day. Of course, it was only from a group of men, but they made a majority. As he said himself, some men are for the Bill and some against it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the hon. member (Mr. Verville) communicate to the Minister of Labour the memorial he received from Moncton?


Alphonse Verville: No. If they want the Minister of Labour to be informed of their wishes there is nothing to prevent them from communicating with him.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Then, the hon. member has never consulted the Minister of Labour with reference to this memorial?


Adam Brown Crosby: The Minister of Labour speaks of the men permanently employed having holidays. How many workingmen regularly employed in the shops receive holidays with pay? I am under the impression that the minister is not correctly informed. If I am wrong, perhaps he will be good enough to set me right. How many of the men employed on government railways or in public works of the department, or any other works of the government, paid so much a day, are given holidays without loss of pay?


William Pugsley: If I rightly understood him, the Minister of Labour was drawing a distinction between men permanently employed and those employed by the day. Men in my own department employed by the month do get two weeks holidays, and receive their pay as though they had been working.


Adam Brown Crosby: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), is always in a hurry to help one of his colleagues out. I didn't ask him that question, and I want to tell him now that he has not given me the answer I wanted. He says the men employed by him get holidays in his department. I want to say to the minister that he has no men working there by the day who get holidays and get paid for them- not men who are called working men. Perhaps the people he refers to are not working men.


William Pugsley: Yes, they are carpenters, painters, plumbers.


Adam Brown Crosby: The question I ask him now with regard to his department is this: If there are any men working in his department paid by the day that get two weeks holidays during the year, and are paid their daily wages just the same?


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that for years there have been in

the Department of Public Works men who were not regarded as permanent, they were paid so much per day. Lately, at the request of the men themselves, and I think I am right in including among them carpenters, plumbers, painters, men engaged in the ship-yard at Ottawa, applied to be put on what is called the permanent list, the men of which are paid by the day. One of the advantages they urged was that they would receive their two weeks holidays; also in case of sickness they would receive their pay.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the Minister of Public Works consider that clause 2 of section 3 applies to the case of men working, say, on a pier constructed by the Department of Public Works? Would he be required to work eight hours per day?


William Pugsley: I think the section is broad enough to include men working under the circumstances referred to by my hon. friend.


William Sora Middlebro: Might I ask the Prime Minister the same question, whether clause 2 of section 3 is intended by the government to apply, not only to work on public buildings, but to all other works undertaken by the government by day labour?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have to answer my hon. friend that this is not a government Bill, the government has no intentions in the matter. But I understand the purport of the Bill is to apply it to public buildings only.


William Sora Middlebro: The Minister of Public Works has iust given a contrary opinion.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is a lawyer, and he knows how difficult it is to interpret the law.


George Taylor: The Prime Minister will remember that he made this statement a few days ago in reply to my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lalor), who said, on page 1570 of ' Hansard ':
If it applies to the mechanic who earns perhaps fifty cents an hour, it certainly should apply to the man working on the canals at a email remuneration.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman will see that the man who works on the canal has steady employment and is willing to take perhaps a lower wage on that account. There are seasons of the year when men on the canals have to work ten or twelve hours a day and are glad to do so. But this steadiness of employment does not apply to the labour referred to in this Bill, which is only contractual labour.
I remember, and the Prime Minister ought to remember, that after his government came into power the men working on Mr. PUGSLEY.
the canals applied for their jobs in the spring, and they were told by the Minister of Railways here that they were not employed permanently, that they were only employed in the summer season, and need not be re-employed every year. Every Tory on the canals from the Welland to Montreal, and on the Rideau, all through my county, was not called back in the spring, but good Grits were put in their places. The Prime Minister forgot that when he said that men working on the canals were employed permanently.


Arthur Meighen: It would be interesting if the Minister of Public Works would give us the reasons for his opinion that the second clause of section 3 would apply to anything else than a public building.
The provisions of this section shall, as respects the hours of labour, apply to work undertaken by the government by day labour.
Now the provisions of this section apply only to public works, and how any court of law could interpret that as applying to any other works, passes my comprehension. Now, I think if the Minister of Labour will only reason with me for a moment, I can , convince him that there is nothing whatever in this Bill as to the hours of labour. He has already acknowledged that there is nothing in this Bill to prevent any man working more than eight hours, or more than ten hours; there is nothing to prevent him doing so of his own election, or to prevent him contracting to do so with a contractor. Now, the Minister of Labour comes back and says that if he does work more than eight hours he must be paid time and a quarter. Very well, he can still work just as long as he is told to do, and if he does not he can be fired, just as he could before. The Minister of Labour says; Read that in connection with the regulations, with the conditions the government insert in their contract schedules, that the workmen shall receive the hourly wage current in the district. He says if you read that in connection with this clause you will find that they must be paid the same wages as they were before for the eight hours, and a time and a quarter for the two hours. Well, suppose they, are, what does that amount to? It simply amounts to a change in the schedule. If you add a change in the schedule and say that they shall be paid current wages in the district and five per cent more, then you have got the whole Bill-and that is the Minister of Labour's own interpretation. Nothing to prevent a man working more, nothing to prevent him contracting to work more than eight hours. But the minister says there is a clause under which the government contractor shall pay five per cent more than current wages. Now, I put it to the Minister of Labour

again. Is there any possible result to work out of that Bill except to give the labouring man five per cent more, according to his own interpretation, than the current wages in the district? There is nothing. Now the Minister of Labour says that it would be grossly unjust to the people of this country, of whom this parliament are the trustees, to pay to a labouring man more than he earns, and if you pay him for more than eight hours, when he has only worked eight hours, you are robbing the people. But that is what this Bill does, if it has any effect at all, it is going to pay the labouring man five per cent more than the current wages.
I presume the schedules of the department are founded on the theory that the current wages in the district are what the man actually earns and therefore are paid. He has been paid that hitherto, he has always been paid it. If this Bill has any affect it is to add 25 per cent more to his wages for the last two hours which means 5 per cent more on the whole day of 10 hours. Therefore, to that 'extent we are robbing the people of 5 per cent and are not affecting the hours of labour at all. That is the whole result of the Bill. I have given it careful thought and I know, I am confident the Minister of Labour cannot say it has any other effect as to the hours of labour, it is merely a fetich or as the member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) said, a humbug, and I conceive that this House does not sit here to humbug the labouring man or any class. If the Bill means any progress, even a hair's breadth, towards assisting the labour man, let us all support it. If it means nothing at all, or worse than nothing, 5 per cent robbery in the words of the Minister of Labour, then let us not support it. Surely it is the duty of the Minister of Labour, unless he caii show that the Bill means something towards affecting the hours of labour, which he cannot show, it is his duty to withdraw the Bill in its present amended form. We were told this afternoon that it is only getting in the thin end of the wedge, if it works well we will carry it farther. What does that mean? That if the workingmen are satisfied to surrender to the government their liberty we will buy them with a bribe of 5 per cent more than they ordinarily earn when they work on a public building, and if we find they express satisfaction with that, we will extend it further and go into the treasury a little more and pay them more than they earn on other works over this country. That is all it means. The Prime Minister tells us we must get such reforms by piecemeal. I have read history to disadvantage if we get reforms of this kind by piecemeal. It is quite true the education of the people up to the reform proceeds by slow degrees, it is a matter of slow and patient teaching ;
but when the reform comes, if it is a bold and manly reform, it comes usually at one fell swoop from bold and manly "men. I have never yet seen a reform come, and I challenge the minister to look over the history of any country and find a reform introduced by an anaemic spectre such as he leads across the stage to-night. It has ne effect unless to take out 5 per cent from the treasury and to bribe the workingman by paying him 5 per cent more than he earns.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As a matter of principle I believe in the eight-hour day. Some members are disposed to support a Bill of this kind because they are called upon to do so by labour organizations in their constituencies. As a matter of fact, if a measure could be devised, and it was within the power of this House to pass such an Act, to give effect to a universal eight-hour day for labouring men throughout the whole Dominion, I would support it because I believe in it as a matter of principle. I believe in it first because I believe it would bring up a mors rugged, a stronger, a better class of labouring men in the country, who would be better citizens, better assets of the country. If the eight-hour day were applied, if workingmen were well housed and properly fed, I believe we would have far more efficient work performed than from the same men to-day working 10 hours.
Coming down to this Bill, I am disposed to agree with the hon. member who has just preceded ms (Mr. Meighen), and also with the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) who says it is a delusion and a sham. So far from this being a Bill affecting the hours of labour upon public works, it could with equal correctness be called an Act to incorporate a railway to run from the earth to ths moon. There is nothing whatever within the four corners of the Bill which could in any degree entitle it to be called a Bill in favour of an eight-hour day. It has been suggested that there is if noi some provision in the Bill to bring about an eight-hour day, at least some measure of relief to the workingman inasmuch as it may cause him to get a little increased wage if he works two hours over the eight hours. Here I agree again with the hon. member for West Elgin, who effectually disposed of that view by showing that the employer has it in his power to make ths pay sufficiently less during the eight hours, to make it the same as it was before for the whole day. But assuming for the sake of argument that this Bill was designed to give an eight-hour day to labouring men employed on public buildings, I cannot conceive of any logical reason being advanced why the benefit of this measure should be given to a man working on a government building

and be denied to a government employee -working in two or three dozen other capacities, which were indicated specifically jn the Bill as originally introduced in this House by the hon. member for Maison-neuva (Mr. Verville).
In common with other members of the House I have received a great many communications from different labour organizations expressing their approval of the Bill as originally submitted, and asking my support. I think without question that all of these letters were written after the original Bill had been submitted to the various unions. The amendments to this Bill were affected, I shall not say in a secret way, but at all events in a somewhat peculiar way, inasmuch as after the Bill was read a second time and thereby received the endorsement of this House as to its principle, certain amendments were suggested in the committee, and it was decided subsequently to reprint the Bill and have it brought down and this was done, the introducer of the Bill (Mr. Verville) working in collaboration with the Minister of Labour. But it has reached the ears of certain other government employees that it was proposed to very much restrict the operations of the Bill. In evidence I have the following letter :
Moncton, N.B., Dec. 28, 1910.
E. N. Rhodes, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-We the undersigned, representing organized labour in the city of Moncton, hereby enter an emphatic protest against the proposed amendments to the Eight-hour Bill (known as Bill No. 3), which amendments, if passed, will utterly eliminate from its benefits the thousands of employees of the government on the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways. We particularly object to the striking out of section 5 of the Bill.
We believe that in the matter of hours and wages and in ideal working conditions generally, the government of the country should be the leader, not the follower. To this end we would urgently request your support to the Bill as originally proposed.
Thanking you in advance for any support you can render us at this time, we remain, Tours very truly,
Trades and Labour, Council-


Chas. H.: Smyth, president.
E. Smith Scott, secretary.
Lodge 591 I.A. of Machinists-
W. R. Crowhurst, president.
G. H. Manning, secretary.
Brotherhood of Railway Carmen- Chas. H. Smyth, president.
L. McKinnon, secretary.
Int. Brotherhood of Blacksmiths and Helpers-
C.	L. McQuarrie, president.
D.	J. McGillivray, secretary.
Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Iron
Ship Builders-
John O'Neil, president.
N. A. Rae, secretary.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Int. Boilermakers Helpers-
R. D. Donnelly, president.


Benj.   G@: Breen, secretary.
Electrical Workers-
A. R. Smith, secretary.
Lodge 636 Typographical Union-


Mrs.   M.@: Barnaby, president.
J. A. Robinson, secretary.
In each case the signatures of the president and secretary of the lodge is accompanied by the official seal of the lodge.
I have no doubt that if this Bill as it now appears before the House were submitted to organized labour throughout the Dominion there would be as emphatic a protest as is conveyed in this letter. I hope the committee will come down to business with respect to this measure and treat it seriously as a measure designed to benefit the working class in this country. It is true that as a Dominion parliament we are circumscribed inasmuch as we cannot encroach upon the provincial field. We must confine ourselves to labour as affecting government contracts, but let us, in that field, act fairly and squarely. With respect to the Bill before the House, if it were not amended I should feel disposed to vote for it, if for no other reason than that the labouring men of the country may see that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Verville) who introduced the Bill and who is supposed to act for organized labour in this House, would so far forget himself as to stand for a measure of this kind. T hope that he in common with other members of this House who are disposed to see that a fair measure is placed upon the statute-book of this country, will, before the measure is disposed of, take care_ that it is properly amended and that it will be in effect really an eight hour Bill.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Is the committee ready for the question.


William Pugsley: What is the question?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The amendment by Mr. Verville is that section 3 of the Bill before the House be struck out and replaced by section 3 of the reprinted Bill. Mr. Macdonell moves as an amendment to the amendment that after the words ' shall be required ' in line 26 of this amendment the words be inserted: 'Or permitted '. The question is on the amendment to the amendment as proposed by Mr. Macdonell.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Macdonell) negatived.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before you put the motion I have an amendment to propose. It is doubtful that this Bill will be of benefit to anybody but if it is to be in any way sensible legislation at all we surely must provide for who shall define what an emergency is as spoken of in this clause. I know that section 1 defines what

an emergency is supposed to be, but the Bill is absolutely silent as to who is to determine that an emergency exists and the result would be that the contractor can call it an emergency whenever he sees fit and force his men to work ten hours oi twelve hours. I would like to know whether the Minister of Labour is trying to protect the contractor or the workingman? Is he trying to make the Bill utterly unworkable and ridiculous by having it passed in its present shape. I do not believe that the Bill is any good to the workingmen but whether it is or not let us state who is to decide whether emergency exists or not, and dont leave it altogether to the employer. In the absence of any better suggestion I move that after the word ' emergency ' in the 27th line there be inserted the words:
'As to the existence of which the department of the government concerned in the contract shall determine.'


William Pugsley: As this applies to my department I would be sorry to see the amendment passed because it would throw upon the head of the department of Public Works a very great burden. Further, I do not think there is any necessity for the amendment because by section 4. if the contractor requires the men to work more than eight hours and there is no emergency, he may be proceeded against under the summary convictions Act and if the magistrate decides on the evidence placed before him that there is no emergency within the meaning of the statute the contractor would be liable to a penalty of $200.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where is the word magistrate to be found in that section?


William Pugsley: The summary convictions Act provides for a magistrate trying these offences.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As I read this section it only applies to public buildings, and public buildings are but a very small portion of the works that come under the department.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is all the Act applies to.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would seem as if the Bill had no relation whatever to worli-on a breakwater or a wharf or any of the general public works that are being carried on throughout the Dominion.


George Taylor: There is no doubt whatever about that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My interpretation of it is that it is limited to a public building.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is all very well to imagine how a magistrate would decide. The Minister of Public Works thinks that
the burden of deciding how the Act should be applied should be assumed by the magistrate. The Minister of Public Works should bp able to decide better than any magistrate. He knows what the contract is, what this Act was passed to mean, and all the conditions relating to the contract. He knows that if the contractor swore that there was an emergency, the magistrate would be bound by his statement, because he would have to determine the question on the evidence of the contractor.


William Pugsley: That is just what the magistrate would not do. He would not take the expression of belief of the contractor. but he would ask him for the facts upon which he based that belief, and upon those facts he would determine whether there was an emergency or not. My hon. friend's amendment is one calculated to defeat the object of this Bill. This is, I think, an advanced measure; it is one decidedly in the interest of the labouring people of this country. It is affirming a principle for which the working people have been contending for a long time, and it will be moving a great step in the way of meeting their wishes. My hon. friend as a lawyer surely would agree with me that on a compldint made before a magistrate that a workingman had been required to work more than 48 hours a week without an emergency having arisen, it would be for the magistrate to decide whether an emergency had arisen or not; and the Summary Convictions Act provides a cheap and expeditious mode of proceeding. With regard to the question put by my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), there is no dcubt that section 3 is limited to public buildings. The reason for that was stated fully by the hon. gentleman who promoted the Bill, and also by the Minister of Labour that when the matter was up before there were objections from many quarters to extending it to all kinds, of public works, such as dredging work by the government, or by contractors, in which men are far removed from their families, going out on Monday morning and not returning till Saturday night. If limited to 48 hours a week, they would have two or three hours a day during the long summer months when they would be idle. With regard to subsection 2, I differ from the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen). The hon. gentleman congratulated himself that the Prime Minister agreed with him. Not having heard the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister, it is with diffidence that I express my opinion; but my own view with regard to subsection 2 is that its language is broad enough to cover all government werks carried on by day labour.


William Sora Middlebro: If that is the minister's interpretation of subsection 2, will he

rollow that interpretation on government works other than public buildings, and allow the men to work only eight hours a day?


William Pugsley: As at present advised, if this measure becomes law, it will be my duty, in the case of works undertaken by my department, to give instructions to the foremen to require the men to work only eight hours per day. That would be the case with all day labourers employed by the government in any kind of work. It v/tuld be the duty of the officials of the department to give instructions for the initiation of the eight-hour day and only to require the men to work eight hours.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would the emergency question apply there?


William Pugsley: Clearly.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who would decide that?


William Pugsley: The court under section 4, which provides that any officer or agent of the government of Canada would be liable on summary conviction to a penalty for violation of the provisions of section 3.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 
Morley Currie: It seems to me that there is considerable force in the amendment of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). There ought to be some authority to determine whether there is an emergency or not. Otherwise if a contractor requires his men to work longer than the eight hours, nothing will prevent the men, or some of them, from turning around and suing the contractor under this clause. This might easily happen in case of a quarrel or a strike, and a contractor would be in endless trouble. The case would go before a magistrate, the contractor would swear there was an emergency arid the men would swear there was not, and the magistrate would have to give force to the weight of evidence. Looking at it from the standpoint of common sense, it is only right that


William Sora Middlebro: if the department wants a piece of work done rapidly, they should say so to the contractor and to the men. Without the instructions from the department that it was an emergency work, the contractor would have to follow the strict wording of the statute.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am strongly opposed to the provisions of this section, but it does seem to me absolutely impracticable to put upon a minister or his deputy or the government the responsibility of determining just what is an emergency from the Yukon to Halifax and Sydney. Any one who has any knowledge whatever or any appreciation of the administrative work of a great department must realize that it would not be within the range of physical or mental effort on the part of the minister or his department to give any such decision. As to the section itself, I am very strongly opposed to it. I think that section 5 should be replaced in the Bill as it was when the Bill was originally introduced. There is a very general feeling in the country, or at any rate in the eastern part of Canada, in favour of this, though that feeling may not be as widespread as it should be in this House, and I shall oppose the measure from the standpoint of discrimination and unfairness and injustice. Men may be working side by side, and the one would be subject to the penalties of the Act, and the other would not be in a position to get any benefit from it.
Amendment negatived.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I desire to move a further amendment which I tryst the promoter of the Bill will accept. Paragraph 3 makes no provision that a man must not work more than eight hours in one day, but simply says that he shall not work forty-eight hours in the week. In the second place I understand that the custom everywhere now is to pay for overtime at the rate of time and a half. I think the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. King) admitted that in the debate on the last occasion this Bill was up. Further there is no provision for work done on Sundays and public holidays, and I understand that the rule is that for work done on such days double time is paid. I would move that section 3 be amended by striking out all the words after the word ' one week ' in the first part of line 29 and by inserting in lieu thereof the following words:
When a man works any more than eight hours in any one calendar day, the additional hours shall be classified as overtime and shall be paid for at the rate of time and one-half, and all work on Sundays and public holidays shall be paid for at the rate of double time.
The section would then read:

Every contract hereafter made for the erection, remodelling, construction or repair of any public building to which the government of Canada is a party, which may involve the employment of labourers, workmen or mechanics, shall contain a stipulation that no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor, sub-contractor or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the work contemplated by the contract, shall be required, except in case of extraordinary emergency, to work upon or in connection with the work contracted for, more than forty-eight hours in any one week, nor more than eight hours in any one calendar day. The additional hours, if worked, shall be classified as overtime and shall be paid for at the rate of time and one-half, and all work done on Sundays and public holidays, when necessary and permitted, shall be paid for at the rate of double time.


Alphonse Verville: Would not that do away with the half holiday on Saturday? In many cases in the summer, the men might arrange for a half holiday on Saturday. How would it apply to cases of sickness, when men have had to lay off one or two days in the week? In some instances they have to work extra hours to make up loss of time. Would it be fair to ask a man to work a couple of hours extra every day m order to pay up for a day of sickness?


Mr CURRIE (Simcoe).: That is virtually what was in the first Bill introduced by the hon. gentleman. The only difference is and and a half time instead of one and a quarter.
Mr. ^ ERVILLE. I am not opposed to the one and a half time, but I am asking information whether this would not affect the cases I have just mentioned. As regards the double time, that is paid in a good many cases. Suppose, for instance, a man has lost one day in the week, they would compel him, as they do in some instances, to put in so many hours a day to make that up. According to the Bill, forty-eight hours in one week is a full week's work, and if a man is not engaged by the week he must not work more than eight-hours in one day.


Morley Currie: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Verville) should know that the moment this Bill comes into effect, the contractors, instead of employing men by the month or week, will emp'loy them by the hour.


Alphonse Verville: They do that anyway.


Morley Currie: No, the Minister of Public Works has told us that when a contractor takes a gang to a distant section of the country for bridge-building or something of that kind, the custom is to employ the men by the week or month, commonly by the month, especially if the job is to last for a number of months.
Men thus engaged are paid for lost time through a rainy day or other similar causes. But the moment this Bill becomes law the contractor on government work will engage his men by the hour. It is a good thing for the contractor. Suppose a man has a contract in the Yukon and takes a gang of men from Vancouver, he will pay them only for the hours when they are at work; and if there is bad weather, the men will have to pay their board but will not get any pay. But the amendment of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell), so far as these things can have any force, re-enacts what the hon. member (Mr. Verville) has struck out by these amendments, and gives proper pay for extra work at the rate of time and a half.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are three propositions involved in the amendment of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell). The first is that no man shall be compelled to work for more than eight hours in a day. That is the object of the Bill, my impression is that that object is provided for. The hon. gentleman, makes it more definite and makes doubly secure what, in my opinion, was secure enough before. The amendment provides also that additional hours of work shall be classified as overtime, and paid for at the rate of time and a half, as against time and a quarter which is provided for by the Bill-the hon. member for South Toronto goes the hon. member for Maisonneuve one better. I do not see very much to choose, and if this amendment is satisfactory to the mover of the Bill, I see no objection to it. The third amendment to the Bill is that all work done on Sundays and public holidays shall be paid for at the rate of double time. This naturally involves the idea that we presuppose that there is to be work on Sundays or public holidays.


Morley Currie: In case of emergency.


Wilfrid Laurier: If it is an emergency, it is for the men to determine whether they shall work on Sundays and public holidays or not. But, as we do not presuppose that work will be done on Sundays or public holidays, this provision seems unnecessary. ,


Morley Currie: Emergency work is necessarily done, sometimes, on Sundays and holidays. In the case of a break in a canal or something of that kind it may be necessary for the saving of life and property.


William Pugsley: This subsection is limited to public buildings.


Morley Currie: But the minister (Mr. Pugsley) himself said that sub-

section 2 would apply generally. He is going back on that.


William Pugsley: No, I am speaking of subsection 1 which it is proposed to amend.


Angus Claude Macdonell: But it is all part of the same section. I would suggest that, if the words necessarily imply the doing of work on Sundays and public holidays the words be inserted ' where permitted


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think that in legislation of this parliament we should do anything that would seem to encourage work on Sundays or holidays., The men are entitled to their rest, and we should do nothing to prevent their getting it. But, if it becomes imperative to have the men work on Sunday, I think I would leave that to the men.


Morley Currie: The Prime Min ister forgets that the contractor can compel the workman to carry on the work in case of an emergency.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, he can be compelled to work only eight hours. In an emergency he can be induced to work longer hours, but receives extra pay.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Prime Minister is mistaken. The Bill says that ' no labourer, workman or mechanic in the employ of the contractor .	. shall be
required, except in case of extraordinary emergency, to work ' and so on. That is, in case of an extraordinary emergency he may be required.


Morley Currie: It is easy to imagine that cases of emergency would arise which would require the men to work night and day on Sunday.


Wilfrid Laurier: For my part, I would vote against the latter part of the amendment.


George Gerald King: I am not sure that the first part of the amendment is quite clear. If I understand the effect it would be that, in the event of workmen wishing a half holiday on Saturday they would have to lose altogether the Saturday afternoon hours. Under the Bill as it stands, the contractor might pay them for forty-eight hours in the week on the. condition that they work a little longer on the other days to make up for Saturday afternoon. He would give them the Saturday half holiday in which workmen are particularly interested. But, if I read the amendment rightly the men would lose the benefit of the half holiday.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The Bill as at present worded is not an eight-hour day Bill at all, because the employer of labour can make his men work for four or five days Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).
for fifteen hours a day. To cover the case spoken of by the Minister of Labour with regard to the Saturday half holiday, some provision should be made for extra work on that day. That could be provided for.


George Gerald King: It is provided for under the Bill, which provides for forty-eight hours a week, but the effect of the amendment would be to destroy any benefit from that.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Mac-donell, Toronto) negatived.
M.r. CURRIE (Simcoe). As the Prime Minister has been willing to concede everything except the word ' Sunday,' I think the member for South Toronto would be willing to strike out the word 'Sunday,' and make it read ' a public holiday.' Then we will be able to achieve something. I am willing to see a good Bill made.


Wilfrid Laurier: So am I, and
that is the reason I raise this objection. I am opposed to the word ' Sunday,' as a matter of public policy. As to the other two changes, I would be satisfied with them if the mover were satisfied; if he is not, I am not.
On section 3, subsection 2,


Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: I think if we are giving to the labour men a favour we ought to give them one which clearly shows what that favour is. We find that on this section the Minister of Public Works differs in his construction of its meaning from the First Minister; we find him differing, also, from the Minister of Labour. Now, if these gentlemen, who are jurists, differ, you will be presenting to the labour men some legislation that will require the construction of the courts, and very likely even judges will differ in their view of its meaning. It seems to me that the meaning of the clause ought to be made a little clearer. At present it reads:-
The	provisions of	this	section	shall,	as
respects hours of labour, apply to work undertaken by the government by day labour.
Now, this Act applies, in another section, to the erection, remodelling, construction or repair of any public building. As I understand the Minister of Public Works, he says that this subsection 2 refers to labour of all kinds. If that is the case, why not make it clear, and make it read in this way:-
The	provisions of	this	section	shall,	as
respects hours of labour, apply to work undertaken by the government by day labour, whether in the construction of public buildings or in the construction of wharfs, breakwaters or other government works.
Mr.	MIDDLEBRO. I	would	move,	inorder to carry out	the	intention of the
Minister of Public Works, that subsection 2 of section 3 be struck out, and that the

following be inserted as a new clause 4, waters, on other government works.
The provisions of section 3 shall, as respects hours of labour, apply to all public works undertaken by the government, and that the present clause 4 be renumbered as clause 5.
That will carry out the intention of the Minister of Public Works, though it will disagree with the opinion of the premier.


William Pugsley: I do not see any object in making the amendment. I think the provisions of the section are clear as they arc. I do not see, myself, any reason for the change.


William Sora Middlebro: My object is to make it doubly clear that the interpretation which the Minister of Public Works has placed on subsection 2 should be carried into effect, particularly as the Prime Minister has expressed a contrary opinion.


Mr. BURRELL.: I would like to ask the hon. member for Maisonneuve what is his interpretation of subsection 2 of section 3.
Mr. VERV1LLE. My interpretation of that clause is that in the erection of any building by a department of the government by day labour, or any building given by contract, this clause should apply.


William Sora Middlebro: Then the promoter of the Bill also differs from the Minister of Labour, and also differs from the Minister of Public Works. Where are we at? Now, I want to make it perfectly clear, that is the reason of my amendment. I want to make it clear that whoever works for this government, whether on a public building, or a pier, or a wharf, or a breakwater, should only work eight hours per day. Has the promoter of the Bill any objection to that?


Alphonse Verville: If that were the correct interpretation I would have left that clause 5 in the Bill. I am not a lawyer, but so far as I understand it, that is what it applies to.


William Sora Middlebro: Let us know what the hon. gentleman's intention is first. Is it his intention, first, to limit to public buildings only the eight-hour day, or is he willing to allow that eight-hour provision tj apply, not only to public buildings, but to all other works undertaken by the government by day labour?


Alphonse Verville: So far as I am personally concerned, I would like it extended as much as possible, if it will go through.


William Sora Middlebro: Will the hon. gentleman vote for my amendment?


Alphonse Verville: I will.


William Pugsley: Before the vote is taken I think it is only fair to the committee that 57
we should have the views of the Prime Minister, because my hon. friend has quoted him as presenting a different opinion upon the effect of this subsection to that which I gave. My own view is that the section is broad enough now to cover all works.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why object to making that quite clear?


William Pugsley: I have not charge of the Bill; it is a matter for the promoter. But the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) has said that the Prime Minister entertained a certain view as to the effect of this section, therefore it is only reasonable that we should have an opportunity of hearing his view. I did not hear him give that opinion, and I have asked the Prime Minister if he would kindly come in.


William Sora Middlebro: I think that, in the presence of the Minister of Public Works, the Prime Minister said that he did not think this eight-hour provision applied to anything else than public buildings.


William Pugsley: It may be that entertaining that view the Prime Minister has taken a certain attitude with regard to subsection 2, and I think it not unreasonable that the committee should wait a minute or two until the Prime Minister comes in.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think there was a great deal of doubt, to say trie least, as to whether it would apply to anything except public buildings.


Mr PUGSLEY.: If the Prime Minister, as the hon. gentleman says, thinks it only applies to public buildings, I take a different view.


Robert Laird Borden: I know what the hon. gentleman did. With all possible deference I would hardly be inclined to look at it in that way considering that if section 3 applies only to public buildings, the subsection would naturally be restricted to the same subject matter.


George Perry Graham: It may be found that this Bill will have a more far-reaching effect than hon. gentlemen think if they will keep in their minds one or two things. If it is confined to construction, that is one thing, but if they wish to make it so broad, for instance, that it would interfere with every contract that we have on the Intercolonial railway with every labour union, it might reduce the pay of the men instead of increasing it if they were only allowed to work eight hours, because we have a contract with them ot so much per day of so many hours and each union has its own schedule. Whatever effect the Bill might have it ought to be provided that it would not interfere with these contracts which we have with the various labour



unions because that would. disorganize practically the whole operating staff of the Intercolonial railway. Ws have several thousand men, each class having its own schedule and its own agreement.


Morley Currie: Subsection (e)of clause 2 covers that. The minister has not read the Bill.


George Perry Graham: I read that clause but it was questioned whether that covered my point or not.


Martin Burrell: This matter should be cleared up definitely. If lawyers cannot understand the clauses what will the laymen throughout the country do? We have this extraordinary condition : The hon. member for Maisonneuve frankly states that in introducing this clause be intended to limit the interpretation to work on the public buildings of the country. Then the Minister of Labour admits having had a conference with the promoter of this Bill on these very amendments. He said he had this conference and that he would support these amendments. This is an amendment brought in by the promoter of ths Bill and the direct interpretation of that amendment by the Minister of Labour is that it applies to every conceivable form of public work undertaken by day labour by the government. Surely the House, before passing legislation of this kind, should not stultify itself in the eyes of the country by letting a measure go out in such shape that no man knows whether it is confined to public buildings or operates on the various works of the government.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest as a solution of the difficulty raised by the Minister of Railways and Canals that subsection 2 should read : The provisions of this section shall, as respects the hours of labour, apply to all work of every description undertaken by the Department of Public Works by day labour. That would exclude the contracts referred to by the Minister of Railways.


George Perry Graham: Something of that kind should be done as it might cause great confusion in my department.


Wilfrid Laurier: In a Bill of this kind it has been difficult to come to a basis of understanding, some members opposed the Bill, others favoured it, and some considered it did not go far enough. This Bill was intended to be a tentative measure -and it was confined, in the language of section 3, to public buildings. If an amendment is needed in section 2 of the same section, I think the best way is to keep to the words ' public buildings!' That would make it clear and would con-iorm to the second provision.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a distinct divergence between the Prime Min-Mr. GRAHAM.
ister and the Minister of Public Works because only half an hour ago the Minister of Public Works declared that it would be his duty if this Bill passed in its present form to restrict the hours of labour on all public works, not on public buildings alone, to eight hours a day.


Wilfrid Laurier: Exactly, that is why it should be amended as I suggest.


Robert Laird Borden: The Prime Minister wants to restrict it. The Minister of Public Works is entirely in favour of it as it is.


Wilfrid Laurier: He said he would enforce it as it is there.


William Pugsley: I did not say what I was in favour of.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Labour is of the same opinion so was the promoter of the Bill -and the Prime Minister finds himself in a minority of one in the Cabinet on this point.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) must have said that if the Bill was passed he would apply it as it is there, but in order to have-certainty, as was suggested by the member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) I have suggested that we should restrict it, as it was in my judgment intended it should be, to public buildings and public buildings alone.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister of Public Works has expressed distinct approval of the wider application of this subsection.


William Pugsley: No, I was asked by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) as to what my opinion -as a lawyer would be as to the construction of this Bill in case it became law. I was not asked if I was in favour of or against it.


William Sora Middlebro: I asked him if the Bill passed in its present condition whether he would consider it his duty-


William Pugsley: Clearly.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood more than that, I understood the minister to express cordial approval of the Bill going through in that way.


William Pugsley: No, I do not think I expressed any opinion as to the merits of the Bill.
Amendment (Mr. Middlebro) negatived. Yeas, 37; nays, 49.


Morley Currie: Has the hon. member for Maisonneuve been counted and how is he counted?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The deputy clerk informs me that the vote of the hon. member was taken.


Morley Currie: Was he in favour?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I am not in a position to say.


William Pugsley: The suggestion of the leader of the opposition was that the provisions of this section as respects the hours of labour shall apply to work undertaken by the Public Works Department, but under the new system quite a number of military buildings will be undertaken by the Militia Department.


Robert Laird Borden: In making
that suggestion I thought that all public buildings were erected by the Public Works Department.


William Pugsley: No, I would move as an amendment that the section apply to all work on public buildings undertaken by the government by day labour.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 3,
Angus Claude Macdonell: In reference to the payment for overtime I move that the word ' quarter' m subsection 1 be stricken out and that the word ' one-half ' be inserted so as to provide that men who work overtime shall be paid time and a half instead of time and a quarter as the Bill now reads.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Pugsley: I would like to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Verville) how section 2 stands?


Robert Laird Borden: It stands for very little.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that
paragraph (d), (e) and (f) should be stricken out of the amended section 2 because there is no provision in the Bill for that class of work and therefore it is not necessary to say that the Bill shall not apply to something which by the widest stretch of the imagination it could not apply to.


Alphonse Verville: I acknowledge that these paragraphs do not apply to the Bill as it has passed.
On the motion of Mr. Pugsley paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of clause 2 were stricken from the Bill.
Bill reported as amended.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Lancaster for the second reading of Bill (No. 2) to amend the Railway Act.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: We discussed this matter several weeks ago and as Mr. Speaker was putting the question to the 57 i
House for the second reading, the Prime Minister asked that it should stand. 1 spoke twice on the measure; everybody spoke who wanted to, and then the Minister of Railways said that if I allowed the Bill to stand, he might have a suggestion to make in a day or two. Two Bills which we have been considering to-day got precedence over it, although this had precedence in the beginning. The matter having been thoroughly discussed, I think the Bill ought to go to committee, and I would move to that effect.
Mr.^ GRAHAM. This Bill is one that in short provides that every coroner should-hold an inquest when any death occurs that is caused by a railway. The position I took the other day was that the coroners are not our employees, but employees of the provincial governments and paid by them. I do not deny that this House can use the officers of the provincial government if it wants to, but we cannot compel them to do something that their oath of office as employees of the provincial government prohibits them from doing. Now, take the statutes of the different provinces. Under the Nova Scotia Act a coroner cannot hold an inquest until it appears:
(a)	That there is reasonable cause to suspect that such person died from violence, undue means or culpable negligence, or
(b)	That such person died in any- jail or in any prison, or
(c)	That such person died in such place and under such circumstances as require an inquest.
It is further provided that every person appointed a coroner shall hold office during pleasure, and shall before entering upon the duties of his office take an oath. This would not interfere to any extent with this Bill. But in New Brunswick it is provided that the coroner shall not be entitled to his fees unless prior to issuing his warrant for summoning a jury he makes a declaration under oath that he is of opinion that there is reason for believing or suspecting that the deceased did not come to his death by mere natural causes or from mere accident or mischance, but came to his death by violence, criminal or unfair means, culpable or negligent conduct of others under circumstances requiring investigation by a coroner's inquest, and the grounds on which he bases such belief or suspicion must be set out. Our law might conflict with this. In Quebec coroners are governed by section 3477 of the Revised Statutes of 1906, which says:
No inquest shall be held on any deceased person unless a coroner before issuing his warrant for summoning a jury makes an affidavit administered by a justice of the peace, notary public or a commissioner for taking affidavits to be used in the Superior Court, and filed with the inquisition, stating that

from the information received by the coroner, a summary whereof shall Toe sent out in the declaration, he has reason for believing that the deceased came to his death not from natural causes or mere accident or mischance, but from violence or unfair means, culpable or negligent conduct of others under circumstances requiring investigation by a coroner's inquest.
It might be apparent, that no person was culpable, and yet we would require him to do what under the provincial statutes he is not required to do and what he swears he will not do. Chap. 97 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1897, provides that: No inquest shall be held on the body of any deceased person by a coroner unless it be upon the death of a prisoner or upon the written request of the Attorney General in certain cases, unless it has been made to appear to the coroner that there is reason to believe that the deceased died from violence or unfair means by culpable or negligent conduct of others and under such circumstances as require investigation by inquest and not through mere accident or mischance. Then, section 4 provides that no fee shall be payable to the coroner unless prior to issuing his warrant for the summoning of the jury he makes a declaration under oath stating that from information received by him he is of opinion that there is reason to believe that the deceased did not come to his death from natural causes or from mere accident or mischance, but came to his death From violence or unfair means or culpable or negligent conduct of others under circumstances requiring investigation by coroner's inquest. By the Manitoba Act it is provided that no fees shall be claimed by a coroner unless prior to issuing his warrant for summoning a jury he shall have made a declaration in writing under oath stating that from information received he is of opinion that there is reason to believe that the deceased did not come to his death from natural causes or from mere accident or mischance, but came to his death from violence or unfair means or culpable or negligent conduct of others requiring investigation by a coroner's inquest. The British Columbia Act, I think, would not possibly interfere with the proposition of my hon. friend, because under that Act where a coroner is informed that a dead body of a person is lying within his jurisdiction, and there is reasonable cause to suspect that such person died either a violent or unnatural death or has died a sudden death the cause of which is unknown under such circumstances as to require an inquest, he shall issue his warrant for summoning a jury. My contention is that as coroners are employees of the provincial government, which defines their duties, though we can use these officials, we cannot require them to do something which may conflict with their Mr. GRAHAM.
instructions or with the oath they have to take. I would have no hesitation in saying that we might compel every railway company, where a fatal accident has occurred, to at once report to the nearest coroner or the Crown Attorney, or the Attorney General, as the case might be, and leave him to decide whether or not to hold an investigation, but I think we shall be going beyond what is warranted by the statutes of all the provinces if we require an inquest to be held where under the circumstances it might not be necessary. I would be quite willing to send the Bill to the Railway Committee to be there threshed out, but I think it would be a mistake for us as a parliament to compel the officers of the provincial government to do something which would be manifestly contrary to the oath they have to take from their employers.


Mr. BUREAU.: I would like to point out that in the province of Quebec the coroners are paid by the provincial government, and it is in the discretion of the government, if they do not comply with the provisions of the law, to refuse payment. .If we required these men to perform certain work for which the provincial government refused to pay them, it is probable that they would refuse to act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is very easy to find excuses for not passing legislation. On the second reading of this Bill every one who spoke was in favour of it on its merits. The reasons given by the Minister of Railways and Canals with regard to these provincial statutes are the very reasons why this parliament should take some action. Our railways to-day are almost entirely Dominion railways, with regard to which this parliament alone can legislate, and we are never troubled in so legislating by the fact that some provincial act affecting these railways may be in existence. There are provincial Acts governing our coroners, yet the Criminal Code of this parliament provides that they shall perform certain duties. If a man is supposed to be guilty in a case of death, he is taken into custody by the coroner holding an inquest. In our criminal code there are dozens of instances in which magistrates and justices of the peace, who are appointed by the local governments, must act. One might as well say that a county court judge, because he is appointed by this government, must not enforce any provincial law. County court judges are appointed and paid for by the Dominion government, but in nine cases out of ten they deal with matters of provincial legislation only. Of course I anticipated these objections. Counsels for different railways have told me that there objections would, be raised, and in all probability the objec-

tions raised by the hon. minister came from the railway companies.


George Perry Graham: Nonsense.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Counsel for these companies told me what was going to be urged on the second reading of this Bill. They said that the position would be taken which we have seen taken in this House to-day. The coroner would be loaded up behind the backs of the relatives and the public so that, under the law governing Dominion railways he could say that he had made an inquiry and that in his opinion no inquest was necessary, and no provincial law could provide for anything being done on the property of a Dominion railway.


George Perry Graham: Nonsense.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is no answer.


George Perry Graham: It is an answer as strong as your argument.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That may be the opinion of the hon. gentleman, and he is welcome to it; but in the Railway Commission over and over again it has been decided that this parliament alone can deal with these matters.


George Perry Graham: Will the hon. gentleman contend that a provincial government cannot, through its coroners, have anything to do with the death of a person because it occurred on a Dominion railway?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have not said that. My Bill provides that where these deaths occur on the property of a Dominion railway, certain things should be done, and the section I am amending enacts that the Railway Commission shall do certain things in certain cases. Will the hon. minister say that the Railway Commission must get the sanction of a provincial government before it can carry out its powers? He certainly will not because he wants the Railway Commission to have these powers, but he pretends that we must not enact that a coroner must do anything because forsooth we would thereby be interfering with provincial jurisdiction. I am asking that the coroner be bound to inquire and ascertain the causes of death in certain cases. Everybody knows how these deaths, instead of diminishing, are increasing, and we all know that if the responsible parties are not brought to book, this condition of things will continue. Of course if the minister is determined that the House shall not deal with this, he is in control, and there is no use of my wasting time in discussing the matter, but I submit that the proper place to deal with this Bill is in Committee of the Whole House, just as we have dealt with the Bill we have been discussing previous to this one, and with the Bill on interest. The latter was a measure which might, much more properly have been referred to a standing committee, but nevertheless it was dealt with by this House in Committee of the Whole, and similar treatment should certainly be given this much more important measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the Bill be referred to the standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
Motion agreed to.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: Opportunity will be given the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) to move his motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 17, 1911.