[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUME CRONYN (London) presented the second report of the Special Committee on pensions, insurance, and reestablishment of returned soldiers.
Mr. CRONYN:: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. MacNutt, that the second report of the Special Committee appointed to consider questions relating to pensions, insurance, and re-establishment of returned soldiers, which was presented this day, be concurred in.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must point out to the House that, in the absence of notice, this motion requires unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the year ended September 30, 1920.-Hon. J. A. Calder.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister):: I desire to lay on the Table a
copy of correspondence between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company relative to the question of the extension of the time for arbitration. I thought that even though the correspondence was not complete, it had arrived at a stage when it was proper that the House should know where the parties stood. I may add that just a few moments before three o'clock there came to me a further letter in the nature of legal argument, but I received it too late to include it in what I now submit. When it is possible to put further correspondence on the Table that letter will appear.



RESIGNATION OF SIR THOMAS WHITE

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the resignation of the Right Honourable Sir Thomas White, K.C.M.G., as Member for the Electoral District of Leeds.
I accordingly issued my Warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 57 (from the Senate), to amend the Post Office Act.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Explain.


Mr. DOHERTY:: The Bill has already been passed by the Senate, and it is not customary to explain such Bills on their first reading in this House. Unfortunately, I have not a copy of it under my hand, but there are three clauses, the principal one of which provides for a system of insurance in connection with registered parcels. The other two provisions, I am satisfied, are of minor importance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have they anything to do with the payment of ferry men?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot remember. I understood the Bill was here, and it should be here, having been sent from the Senate.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know it is not customary to delay the first reading of Senate Bills, but, Mr. Speaker, if my motion of the other day had been adopted, we should have the Postmaster General here to explain the nature of his Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is unusual for Senate Bills to be explained on their first

reading in this House. They receive a first reading as a matter of courtesy and as a matter of course.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: X. What amount of Canadian bonds was purchased by the committee of bankers acting for the Government in each of the fiscal years 1919, 1920 and to the present time in 1921?
2.	What amount, apart from interest, was paid in each year for bonds so purchased?
3.	What amount of such bonds was disposed of in each year by the committee?
4.	What amount, apart from interest, was received by the committee in each year as the proceeds of such sales?
5.	What amount of such bonds remained in the hands of the committee when the committee's operations ceased?
6.	What disposal was made of the bonds so remaining in the committee's hands?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	The question asks for data covering "each fiscal year." Figures are not readily available in this form, but the following, summarizing the results of the two distinct periods of the committee's operations, substantially supplies the information desired:-
A.	As to operations of committee from January 22, 1918, to January 20, 1919, when it was disbanded.
1.	$70,329,050 (par value)
3.	64,549,400 (par value)
5.	5,779,650	(par value)
6.	Taken over by Minister of Finance for sinking fund purposes at 99i for 1922's and 998 for 1927's-ruling market prices.
2 and 4. After returning unsold bonds to the Department of Finance on the above-mentioned basis and crediting its accounts with interest earned by bonds on hand from time to time, the committee, whose accounts were audited and certified by chartered accountants, was able to show a surplus on operations of $124,088.64, after paying all expenses. No interest was charged in the committee's books on cash advances made by the Finance Department from time to time from surplus loan funds to enable it to carry on its operations and which amounted in the aggregate to $10,950,000.
B.	As to operations of committee from August 26, 1919, when it was revived, to November 30, 1920, when it was again discontinued.
1.	$299,206,650 (par value)

2.	$293,529,680.56.
3.	$190,259,100 (par value)
4.	$184,319,978.96.
5.	$108,947,550 (par value)
6.	Bonds of the par value of $19,719,250 being total accumulations of bonds of the taxable 1919 issue, have been placed in investors' hands since the committee wound up, leaving $89,228,300 held by Finance Department, all of which bonds are exempt from taxation and became available for sinking fund purposes.
The accounts of the committee covering this, period of its operations were rendered in similar form to that of the first period, regularly audited and certified by chartered accountants. These accounts showed a surplus from operations of $714,253.88, after meeting all expenses. This result was arrived at after taking into consideration interest earned on bonds held, from November 24, 1919, to December 1, 1920, but disregarding any interest accruing after December 1, 1920, as well as interest amounting to $2,140,864.15 accruing on bonds to the par value of $34,972,750, which were purchased between August 26, 1919, and December 15, 1919, and especially segregated from the latter date, and after providing the sum of $1,160,308.94 to reduce book values of current account bonds to closing bid prices of the Toronto Stock Exchange on January 22, 1921. No interest was charged in the committee's books on cash advances made by the Finance Department from time to time to enable it to carry on its operations, and which amounted in the aggregate to $107,000,000. These advances were made from Victory Loan balances on hand.


VICTORY BONDS-EXPENSES
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: How much money was spent or liability incurred by the Government during: the calendar year 1920 in stabilizing: the Victory Bond Market.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: This question is fully covered by the answer just now submitted to the question asked by the honourable member for Queens and Shelburne; and I assume that, on that understanding, the honourable member (Mr. Sinclair) will permit his question to be dropped.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- ' FREIGHT, NOVA SCOTIA POINTS
John Ewen Sinclair: What has been the amount of freight business done (expressed in tons and dollars) for each year during the last five years at the folliwing stations on the Canadian Government Railways in Nova Scotia, namely:-Piedmont, Barney's
River, Marshy Hope, James River, South River, Heatherton, Tracadie and Monastery?


Hon. Mr. REID:: Tons-Freight	Earnings
Station	Year	Outward	Inward	Outward	InwardPiedmont	.. 1916	189	389	$ 241 04	$ 1,007 821917	198	201	324 22	321 991918	118	187	285 72	380 161919	111	154	685 98	485 151920	40	94	180 37	312 83Barney's River ....	.. 1916	126	568	247 48	546 201917	126	522	263 38	529 771918	182	297	523 43	331 341919	163	297	432 34	735 811920	70	156	250 90	549 00Marshy Hope.. ..	.. 1916	1,120	62	670 78	109 741917	287	56	357 86	113 681918	412	44	548 30	111 471	1919	228	38	381 12	151 231920	1,284	71	2,225 65	267 10James River.. ..	.. 1916	1,864	495	808 83	1,253 001917	4,343	1,157	6,058 00	2,321 001918	4,056	679	7,860 00	1,687 001919	2,700	592	4,994 00	2,305 001920	10,060	1,896	14,763 00	3,075 84South River.. . .	.. 1916	1,075	1,264	1,592 80	2,442 301917	3,038	1,851	4,450 10	2,876 401918	5,374	1,438	10,121 60	3,513 301919	3,164	718	7,859 50	2,859 201920	2,502	973	6,771 49	3,582 29Heatherton	.. 1916	365	1,886	889 90	3,750 801917	415	940	1,242 20	3,472 001918	953	1,164	3,362 60	3,316 291919	880	1,556	2,893 30	3,743 451920	1,635	953	4,625 33	3,612 06Tracadie	.. 1916	1,971	597	2,886 70	1,646 481917	4,454	1,333	6,152 40	2,728 001918	4,325	832	8,229 70	1,995 001919	2,773	828	5,156 94	2,991 001920	1,327	726	4,083 18	3,164 34Monastery	.. 1916	1,789	347	2,061 44	884 451917	3,542	619	4,054 99	1,633 731918	3,851	740	7,097 06	1,805 071919	1,987	578	5,445 47	2,182 371920	3,036	458	6,942 41	2,244 69PRINTING	BUREAU	Hon. Mr.	MEIGHEN: Stand.


ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
*Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Has Judge Snider made any report in connection with the inquiry into the destruction of Government property at the Printing Bureau?
2.	If so, what is the date of the said report, what action hasi been taken thereon, and when will the report be laid on the table of the House ?
3.	When will Judge Snider finish his inquiry?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I notice that question No. 15 has been on the Order Paper for several weeks.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If any hon. member desires to direct attention to unanswered questions he should do so on the Orders of the Day. It is irregular to call attention to unanswered questions while questions are being answered.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CONDUCTORS AND BRAKEMEN DISCHARGED
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	How many conductors and brakemen, employed on the Government Railway, from Quebec to O'Brien, have been discharged during 1920?
2.	What are the names of said employees?
3.	What was the reason for their dismissal? Were they granted a legal and impartial enquiry, as required by section 36 of rules entitled Rate of Pay and Rules, under the signature of F. P. Brady in behalf of the C.N.R. ; M. G. Wilson in behalf of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and M. Keileher in behalf of the Order of Railroad Conductors?
4.	What are the names of the spotters who made the case ?
. 5. What was their occupation before they took up that work for the Government?
6.	Were affidavits taken? If so, before whom were said affidavits sworn to?
7,	Is it the intention of the Government to reinstate such employees?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	7 conductors, 6 brakemen and 1 baggageman.
2.	Names of conductors: Jos. Elias Albert, J. Esdras Benoit, J. Elz. Cleophas Cote, Ls. Phillippee Cloutier, L. Azavedo Dupont, Levi Jos. Jess, F. R. Plouffe.
Names of brakemen: Jos. Albert, Jos. Brochu, Romeo Fournier, Romeo Gagnon, Vic. R. Mulligan, Frs. Ls. St. Pierre.
Name of baggageman: Romeo Picher.
3.	Conductors J. E. Benoit, J. E. Cleophas Cote, L. P. Cloutier, L. J. Jess were dismissed on account of irregularities in handling of cash fares. Conductor J. E. Albert was dismissed on account of conviction for theft of railway property. Con ductor L. A. Dupont was dismissed on account of insubordination. Conductor F. R. Plouffe was dismissed for violation of Special Rule " E " of Timetable No. &, resulting in rear end collision. Brakeman Jos. Albert was dismissed on account of conviction for theft of goods in possession of the Railway. Brakeman Jos. Brochu was dismissed on account of unsatisfactory services established by demerit marks. Brakeman R. Gagnon, Frs. Ls. St. Pierre and baggageman R. Picher were dismissed for violation of Rule " G " (intoxicating). All of these employees were granted full and proper investigation as required by rules of schedules with Brotherhoods covering such cases.
Brakeman R. Fournier was dropped from pay-roll on account of not having returned for duty within a year's time as required by Railway regulations. Brakeman Vic. R. Mulligan was dropped from pay-roll on account of leaving service and taking up employment elsewhere.

4,	5 and 6. The management take the ground that it is not in the public interest to give names or occupations of persons who gave first information as to irregularities in handling cash fares.
One case is still under consideration but the management state they have no intention of changing the discipline administered in connection with the balance.


JUDGE WILSON
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Was Judge Wilson of the York and Sun-bury County Court in the Province of New Brunswick superannuated by an Order in Council? If so, when?
2.	Has any one been appointed to fill the vacancy? If so, when, If not, why not?
3.	When was Judge Wilson notified of his superannuation, and by whom?
4.	Who was recommended to fill the vacancy and by whom?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Yes, by Order in Council dated March 8, 1921.
2.	No.
3.	Letters Patent granting annuity to Judge Wilson transmitted to him by the Department of the Secretary of State on April 1, 1921.
4.	The vacancy has not yet been filled.


BONUS TO LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS
Mr. FAFARD:: Is it the intention of the Government to grant a bonus to lighthouse-keepers for the year 1920?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: The matter
is under consideration.


CUSTOMS REVENUE BY PROVINCES
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	What was the total amount of customs-revenue collected in the province of Alberta, each year, during the past five years?
2.	What is the present estimated population of Alberta?
3.	What was the total amount of customs revenue during the same period, in the other provinces of the Dominion respectively?
4.	What is the estimated population of the other provinces of the Dominion?


Hon.   S@: 
CIVIL, SERVICE BONUS
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What was the total amount appropriated by the Government, last year, for the payment of a bonus to civil servants during the fiscal year 1920-21?
2.	How much was actually paid out of said total appropriation?
3.	Was the amount paid out less than the total, if so, why?
4.	By what amount will this appropriation be reduced, in order to equal the decrease of 25 per cent announced by the Government for the civil service bonus of 1921-22?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Appropriated by Parliament for 192021, $12,500,000.
2.	$9,523,802.88 as shown by the books of the Auditor General's Department to February 28, 1921.
3.	The amount disbursed is the actual amount properly payable under the regulations governing the distribution of the bonus.
4.	Twenty-five per cent.


' DEPOSITS OUTSIDE CANADA IN CANADIAN BANKS
[Stage Direction]
. Mr. DEMERS:
1.	What is the total amount of the deposits made in Canadian banks outside of Canada?
2.	What is the total amount of loans made by Canadian banks outside of Canada?
Hon.   S@: (As of February 28, 1921) :
1.	$305,778,387.00.
2.	$353,458,003.00.


W. A. DONNER
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Has a man named W. A. Donner, formerly manager of the Bank of Toronto, at Stayner, Ont., been discharged from the penitentiaiy where he had been sentenced in April, 1920, by Mr. Justice Lennox, for a period of three years?
2.	How long has the said Donner been detained in the penitentiary?
3.	For what reason and upon whose recommendation has the said Donner been discharged?
4.	At what date was such release granted?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	8 months and 3 days.
3.	The recommendation for the discharge of Donner was made by the Acting Solicitor General. It is not considered to be in the public interest nor is it usual to make public the reasons for the exercise of executive clemency in criminal cases.
4.	December 22, 1920.
IMMIGRANTS REJECTED [DOT]


Mr. STEELE:: 1.	How many immigrants were rejected at Canadian ocean ports in the calendar year, 1920?
2.	How many at boundary ports?
3.	How many were rejected on medical certificates ?
4.	How many deportations were made from Canada in the calendar year 1920?
5.	How many of these deportations were on medical certificates?


Hon. Mr. CALDER:: 1.	747.
2.	19,019.
3.	219.
4.	809.
5.	101.


W. H. CORNING  CATTLE PURCHASES
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	Was any livestock purchased by the Department of Agriculture from Mr. H. Corning Yarmouth, N.S., during the yeare 1919 and 1920?
2.	If so, (a) what number were so purchased ; (b) of what breed; (c) what were the respective ages; and (d) what price was paid for each?
3.	Was the tuberculin test applied?
4.	If so, were any of these animals found to be tubercular and were any rejected on that account?
5.	On whose recommendation was the said stock purchased?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	No livestock was purchased from H. Corning, Yarmouth, N.S., during the years 1919 and 1920, but some were purchased from Mr. Howard Corning of Cheggogan, N.S., in March, 1920.
2.	(a) Four head; (b) Guernseys; (c) and (d) 1. King's Blanche of Hillside, age
Sir Henry Drayton. 1
6 years, price $2,000; 2. Princess Daisy of Hillside, age 4 years, and calf, price $600;
3.	Cabbage Rose of Hillside, 4 years, and calf, price, $1,000; 4. Princess Dairymaid, 3 years, and calf, price $400.
3.	Yes.
4.	No reactions to tuberculin test occurred.
5.	Superintendent, Experimental Farm, Nappan, N.S.


FEEDING STUFFS ACT-INSPECTION DISTRICTS
Mr. ANDERSON:: 1.	What are the six inspection districts organized under the Feeding Stuffs Act?
2.	Who are the inspectors in charge of these districts and what salary are they paid?
3.	Who is the Seed and Feed Inspector for Hal ton, working under the District Inspector, and what is his salary?
4.	Is Doctor McGill, Chief Analyst under the Commercial Feeding Stuffs Act of 1909, actually giving service now?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	District No. 1, The Maritime Provinces; No. 2, Quebec; No. 3, Eastern Ontario; No. 4, Western Ontario; No. 5, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; No. 6, Alberta and British Columbia.
2.	District No. 1, S. J. Moore, salary $2,640; No. 2, Jules Simard, B.S.A., salary $2,640; No. 3, T. G. Raynor, B.S.A., salary $2,640; No. 4, W. J. Lennox, B.S.A., salary $2,640; No. 5, J. E. Blakeman, B.S.A., salary, $2,400; No. 6, G. M. Stewart, salary $2,520.
3.	A. J. Thomson, salary $165 per month.
4.	The District Inspectors have been advised that they may receive analytical service from any of the laboratories under the direction of the Chief Analyst of the Department of Health.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- HORNEPAYNE DIVISION
Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Who has been appointed Superintendent of the Hornepayne Division on the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What is the age of the said appointee and how many years of service as a railway man did he have?
3.	WTio recommended him?
4.	Why was not a conductor or a locomotive engineer promoted to that position?


Hon. Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1.	J. J. Napier.
2.	39 years of age. Has been in service of Canadian Northern Railway since 1905.
3.	The General Superintendent.
4.	Mr. Napier was formerly a locomotive engineer.


WAR HISTORY
Mr. BOYER:: Has a translation been made of the volumes, published to date of "A Hisitory of the Organization, development and services of the Military and Naval Forces of Canada," edited by the General Staffs' Historical Section?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: Yes, but the
volumes have not yet been printed.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. GRIESBACH:: 1.	Has the Young Men's Christian Association associated with the Canadian Expeditionary Force in the great war submitted to the Government a statement of accounts showing all moneys received and expended by that body both by way of contribution from people in Canada and arising out of sales to Canadian troops?
2.	If so, will he Government lay same upon the Table of the House?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to procure and distribute such a statement ?


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS
Mr. A. L. DESAULNIERS:: For a copy of all reports, petitions, letters, and other documents in conection with the removal of the postmaster at Pont St-Maurice, Champlain county.


DESTRUCTION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to draw attention to the fact that question, No. 15, which has been on the Order Paper for three or four weeks, dealing with Judge Snider's report still remains unanswered although it deals with the matter of public importance. I understand that Judge Snider's report is in the hands of the Government.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette):: I do not wish to be considered discourteous by intervening at this juncture but we are unable at this end of the Chamber to hear anything of the doubtless very interesting proceedings which are at present going on. I would therefore urge my hon. friends sitting immediately to your right and left, Mr. Speaker, when they are discussing matters across the floor of the House to speak in a tone of voice which will be audible to us at this end of the Chamber so that we can glean some idea of what is being said.


Arthur Meighen: I am quite prepared to yield to my hon. friend's request, and I will do so on behalf of others as well as myself. As to the representation made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve I will make enquiries into the matter and let the hon. member know later.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier):: Inasmuch as the time for filing petitions for private Bills expired during the Easter recess I should like to know from the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee if it is intended to recommend a further delay in order that those who proposed filing petitions for Bills immediately after Easter shall have an opportunity of doing so?


Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale):: I
understand the practice to be, when petitions for private Bills are not presented within six Weeks from the opening of Parliament, that when the petition is presented Mr. Speaker calls attention to the fact that it is too late, and then any honourable member interested may move that the petition be referred to the Standing Committee on Standing Orders for consideration and report.



SUPPLY-MINISTER OF LABOUR AND THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC LABOUR UNIONS

[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['If it is not ripe for action, it will riot be taken up.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.\nThursday!, April 7, 1921']
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) :: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make some remarks concerning a matter which I deem to be of great importance. I had intended to discuss this matter when the Estimates of the Labour Department were considered in committee, but as I do not know when those Estimates will come before us, and as there is a campaign, being carried on in the press in the meantime, I think it my duty to present the facts with respect to this question now, and offer such comments as I consider necessary. I will first state the facts of the case as I know them to be, and then repeat the version of them as given in the press.
On March 23, a delegation of the Executive Officers of the National Labour



[Stage Direction]
The Minister of Labour, on Wednesday, received a deputation representing the National Catholic Labour movement in this province, whose members asked, among other things, that the organization be represented at the forthcoming conference of building trades representatives, to be held in Ottawa, The Catholic Federated Unions in Quebec, apcording to Abbd Fortin, a member of the deputation, has a membership of from forty to fifty thousand, and is therefore an important factor in the industrial life of this province. The Minister of Labour, the Hon. Gideon Robertson, appears to have adopted a very extraordinary attitude in dealing with this deputation. He seized the occasion to lecture the Union in regard to its religious complexion, saying that an impression that success in labour in Quebec was conditional upon holding a certain religious belief would not be conducive to Improved relations between Quebec and other provinces. Then he proceeded to say that the coming conference was organized by the international unions and the builders, and that he could not dictate to either party for the purpose of admitting a third.
The Minister of Labour has, on a number of occasions, acted as if he were the Minister of Organized Labour; he now comes forward as the Minister of Organized Labour Internationally Affiliated. When provision was first made for the establishment of a Department of Labour in connection with the administration at Ottawa, such a situation as this was never contemplated; the idea and purpose was to create a department which would keep in touch with all classes of labour and would deal equally with all. Certainly it was never supposed that a Minister of Labour, in dealing with a labour body, would concern himself with the religious convictions of its members. The Catholic National Union in this province is none the less a labour organization because its membership is Catholic, nor is it the business of the Minister of Labour to dwell upon, or even consider, the religious belief of this labour body or of any other, Catholic or Protestant. The impression created, however, is that the minister's real objection to the Quebec unions is that they are national. Mr. Ernest Lapointe, who introduced the deputation, and Abbd Fortin, who headed it, seem to have been under no illusion in this respect. It was not the first time that these national unions had asked in vain for representation. The reasons for refusal vary, but the refusals do not. Moreover, the minister indicates clearly enough what is in his mind, and what his purpose is. when he emphasizes the fact that the building conference has been organized by builders and members of international unions. Is he not really concerned for the supremacy of the international organization? He says that all nations subscribing to the peace treaty have agreed to recognize associations giving each class (employers and labour) the greatest representation, and the labour organization in Canada, which conforms to this standard, is the Trades and Labour Congress. Here is internationalism again. , There is nothing in the labour provisions of the peace treaty which authorizes more favourable treatment to one class of
[Stage Direction]
labour than to another; the whole spirit of the treaty is to the contrary, and if Canada, as a subscriber, has agreed to deal only with the Trades and Labour Congress, it is the first intimation that we have had of it. The people of Canada have never sanctioned any such injustice and will nbt do so. As to the building trade conference, it is being held under government auspices, if it is not actually government financed, and if the Minister of Labour desired to secure representation for the Catholic unions, nobody will believe that his efforts would be unsuccessful.
In the Montreal Gazette of Thursday, March 31, appears a letter signed by G. D. Robertson, Minister of Labour. This letter is very long, but I think in all fairness I should read it in its entirety. I am sure that the House will bear with me while I do so. It is as follows:
.	National Catholic Unions
To the Editor of The Gazette:
Sir,-In your issue of March 24, 1921, and editorial appeared entitled "Showing His Hand" which charges the Minister of Labour with being the "Minister of Organized Labour Internationally Affiliated," which charge you base upon his statement to the National Catholic Union that he could not undertake to force the Federal Builders' Association and -the Federal Building Trades Council who are holding a conference in Ottawa on May 3rd next, to recognize National Catholic Union delegates.
Your implied support to the impossible position taken by Mr. E. Lapointe (Quebec East) indicates utter ignorance of the facts, or else an endorsation of the National Catholic Union principles and policies. It is, therefore, proposed to relate some facts concerning International Trade Unions; the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and what it represents; the National Catholic Unions, and the policy and attitude of the Department of Labour toward each.
For forty years past craft organizations of workmen, with members in both the United States and Canada, have existed. They are known as International Trade Unions. Every person engaged in a particular trade or craft is eligible for membership, subject to certain requirements as to moral character, sobriety, etc. Catholic and Protestant alike enjoy equal rights and privileges. The constitutions provide that neither religious nor political affiliations shall affect in any way a workman's eligibility to membership. Many of the constitutions specifically forbid the discussion of religious or political questions within the union. Briefly stated, every workman has and should have equal rights and voice in the industri-al field. Neither religious nor political affiliations should be a recommendation or a bar to obtaining employment.
To these principles the Minister of Labour heartily subscribes. Mr. Lapointe does not; does the Montreal Gazette?
The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada is and has for years, both by past and present Governements, been the recognized legislative mouthpiece of labour in Canada. It does not-as your paper has frequently asserted-represent Trades Unions only ; neither does it speak for all the International Unions, a number of whom maintain their own legislative representatives. There are over 70.000 railway employees in Ca-

nada members of International Trade Unions who are not represented through the congress, including the organization of which the undersigned has for twenty-five years been a member. Therefore your oft-repeated inference, i.e., that the Minister of Labour was guided by the wishes of the Trade Congress, is obviously not a fact nor a near approach thereto.
The Trades Congress does, however, speak for many labour bodies that are not International in character, but purely local and purely Canadian, as the following facts will verify. At the Hamilton convention of the Congress, held in September, 1920, the 929 delegates present represented about 280,000 workers-232 came from the province of Quebec-five of these delegates represented five International Unions- nine represented four trade councils-218 represented 101 local unions in that province. These delegates represented 88,949 organized workers in that province, a large portion of which are Roman Catholics. The senior vice-president of the Congress is a Roman Catholic, resident in Montreal. Like the International Unions the Congress stands for equality among all workers, so far as their rights and privileges within their respective organizations are concerned, and also in their opportunities for employment regardless of religious or political affiliation of the individual. Both the International Unions and the Trades Congress are in accord with the prin ciples laid down in the pastoral letter circulatec in September, 1918 by the archbishops and bishops of the United States, signed by the late respected and lamented Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore, Md. Except in Quebec, throughout all North America, Catholics and Protestants alike, other citizens as well as workmen, endorse the principles giving equal right to all, and everywhere-except in Quebec-millions of workmen, representing every shade of religious opinion, are able to work together in harmony.
To the universal application of these principles the present Minister of Labor subscribes. Mr. Lapointe does not-does the Montreal Gazette?
The National Catholic Union movement began at the city of Three Rivers in 1911, extending to Chicoutimi in 1912 and 1913. The published report on the subject, dated 1913, reads in part as follows:
"The object of the organization is the protection and development of the religious, social and economic interests of its members. The association is essentially Catholic and professes its belief in and entire submission to the instruction and direction of that Church. The qualifications for membership require a candidate to observe -the Catholic faith, to be of not less than 16 years of age, and not connected with an International Union. There are both active and honorary members. The affairs are administered by an executive committee chosen by the council of direction. There is to be a general chaplain named by the Ordinary of the diocese. Each local branch also has a chaplain named by the Ordinary of the district. The constitution provides for small death and permanent incapacity benefits provided the member's marriage was legally contracted under the rites of the Catholic Church."
There were at that time nine branches, with a membership of 1,567. At that date there were in the province of Quebec 37,928 organized workmen adhering to the principle of absolute equality referred to in a preceding paragraph.
By 1919 troubles had occurred in certain localities, because of discrimination against

Protestants and Catholic workmen members of other trade unions. An attempt was made to minimize this difficulty by passing the following resolution, at at Three Rivers convention of September, 1919 :
"(Resolution 19) Whereas certain rumors have circulated that the National Catholic Unions do not protect Protestant workmen in labor matters, this convention allows the adoption of a resolution protesting against such a statement and energetically states that it has protected and is still protecting Protestant workmen in all labor matters by issuing to them an adjunct membership card which guarantees to them all the protection they need."
Investigation shows that this adjunct membership card permitted the holder to pay dues but debarred him from any voting power in the Union.
Perusal of the constitutions reveals some interesting facts. That of the Catholic Union of the Quebec Printing and Book Binding Workers may be of interest to the Montreal Gazette. It reads in part as follows:-
"Chapter 1, Article 1:-
'"There is founded in the city of Quebec between the Catholic workers following the printing and book binding trades, an organization which shall be designated as follows: The Catholic Union of the Quebec Printing and Book Binding Workers.	'
"Art. 2. The Union has for its immediate object the study, protection and development of the professional interests of its members; but it subordinates this proximate object to the exigencies of the superior interests of souls, society and religion.
"Art. 3. Because it is a Catholic labour organization, the Catholic Union of the Quebec Printing and Book Binding Workers ;
"(a) Shall affiliate with the Action Sociale Catholique;
"It shall secure from it, after filling the usual conditions and upon presentation of its statutes and by-laws, a special diploma which shall be the warranty of the Catholicism of the Union ;
"iSaid diploma may be cancelled or revoked in' case the' Union should cease to fulfil the conditions required for its affiliation ;
''(b) It , shall admit among its members Catholic workers only ;
"(c) It shall have a Chaplain;
"(d) It shall remember,
"1.-That all human acts, those of groups as well as those of individuals, are subjected to the tribunal of conscience ;
"2.-That justice and Christian charity are the two.su/preme mannitory rules or relations between employers and workmen;
(e). Recognizing that the Church alone has the right and is qualified to say where, in the so-called labour questions, is the true and the false, the just and the unjust, the good and the bad, what is permissible and what is not, the C.U. of P. and B.W. will comply entirely and conscientiously, in the pursuit of its object, wtith the teaching and instructions of the religious authority.
"(f). In order to still shows its character as a Catholic Union the C.U. of P. and B.W.
"(a) Puts itself under the protection of St. Joseph.
"(b) It shall cause to be celebrated every year, on the Feast Day of its Holy Patron Saint, a solemn mass with a sermon, all members endeavouring to attend and receive Holy Communion.
''(c) When a member dies the Union shall cause to be celebrated in the Church where the
funeral takes place a high mass for the repose of the Brother's soul and shall be represented at said mass by at least two of its members.
"Chapter II.-Membership, admission and exclusion.
"Art. 4. The Catholic Union of Printing and Book Binding Workers of Quebec is composed of an unlimited number of members ;
"Art. 5. To become a member of the C.U. of P. and B.W. one must:
"1.-Be an active Catholic.
"2.-Be at least 18 years old; follow (as linotype machine operator, case worker, pressman, feeder, binder, finisher and ruler) the printing or book binding trade since at least five years, or that of stereotyper since at least three years and hold a certificate of competency (as journeyman) delivered by the Union itself.
"All those who, being 16 years old have followed the printing or book binding trade for at least two years, may also be members of the Union, but as apprentices and without having any right to vote at meetings, if they otherwise fulfil the other conditions of admission.
"3.-Belong to no secret society or any organization the principles, tendencies and spirit of which do not agree with those of the union.
''Chapter III.-Executive Committee, Council, General Assembly.
"Art. 8. The- Union is directed and administered by an Executive Committee, a Council, and a General Assembly of members.
"Art. 9. The executive committee is composed of the President, Vice-President-or in his absence the Assistant Secretary and the Treasurer of the Union, elected in February of each year and re-eligible at the expiration of their term of office, by the General Assembly of members of the Union, and the Chaplain of the Union, appointed by His Grace the Archbishop of Quebec.
"11. The Executive Committee is directed to administer the property of the Union, to dispatch daily and routine business, and to carry out the decision of the General Assembly, to the direction of which it remains subject and to which it gives an account of its operations and conduct. It is its duty to call regular meetings, or, if need be, special meetings of the Council and General Assembly and to settle itself all matters relating to such calls.
"III.-The Executive Committee, meets once a week at the place, date and hour fixed by itself. As to special meetings of the General Assembly the President of the Union shall call them if four members of the Union request him in writing to do so.
"Art. 19. The Council is composed of the members of the Executive Committee and three Councillors elected in February of each year, and re-eligible at the expiration of their term of office by the General Assembly of members.
"The Council has all the powers necessary for the direction of the management of the affairs of the Union in particular:
"It admits, refuses, or excludes members, after consulting the General Assembly.
''It settles all matters in connection with the enforcement of the by-laws of the Union and the putting into practice of the principles which the Union recognizes as governing its action.
"Art 12. The Chaplain is appointed by His Grace the Archbishop of Quebec. He is a member of the Executive Committee, Council, and General Assembly. He takes part in all debates but does not vote. He may, however, require that any resolution be submitted to the Archbishop of Quebec and approved by him before taking effect, and any resolution adopted dur-
[Stage Direction]
ing his absence must be communicated to him before being carried1 out."
The apprenticeship by-laws provide that:
'T. The selection of apprentices belongs to the employer, and no one shall be allowed, without his consent, to work in printing and book binding shops ;
"2. All apprentices shall be at least 14 years of age and must have shown a sufficient knowledge of the French language to the satisfaction of both the employer and the union."
The foregoing clearly shows that the purpose is Church control of an organization of industrial workers. Note that no resolution can pass or be adopted without the chaplain's consent, who will in turn-if he is in doubt-submit same to the bishop, whose decision is final, regardless of the wishes of the membership. Note too that apprenticeship is required, and that the applicant must have the endorsation of the union as to his ability to speak French. No Protestant, and no Catholic connected with any other organization of workmen is eligible for membership. Why? Obviously because they cannot be satisfactorily controlled by the Church authorities.
May I relate just two instances of how the application of the National Catholic Union principles work out. During 1919 the Department of Labour received a complaint that it was difficult, if not impossible, for any but National Ca/tholic Union members to get employment in the Davies shipyards at Lauzon. It was also observed that the dry dock operated by that company was built with public money and protested vigorously against Protestant or Catholics, not members of the National Catholic Union, being debarred from employment. On February 23rd, 1920, a French-Canadian Catholic filed complaint that two painters, members of the International Painters' Union, working on the Drill Hall at Quebec City, were dismissed by the contractors because they would not join the National Catholic Union. The complaint stated this was the second instance of discrimination against them. Briefly stated, the conflict arises because of the determination of Church authorities to autocratically control industry and industrial workers, discriminating against those who do not bow to their dictation.
To such a policy the present Minister of Labour will never subscribe ; Mr. Lapointe does ; does The Montreal Gazette?
Finally, your paper supports Mr. Lapointe in his endorsation of the National Catholic Union request for representation at the conference of the National Industrial Council of building employers and workmen. I wonder why?
The Dominion Association of Building Contractors and the trade unions representing the building trades in Canada, did, in 1919, lay the foundation for active co-operation between employer and employee in that important industry. They have established local industrial councils in several large cities with a central or appeal court to which local disputes unadjusted may be referred. On the Central Council each interest has equal representation, but no chairman. Both interests asked the Department of Labour for its co-operation in providing an official of the department to act as convenor of and preside at the central council meetings, but without any voting power, his advice on questions under consideration being solicited by both. The development of the Co-

operative Industrial Council idea is growing and the object of the conference on May 3rd is to encourage it among those who have found it possible to work together in harmony. The delegates are being invited upon the nomination of the employers' and workmen's respective organizations. The National Catholic Union delegates would be gladly invited if the consent of the parties participating were obtained, but instead of approaching them the National Catholic Union make a demand on the Labour Department to force representation for them, which request was declined. Why did the National Catholic Union make this request instead of seeking to co-operate with the two parties in* terested? One reason is because in January 1919, it issued a statement from Quebec, which reads in part as follows:
"The National Central Trades Council of the District of Quebec assumes it its duty, under the present circumstances, to make the following statements:
"1. This Council represents in Quebec the national and Catholic labour movement. It voluntarily assumes responsibility for its own decisions and measures, but it has nothing to do with other labour groups whose principles, claims and programmes are not entirely its own.
"The National Central Trades Council of the District of Quebec is, moreover, absolutely a stranger to all the doings of the Uabour party' of the Province of Quebec, and has no relation whatever with either the 'Trades and Labour Congress of Canada' or the Trades and Labour Council of Montreal.
"The National Central Trades Council of the District of Quebec is autonomous, of a national spirit, distinctly Catholic."
. Having voluntarily cut themselves off from intercourse with all other labour bodies, knowing the impossibility of securing any recognition or co-operation from them, the National Catholic Union now demands that the Department of Labour force their unwelcome presence upon this conference, the only possible effect of which would be to destroy its usefulness. They knew the department could not lend itself to such a proposal, therefore a good opportunity presented itself for Mr. Lapointe to endorse a project calculated to provoke discord and, at the same time, blame the Government for it, and you lent the support of your paper to the trick.
I hope you will give this letter the same publicity as your editorial received.

[Stage Direction]
Minister of Labour.
Ottawa, March 27, 1921.
Mr. EDWARDS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour has at least the support of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards).


William Cameron Edwards: He has.


Ernest Lapointe: and what was the occasion for the attack upon the catholicity of the National Catholic Unions? That attack was made and has been repeated by the Minister of Labour as minister, and the Government should either repudiate it or take the responsibility for it.
When this letter and that article appeared in the Gazette, I referred to the 'natter in the House, and as I wish to quote exactly the facts of the matter, I quote here what I then said:


Ernest Lapointe: Before you proceed with this item, Sir, the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) said last night that he intended to proceed with the Estimates of the Labour Department to-day. The Estimates of that department have not been taken up previously, and I will object to their being proceeded with to-day. Before we proceed with the Estimates of the Labour Department, I have a few remarks to make about the hon. gentleman who I presides over that department and about certain matters concerning it.
Then there was a meeting of the trades council in Ottawa, at which Mr. Moore, the president of the Trades and Labour Congress, and Mr. P. M. Draper, of that association, delivered speeches. The report of this meeting appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of April 2, 1921. I shall quote only a few words of what Mr. Moore said:
Attempted Supercession
"As long as the leaders of that movement confined their operations to their own province, we were not interested," said Tom Moore, "hut ' we find that the National Catholic Union seeks to supersede the International Trades Union at the Dominion Industrial Conference. It attempted to do this a year ago, and is again renewing the attempt. To the everlasting credit of the Hon. Senator Gideon Robertson, Minister of Labour, he has held that religion shall not be mixed up with the labour movement. Because of this Mr. Lapointe, the member for Kamouraska, has announced his intention of taking the Minister of Labour to task on the floor of Parliament, and has said that he will challenge the Estimates of the Labour Department, in order to hold up the appropriation for the industrial conference, and force the Government' to recede from the stand it has taken on this question."
Mr. P. M. Draper spoke as follows:
"Politicians have been guilty in the past of dividing our people on religious grounds in order to attain the seats of the mighty, but we don't want any of this kind of thing in our movement. We must send good men speaking both languages through Quebec to show them the issue underlying this dangerous movement, and I think when they understand they will tell their clergy, "You had better confine your attentions to our spiritual affairs, and leave us to look after our own business.' "
At that meeting a resolution was passed, a copy of which was sent to the members of the districts surrounding the city of Ottawa. I shall read one of its clauses:

Whereas this Trades Council, appreciating the danger to the International Trade Union movement and the organized workers of this country, should the Minister of Labour be overruled in his correct attitude to the non-recognition of any factional or religious movement in coming Building Trades Conference or any other Government committee or commission-
Therefore this Council declares its full commendation of the position taken by the Minister of Labour, etc.
In justice to the National Labour Unions, I desire to read a very short interview given by one of its officers, which appeared in all the Canadian newspapers yesterday. It was dispatched by the Canadian Associated Press and reads in part:
Quebec, April 3.-The National Catholic Unions have known for a long time the sentiments of the Minister of Labour towards them, but they wished to ascertain the reasons for his attitude, said Abbe M. Fortin, general almoner of the unions, in an interview to-day. "The minister made known the reasons for his attitude at the Interview we recently had with him in Ottawa and in his letter published in the press," added the abbe.
"The Minister of Labour continues to mix into matters that do not concern him," he continued. "Instead of giving a serious answer to the demands made by us at Ottawa he persists in entering into a discussion of a question, which as minister of the crown he should leave alone.
"We did not go to Ottawa to ask the minister's approbation for our unions and we do not see the necessity of knowing whether or not the principles of the National Catholic Unions please him or not. As Minister of Labour he has only to enquire whether or not our unions menace the public interest. He has, however, carefully avoided putting such a question as, during the past five years, the National Catholic Unions have been the ones which have contributed most to the maintenance of public order."
Refering to Senator Robertson's contention in his letter to the press that the church through the priests attached to the unions controlled the deliberations and policies of the unions Abbe Fortin said that the function of the almoners was to prevent the workers in the course of their deliberations, from breaking the doctrines of the church. "The Catholic workers like the others," he added, "deliberate freely and make whatever decisions seem good to them. The function of the almoners is that of councillors and not controllers."
My comments, Mr. Speaker, shall be few. I am not a member either of the National or of the International Labour Union. I am a friend of labour, especially of organized labour, and have endeavoured in my public career to acquaint myself with the various labour problems and the claims of labour, and the remarks I intend to make shall be imbued with a spirit of goodwill for the cause and the interests of labour. The argument I desire to offer I shall try to base entirely upon principles of justice and fairness, upon principles which must appeal to all men irrespective of their

creeds, their opinions, and their personal differences, and even to those belonging to either of the two labour bodies which are the cause of the present difficulty. We have in Canada a Department of Labour that was created by legislation of this Parliament about fifteen years ago. (My hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) informs me that it is twenty years ago.) The duties and the work of the Department of Labour are prescribed by various statutes of this country. The department must work in such a manner as will ensure peace in the field of industrial activity. In various statutes relating to the department is a reference to unions and trade unions, and I may refer especially to the Industrial Disputes Act, which provides that when either the employer or a labour or trades union appeals to the minister regarding labour difficulties, a board of arbitration shall be appointed to settle the question at issue. The Minister of Labour is entrusted with the high and important duty of assisting in the maintenance of industrial peace in this country, and he must see that there is harmony as between employers and employees as well as among employees themselves. The very nature of his functions obliges him to be fair and impartial in his dealings with all sections of labour. If,-owing to lack of vision, narrowness of mind, bias, or otherwise,-he cannot be fair and impartial, his usefulness is gone and he is only a cause of trouble and discontent. When reference is made, in the statutes that I have just quoted, to "Labour Union" it is never said that it must be an International Union. It is not specified what sort of a union it has to be in order to get recognition from the Government or the Department of Labour. In none of these statutes can you see any proviso that such union has to be affiliated with the Trades and Labour Congress, or whether it has to recognize the jurisdiction of the American Federation of Labour. I do not wish to express any preference as regards the International Union to which the Minister of Labour belongs, or the National Unions which he has fulminated against. Both organizations have a valuable and most important work to perform, both have a large field of activity, both have the right to existence and recognition; and I shall not fall into the mistake which has been committed by the Minister of Labour of assailing or abusing either of these two labour bodies. I shall willingly go as far as to admit that personally
the Minister of Labour is quite entitled to prefer the International Union to the other; but I say tfcat in his public capacity, acting as the head of the Department of Labour, he has no right to discriminate against either union and to refuse to give it, in all his dealings with labour, proper and effective recognition, proportionate to its membership. Freedom of association is not a privilege which any Minister of Labour can destroy. Trade unionism is a natural and normal development in the field of industry. The working man when left alone, struggling single handed and individually, was in a painful state of inferiority in dealings with the industrial owner. He Was frequently forced, on account of his weakness, to accept unfair conditions and unjust terms. Trades unionism has raised the standard of labour. Its aims are to realize for the working man a higher scale. It attempts to improve not only the material but also the moral, social and spiritual conditions of the members who compose it. It works not merely for the sake of mere life, it exists for the sake of good life. It is, indeed, a sort of mutual insurance body working for the betterment of the social and moral as well as the material conditions of the working man.
. Now, Sir, in the realization of that ideal there are people who believe that religion has an important part to play. Others think that religion should be wholly ignored by, and excluded from, all that concerns labour associations. Some people believe that religion is a force in determining sociological work; that it is religious spirit which, more than anything else, teaches a man that his service must not only be for himself but for humanity-that he must view problems and difficulties in more than material aspects. They believe that religion and sociology are co-forces working in harmony both determining the destiny of man, and surely it is not a crime to believe in such association. Others believe that all labour unions should be absolutely neutral and purely business associations, and that they will achieve their end more successfully by remaining so; and they have the right to believe so, their opinion is entitled to respect. But, Sir, neither the advocates of the first nor those of the second system have the right to force their view upon the others, nor to impose their preference upon those who honestly differ from them in this most important problem. Even the Department of Labour, under its present head, has preached a doctrine different from that expounded now by the minister.

I hold in my hand a pamphlet issued by the Department of Labour entitled "Information Respecting the Russian Soviet System and its Propaganda in North America" in which it is said, on page 18:
The National Catholic Unions are located in the Province of Quebec and are very antisocialist.
It is not that phrase I want to refer to, but another one on the same page which reads as follows:
Trade Unions which retain within their ranks men who use their membership to "bore from within," and destroy instead of support, are assuming a serious responsibility and risk. There is unquestionably need of an opportunity for work by the Christian Churches of every denomination.
So the Minister of Labour himself was inviting the co-operation of the Church. I do not desire to say a word as to the merits or demrits of the existing unions. I merely claim that so long as they exist side by side, so long as they are lawful organizations working for industrial peace in the land, they are both entitled to recognition from the Government, and the Minister of Labour has no right to side officially with one against the other, and to attack and grossly misrepresent either, as he has done in the case which I am now discussing. Our constitution guarantees equally to each citizen the protection of the law. Sir, the trade unions have had to fight for a great many years, and in some instances are still fighting, for existence and recognition. Why should the old ones try to kill the new ones? They are both tending towards the same goal, but believe in different agencies and methods of action.
The Canadian doctrine is, equality of rights under the law. When a man appeals for his rights he appeals to the principle of right, and what he appeals to for himself he must recognize as equally good in regard to others. Hence he is under a moral obligation to recognize the rights of others. The man who asks for "my" rights does not ask for them because they are his rights exclusively. When a man asks for his rights and gets them, and then because he is stronger than another man refuses to him the rights which he has claimed for himself, it is not right but might that is triumphant.
On February 21 and 22, 1921, a conference of employers and employees was held in Ottawa, and a report of that conference has been published by the Department of Labour under the title: Report of the Conference on Industrial Relations. In that report I find this passage in a speech de-

livered by the Minister of Labour, which I would commend to him if he were a member of this House. It will be found on page 58 of that report:
1 do not think any employer in this country questions a man's right to be a member of any fraternal soceity or church, and I think there are very few who even ask an employee whether he is a member of a trades union or not; but I think there is a tendency on the part of some employers to refrain from dealing with their workmen through their unions.
And he pleads with the employer for the recognition of those unions. How can the Minister of Labour reconcile that appeal with his own attitude with regard to the National Labour Union? I believe in selfdetermination in labour organization as in any other fields of activity. Workingmen have a right to honestly differ as to the character, the programme, and the activities of the associations which they clesire to form or join.
I have referred to the religious element of the question, but there are other points of difference. I have here the platform of the Trades and Labour Congress as published in the Ninth Annual Report of the labour organizations for the calendar year 1919. In that platform there are many planks which, of course, every one is entitled to support. I wish to refer especially to a few of them. The first is free compulsory education; the second is the legal working days of six hours, and six days to a week; the third is government inspection of all industries ; and so on. The eighth is abolition of the Dominion Senate. Well, it is a piece of humour that the Minister of Labour should be a member of the Senate-when one of the planks of the Trades and Labour Congress is the abolition of the Senate. Article 15 of the platform calls for direct legislation through the initiative and referendum. And so on. But there is more than that. I see in the same report of the Department of Labour that prior to 1902 there were national unions in the province of Quebec which were affiliated with the Trades and Labour Congress, but they were expelled from the congress. Here is what the report says on page 42:
As has been reported in previous departmental annual reviews of labour organizations in Canada, the majority of the independent labour units in the Dominion were to be found in the province of Quebec, and principally in the city of the same name. Some of the older national unions of Quebec were at one time affiliated with the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, but by an amendment to the constitution in 1902, the congress denied recognition to national unions where international organizations of the same craft existed. This decision also deprived the

national unions from representation on trades councils chartered by the congress.
I see on page 131 that this article still exists in the constitution of the congress. Part of section 2 reads as follows:
Further, no national union or local unions comprising said national unions shall he entitled to membership in this congress when there is in existence an international union of their craft, nor shall any local union attached to a national body separated from their international organization, or any organization which has been expelled or rejected by the American Federation of Labour, be entitled to delegates in any central body chartered by this congress.
So, Mr. Speaker, apart altogether from the religious point of view, and purely from the national standpoint, all working men who do not believe in some of the planks of the Trades and Labour Congress, or indeed a subordination of their unions to the American Federation of Labour-and surely they are entitled to their opinion in that respect-have no alternative but to join an independent union, and the Minister of Labour and the Government have no right to interfere with the exercise of their discretion in the matter. On the other hand, those workingmen who believe that the larger organization is safer and more powerful for the protection of their rights and interests are entitled to their opinion also, and no Government or department of labour should interfere with them.
Now, Sir, the Minister of Labour has set forth the argument that he was governed by a clause of the labour agreement and the Peace Treaty concerning the International Labour Conference, to which each party to the League of Nations would send four representatives, and that two of those representatives would be appointed by each government, the two other representatives being appointed one to represent labour and the other to represent employers. He states there is a disposition that provides that the choice of the representatives of labour and of employers will be made by the organizations, when such exist in the country, which are most representative of the workingmen or of the employers. Well, that is no argument at all. At the International Labour Conference the representation of labour and of the employers was limited to one delegate each. I agree that it was the fairest method of choosing delegates at that conference to let the most powerful labour organization, or the one whose members were more numerous, choose the delegate for Labour, and to let the most representative of employers' organizations choose the representative of the employers. But is that a
reason to deny recognition to the other labour unions at conferences where labour is represented by ten, twenty, or fifty delegates? Is that a reason to give to one labour union full control of the representation of labour at all conferences?
I have here the Labour Gazette of November, 1920, a publication issued by the Labour Department, in which there is an article with regard to the Industrial Council in Belgium, exactly the same kind of body as that which is going to sit in Ottawa in the month of May next. On page 1508 of this issue of the Labour Gazette,
I find the following with reference to the Council of Mines, a most important industrial council of Belgium:
The workers' representatives are appointed by the two industrial unions in proportion to their membership, the socialist union having eight and the Christian Roman Catholic union having two.
It is not only in Belgium that such unions are recognized. They are recognized in Ireland; they are recognized in Italy. No department of labour in any other country thinks of interfering with or denying existence or recognition to a particular branch of trade unionism. What is the purpose of a joint industrial council? I have here another report of the Department of Labour on the Industrial Councils, on page 31 of which I find what I consider to be the best definition of the duties of a joint industrial council. It is as follows:
First, to secure the largest possible measure of joint action between employers and work people for the development of the industry as a part of national life and for the improvement of the conditions of all engaged In that industry.
To make a joint industrial council successful it must represent as far as possible all the parties interested in that particular trade; there must be a fair representation of .all the interests concerned if their decrees are to command willing and general assent. Each section has its own interests, slightly or greatly diverging from the interests of the other section. If consultation, joint conferences-indeed, self-government in industry-are to grow, it will be necessary that all separate interests have their fair share of representation, and it should be the business of Parliament to see that they get it.
Now, I think every member of the House will agree that any man of impartial mind presiding over the Department of Labour, any man qualified to fill that important office, instead of trying to crush and abuse any of the labour bodies of Canada, should

try to use some tact and diplomacy with the view of getting: them together to cause them to co-operate with each other instead of being divided against each other. And when, Mr. Speaker, the officers of one of the unions which are excluded from government conferences or commissions go to the Minister of Labour and say:	We are
ready to co-operate with you and with the other labour bodies in Canada; we want to attend the conference; if our numbers entitle us to only one or two or three delegates, give us one or two or three that is all, we want to work with our brethern in the other labour associations-when they say that, the Minister of Labour should not tell them:	The others refuse to go with
you; the others will refuse to sit with you at any conference. But the minister did say that, and he approved of that attitude. I repeat that it should be the duty of the Minister of Labour to get these unions together, not to divide them, because it is only through co-operation at these conferences that all may get together and work for industrial peace and harmony in this country.
With regard to the statement of Mr. Moore that I said in the House that I wanted to prevent the adoption of the Estimates, of the Department of Labour, the Estimates to cover the expenses of the coming conference, in saying that, he deceived his hearers at that time, as the House well knows. I never said anything of the kind. It is not my purpose to try to prevent the holding of that conference. I believe in joint industrial councils in Canada, and I want this conference to proceed. I shall vote gladly for the appropriation of the amounts necessary to the holding of that conference. All I ask is that it be more representative. I admit that it is late to change what has been done, but I wish to lay down a principle to this House: what I ask is representation of all labour, especially of all organized labour, all labour belonging to any union, at all labour conferences held in this country.
I have endeavoured, Sir, to put the situation clearly before the House. Is there anything in it which justifies the strong words employed by the Minister of Labour and the denunciation which he made, speaking for the Government? for he took the trouble to say that he was speaking for the Government. Was there any political trick on my part on agreeing to introduce to the minister the officers of the National Union, not even knowing what resolutions they were going to submit to him? Did
[Mr. Lapointe.}
the Government support the Minister of Labour in this attitude? They are, of course, responsible for his words and actions. Moreover, the Minister of Labour stands high in the councils of the Government. I have in my hand the Labour Gazette of October 20, in which is reported a speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) before the Trades and Labour Congress at Windsor. The Prime Minister is reported at page 1333, to have said speaking of the Government:
It has taken from the ranks of organized labour a vice-president of one of its largest organizations and has given him Cabinet rank. Never has a Labour Minister in Canada been accorded a more generous confidence from his colleagues and a freer hand in the administration of labour problems than has Senator Gideon Robertson. There is no department that requires ability of a higher type. A practical labour man, for the first time in our history, has been in charge, and after two years' trial I believe the almost universal feeling of Canada is that he has discharged his task with admirable fairness and with extraordinary capacity. He has done honour to the ranks from which he came and has compelled the confidence of men and women of every class.
Senator Robertson's policy has been to work in co-operation with responsible labour organizations and with organizations of employers as well.
Surely my right hon. friend did not know at that time the attitude of the Minister of Labour with regard to the National Labour Union which I should consider, and I think he should consider, to be a responsible labour organization.
The two other members of the triumvirate, Robertson, Moore and Draper, in making the statements they made, utterly misrepresented the facts. When Mr. Moore stated, in the speech which I have mentioned, that the National Union came to Ottawa and asked that it supersede the International Union at the conference and before the Government, he stated what was absolutely untrue. When the National Union asked for one member or two members at that conference out of a membership of thirty, was that a demand for superseding the International Union? Let me tell Mr. Moore that it is only a question of justice that I am defending now, and when National Unions want to supersede International Union, as he says, I shall be behind Mr. Moore, or perhaps a little ahead of him, to defend the rights of the International Union. It is no wonder, when such statements and speeches are made, that resolutions may be passed at those meetings; but those who voted for those resolutions are not acquainted with the facts; they are being deceived, as the hearers

of Mr. Moore were deceived when they passed that resolution.
The attitude of Mr. Moore and Mr. Draper may be quite comprehensible. They are not few in Canada, especially in the ranks of labour, of international labour at that, who believe that Messrs. Robertson, Moore and Draper are ruling labour in an autocratic manner and desire to perpetuate by all means their domination and arbitrary methods. Either one or the other is, a member of some commission or committee or board, and they do not relish the idea that some one else from some other organization should be recognized and should have a share of influence. This condition is not to the personal disadvantage of these gentlemen. They are travelling extensively at the expense of the country. Volume 2 of the Auditor General's Report shows that Mr, Moore, during the last fiscal year, has been a recipient of public money on a large scale. At page M-15 of that report, I see with regard to the Industrial Relations Commission, the following item:
Tom Moore, Ottawa, commissioner; services, 69 days at $20 ; travelling expenses, $700, total, $2,080.
At page M-17, I see the following item:
International Labour Conference, Paris and Washington, Tom Moore, president, Trades and Labour Congress of Canada: subsistence allowance, 84 days at $20 ; travelling expenses and disbursements, $594.20 ; less allowance from International Labour Office for attendance at London meeting, $818.35; total, $1,455.85.
A little later on I see, with regard to the Washington conference, apart from a substantial amount received by my friend Mr. Draper:
Tom Moore, $614.43.
Thus members of the House will see that Mr. Moore, apart from his salary as president of the Trades and Labour Congress, is receiving a fine share of the public money of this country, and it is not surprising that he wants to keep as much as possible for himself the hen that lays the golden eggs.
As regards Mr. Draper, everybody knows that, besides being an employee of this Government with a good salary-and I am told that he got a promotion after the Windsor meeting of the Trades and Labour Congress of last fall-Mr. Draper travels extensively throughout the world as representative of labour appointed by the department, and he has been receiving a fair share of public money. In that connection, I am not sure whether it is quite proper that an employee of the Government should act in that dual capacity. I am not alone in suggesting
that. I read in a very important British Review, the New Statesmen of February 5, 1921, at page 526:
At one time it looked as if the Labour party might play a notable part in the evolution now in process, but it is rent by internal quarrels and its leadership is miserably ineffective. Mr. Tom Moore, the president of the Trades and Labour Congress, has many good qualities, but lacks vigorous initiative and belief in the efficacy of political action. However, the prime source of weakness of the Labour movement lies in the fact that his second-in-command, the secretary of the congress, holds a fat civil service position in Ottawa.
I know that there are many in the Labour movement who do not like this condition of things. In the Toronto Globe of September 15, 1920, I find a report on the deliberations of the Trades and Labour Congress from which I take the following excerpt :
President Tom Moore refused to accept a resolution from delegates of the Toronto Labour Council to-day, when the convention opened, which called for the appointment of a special committe to investigate the disposition of $50,000 which Allan Barker, former president of the International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, is said to have sent Mr. Draper to use to fight radical propaganda in Canada. The few radicals who are in the convention had hoped to make capital out of the charge.
"I shall have to rule this out of order," said President Moore. "First, because it carries with it a veiled insinuation. If this were sent broadcast over the country it would give the impression that a charge was pending against Mr. Draper. Then, we have been advised by the [DOT] maintenance of way employees that their internal affairs should not be discussed by the Congress. It says that there can be no charge against Mr. Draper and that it is satisfied with his conduct."
Mr. Barker is charged with the misappropriation of funds of the brotherhood and his case will be heard shortly in Detroit.
It was said in the evidence at the trial that $50,000 of the funds of that association had been sent to Mr. P. M. Draper to fight radical propaganda. There are many in the Labour movement who believe that Mr. Draper and his friends thought that the best way to fight radical propaganda was to use those funds to insure their re-election as president and secretary of the Trades and Labour Congress.
As to the Minister of Labour, I shall have very little to say. I shall not even attempt to correct his misrepresentations with regard to myself. I can claim that I am fully as good a friend of Labour as he is. We both have had our hour of trial. When Senator Robertson was in Winnipeg at the time of the great strike, siding openly with the employers, and taking the

humiliating step of sending a frantic appeal to Samuel Gompers, the 5 p.m. head of the American Federation of Labour, to come and settle the difficulty out there, I was here on the floor of the House defending the rights of Labour to collective bargaining. When the Canadian National Railway Company was organized I took the responsibility of presenting the claims of Labour to representation on the Board of Directors, and the Government opposed my request with the implicit support and on the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. I desire to say as firmly as I can that by the attitude which the Minister of Labour has taken in the question I have been discussing, he has demonstrated that he is utterly unfit and entirely disqualified to occupy the high position of Minister of Labour in Canada. A Minister of Labour must be practicable in his plans, logical in his arguments, and absolutely fair and consistent in his undertakings. Above all, he must be impartial in his dealings with all sections of labour, organized and unorganized; all workmen must be equal before his department. The present Minister of Labour has proven that he lacks these elementary qualifications. He has shown himself devoid of the gift of tact, devoid of that broadmindedness and diplomacy which are necessary to achieve success in his department. Indeed, he has exhibited a deplorable lack of common sense. I have been told by people who are friendly to him that he did not realize the full extent of the responsibility he had as Minister of Labour, and I am fair enough to believe that that is true. But, Sir, that is no reason for keeping him there; it is no reason for the Government taking responsibility for his actions. I am sure that his actions in that respect are caused less by ill-will than

Mr. Speaker, I should like to use a polite substitute for the word ignorance.
That is all I have to say to-day. In closing my remarks I repeat what I have already said, that I base my arguments only and solely on the principle of justice, believing in the righteousness of the cause which I have defended, and believing that that is all-sufficient in the eyes of a population who love justice.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the subject on
which the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has treated the House to quite a lengthy speech is one that most of us, in some of its features, would like to 
have introduced in Parliament as seldom as possible. It has not always proved practicable that it be wholly excluded from discussion in this chamber, and all that one can ask when such discussions must come, is that they be conducted with temper and moderation, and with scrupulous regard for the feelings of one's opponents.
The hon. member for Quebec East has sought to impugn, though his conclusions did not take the form of any resolution or amendment, the general administration for the Minister of Labour, and the basis of his charge is the conduct of that minister in relation to a certain application made by officers of a Catholic union in Canada for representation at a conference to be held in Ottawa next month. With a skill which undoubtedly the hon. member has developed to quite a height, he has succeeded most triumphantly in confusing the issue by a long statement of utterly impregnable principles, all the while assuming that one or other of these principles had been flagrantly violated by the minister. A more exact, careful and complete recital of the real circumstances in order to lay before Parliament just what the minister did, under what circumstances he acted and why he gave the decision that he did, would, I think, have been more appropriate than many of the lengthy extracts which the hon. member read.
Possibly a brief review of the Labour situation in Canada may be necessary to a full understanding of this matter. I do not pretend that I can speak with the amplitude of detail, or perhaps with the firmness of confidence in my facts that others could, hut if I am wrong, I ask to be corrected on the spot.
Labour organizations in Canada have existed almost since the Confederation of Canada. We have here members of international unions in very large numbers, and we have numbers of unions that are wholly ' Canadian. These, for the most part, are represented in what is known as the Trades and Labour Congress, which is a congress of Canadian representatives of these unions created for the purpose of watching and, to the best of their capacity, influencing legislation along lines they believe to be in their interests. There has grown up also since 1911 what are known as National Catholic Unions, confined, so far as I know, to the province of Quebec, unions composed wholly of catholics and adopting constitutions differing, in this respect, entirely from those adopted by other unions. These have reached considerable numbers

in that province. The constitution adopted by one of these unions is quoted in the letter of the Minister of Labour, read by the hon. member when he presented his case.	i
Now, those unions which are represented in the Trades and Labour Congress are constituted on what is known as the craft basis; that is to say, all the members of a craft join together for union purposes, for the sake of advancing their interests, and for wide co-operative objects. There is within these unions no distinction of race, religion, or anything else; the only basis of union is occupation in a craft. All are treated alike and have the same rights. The National Catholic Unions in the province of Quebec have been organized along different lines. I do not say that it was not their right so to do; I have not the least doubt that it was quite legal. At all events, they have organized along different lines and are in no way associated with the unions that form part of the Trades and Labour Congress. They have indeed taken the position, as set out in the letter quoted by the hon. member, that they have no relation to, and nothing to do with, the unions that are reflected and represented in the Trades and Labour Congress, nor with the Trades and Labour Congress itself. That position also is within their right, and there is no need to take exception to it, for it has nothing to do with the arguments and the facts before the House to-day. I stated that the National Catholic Unions sprang up in 1911. They have grown in numbers until in 1920 their strength, I believe, is claimed to be 39,712. They embrace many persons who could not be properly described as workmen. Many of these unions are really not, in the strict sense, labour unions, although a great many others are. Some of them consist of what are known as research clubs; I have the names of one or two, such as "The Pius X Research Club, of Levis," and "The Leo XIII Research Club, of Quebec"; and others. Of that 39,712, I understand only about 700 are actually engaged in the building trades.
The Trades and Labour Congress, of course, represents some hundreds of thousands. If my recollection of the memorandum presented me is correct, the members of the unions in the Trades and Labour Congress from the the province of Quebec total 89,000 or 90,000. While I do not think it matters as to the religious denominations of these 90,000 men in the Province of
Quebec who are in unions represented in the Trades and Labour Congress, it must be manifest to all who know anything of that Province that by that by far a larger number of catholics will be in those unions than could be in the catholic unions, whose total membership is only 39,000. Consequently, it will be difficult to argue that, while an attitude might be unfair to one or other, a preference for either on the part of the present Minister of Labour must necessarily arise from any narrow or anti-catholic impulse. No one who knows that minister would for a moment suppose that he is capable of being animated by any such feeling. The one motive that actuates him most is a real sympathy for Labour, particularly for Canadian labour and union labour. That is what is deepest in his heart,-a desire to advance the interests of all labour in this country, and his sympathies are strongly with the workers of our country, tempered, of course, by a spirit of fairness and a loftiness of view that well comport with his position and that have been, in the years he has occupied his present office,-yes, and for years before,-of inestimable service to this country.
That being the general labour position, how does it come about that the present difficulty arises? I have set out that the Catholic unions exist; I have set out that the other unions also exist; and I have shown the distinction that obtains between the two. Now, I would never for a moment argue from that state of facts that there could be taken up on the part of the Government of this country, or of the Labour Department, a position which denied recognition to the one or the other. That is obviously an impossible position for the Government or the Labour Department to take. Nor has that department been guilty of refusing recognition to either. I .purpose reciting the facts to show the truth of what I assert; many of the facts and some of the correspondence which he overloked might well have been submitted by the hon. member; but they would never at all have agreed with the conclusion at which he arrived, that there was failure on the part of the minister of any general recognition, or indeed of any specific recognition, that could, on logical grounds have been requested. What was the recognition asked for? It was in this respect, I think, that the hon. gentleman erred most. I think he led the House to believe that the officers of the Federation of National Catholic Unions

came to Ottawa, accompanied by himself, to make	a	general	request
for recognition, as he put it, on all commissions and, I think he said, on conferences appointed by the Government. If they came for purposes that were reasonable they would not have been denied. If they came for recognition in respect of anything they could fairly claim to be represented in they would not have been denied. What they specifically came for was this: A conference had been called on the part of two parties to an agreement. Now who were those parties? There has grown up in Canada, on the one hand, an organization known as the Federal Association of Building Trades, composed of various unions in different parts of Canada, who have got together, for purposes that I shall set out. On the other hand there has grown up an organization known as the Federal Association of Builders and Contractors-that is to say an association of the employers who employ the men-aggregated together in the other associations. An agreement was made some time ago between these two parties and out of that agreement real results have come. These results have been chiefly along the line of the establishment of Industrial Councils, at specific points through the country, between the employees in the building trades on the one hand- members of the General Association-and the employers members of the Employers' Association, on the other. There has evolved as well what you might call a Central Industrial Council-I think they call it an Industrial Conference'-composed of five who are named by the various employees organizations, parties to the agreement on the one hand, and of five more named by the employers' organization, parties to the agreement on the other hand. Now it was desired by the two parties to that agreement that a conference should be held, in the belief that difficulties that might loom up in the future, ana that they saw on the horizon, might be solved and smoothed away, and in the belief, I understand, that it would promote the further establishment and further usefulness of these Industrial Councils. That was the conference that was asked by these men-organized on the one hand, by the employees; organized by the employers on the other. Does any hon. gentleman know why that conference should not have been held? Does any hon. member know why these parties to a distinct individual agreement should be denied the right of having representatives come together for the purpose of ex-
changing their views? Does any hon. member know why the Minister of Labour should not have acquiesced in the demand for the assistance of his department when the parties came together for the purpose of calling that conference? If no one knows of any such reasons then there can be no criticism of the Minister of Labour.
What was the assistance asked of the Department of Labour? Was it that the minister should name the parties of either side to come to the conference? No, it was merely this-that in the case of this conference of the two parties to the agreement in question he should send the invitations to their nominees, and that he himself, or some officer of his department, should preside at the conference when held -the conference called for the 3rd of May. When matters were in that position a delegation came from the Federation of National Catholic Unions-those 39,000 people odd, of whom only 700 odd were in the building trades and none of whom were in the organizations represented by the employers who were a party to the agreement, and certainly none of whom were members of the employers' organization which constituted the second party to the agreement. They came down, and they came down accompanied by the hon. member for Quebec East. It was not the first time the members of this organization had come, but whenever they came they were welcome. I will read in a little while something that took place at a previous meeting between the representatives of the National Catholic Unions and the Minister of Labour. I will quote the verbatim report of what took place; and I say now that it will show to the hon. member for Quebec East and to every member of this House that the stand which the hon. member advocated looking to the smooth working together and co-operation of the Trades and Labour Congress on the one hand and of the Federation of Catholic Unions on the other-the stand which he says it is the great business of the Minister of Labour to take-is precisely the stand that the Minister of Labour did assume.


Ernest Lapointe: Not this year.


Arthur Meighen: The question is not up this year; that is not what they came down for. They came down accompanied by the member for Quebec East although they had with them before-I do not know just how to refer to the gentleman but I want to do so in a correct way-


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Chaplain.


Arthur Meighen: Yes the Chaplain,
Abbe Fortin. He was down in 1920 at the head of the delegation, but this time they required the member for Quebec East to introduce them. So the hon. member came with them to the Minister of Labour.


Ernest Lapointe: I suppose my right
hon. friend will take my word when I say I was invited to go there without at all knowing what the resolutions were going to be.


Arthur Meighen: I do not doubt that at all. What I said was the delegation brought the hon. member with them and he introduced them although they were accompanied by the gentleman who led them in 1920. That is the fact. I do not say the hon. member knew the purport of the resolutions; I accept his word instantly when he says he did not. Anyway he came with them, and I believe another member of this House came with them as well.


Ernest Lapointe: Was there any wrong in that?


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not say there was anything wrong. I would be the last to argue that it was wrong on the part of an hon. member to take advantage of every such occasion in his public life. Every hon. member wants to get behind him all the strength he can; I simply call attention to the grounds upon which he came. Now that is of interest when I go on a little further. I have stated the specific object for which they came. Did hon. members of this House get that to be the specific object from the speech of the hon. member? I do not think they did. The request of the delegation was denied by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Labour took this ground: How can I say to these people who have the right to make their own nominations, "You must see to it that somebody else comes to this conference between these two said parties to the said agreement; I won't allow you to have that conference unless you do"? Had he the right to take that ground? I think my hon. friend knows he had not, and must have known it, especially in view of the fact that of the delegation which he introduced, representing 39,000 odd people, only 700 odd were in the building trades, whereas the parties to the conference were wholly of the building trade. Yet in spite of that the delegation asked the Minister of Labour to take the situation strongly in hand and say to
these two parties to the agreement "You cannot get together unless the other parties come in as well." Was that a fair request to make? And after the Minister of Labour had stated his views, I am informed, and I am informed by the Minister of Labour himself, that the labour representatives present-those of the delegation who were themselves labouring people- did not take any exception to those views and that the opposition was first taken bv the hon. member for Quebec East himself,


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: Who says that?


Arthur Meighen: Labour.	The	Minister	of


Ernest Lapointe: The	Minister	of
Labour is stating an untruth when he			says
that.


Arthur Meighen: I had better repeat it so that it will be understood. My information from the minister is that the labour delegates there, those who were labouring people, did not take exception to his statement of the position when he refused to himself compel representation at the conference, but that the first to take exception was the hon. member for Quebec East.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I insist upon my right to have my word accepted by the right hon. gentleman. The Minister of Labour could not understand the men who were there, and I had to translate to him what they were saying.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The Prime
Minister has not refused to accept the statement of the hon. member. It is perfectly proper for the Prime Minister to state what the Minister of Labour said to him in respect to a certain occasion. What the hon. member has said in this House must be accepted. That is the rule of the House. His word is on record and will stand.


Arthur Meighen: Now we have reached that point of the argument. The Minister of Labour did not take the stand he did in relation to refusing the request on the ground that this was a Catholic union, or that he had any fault to find with it. He took his stand on the ground that I have stated-a ground that I humbly submit, is utterly unassailable. I cannot for the life of me see how he could possibly have taken any other stand. I say he did not take that stand on the ground that he had to treat differently the workingmen engaged



in the building trade who happened to be members of a union who were parties to the conference and members engaged in the same trade who happened to be members of the Catholic union; not at all. On the contrary he stated: This is a conference between these two parties to an agreement which they have a right to hold, and they have a right to determine the way in which they will hold that conference. They have determined how they will hold it, and I have no right to interfere, especially as the unions you represent are not building trades unions particularly but only to the extent of two per cent of your members. What followed from that? Instead of trying to discriminate in favour of one as against the other, he followed that statement with a letter, which the hon. member did not read. I have the letter before me and will read it now.
Mr. J. E. A. Pin,
270 rue de la Reine,
Quebec, Que.
I presume he is the secretary of the union or of the delegation.
Ottawa, Ont., March 29, 1921.
Dear Sir,- The proposals contained in the printed memorial and submitted by your delegation last week have been translated and are receiving consideration. One of the requests made referred to a conference to be held in Ottawa on May 3 next, and to be participated in by employers and representatives of labour parties to the National Builders Industrial Council agreement.
Parties to the agreement.
You will recall it was explained to your delegation that the delegates to this conference were not being selected or appointed by the Department of Labour, but at the request of the employers' and workmen's organizations, parties to the Industrial Council agreement, the department had agreed to invite the delegates whom the respective parties might nominate.
Upon the occasion of the visit of your delaga-tion it .was made clear to them that the department could not assume to force upon the employers' and employees organizations, parties to the Industrial Council agreement, the presence of outside organizations of either employers or workmen, but that if your organization would communicate directly with the parties who were participating in the conference and obtain their consent to your being represented, it would be the pleasure of the department to extend invitations to any members of your organization who might be nominated.
That is what he stated to the delegation. I do not think the hon. member quoted that.


Ernest Lapointe: He never said that.


Arthur Meighen: He did not state that?


Ernest Lapointe: No; and it is not in
the letter he wrote to the Montreal Gazette.
fMr. Meighen..]


Arthur Meighen: I think it is in that
letter. If so, I do not know where the hon. member will be then. But the Minister of Labour did not stop there. In his letter to this gentleman, who I think must be the secretary of the delegation, he also said:
Since then it has occurred to me that your people have perhaps overlooked the fact that the employers in the building industry who engage only National Catholic Union workers will not be present at the conference referred to. If in the opinion of your organization, and of the employers with whom your organization deals, it would be advisable to have a conference together, similar to the one to be held between employers and employees, members oi * the national building industrial council, it will be the pleasure of the Department of Labour to extend invitations, upon receipt of nominations, in exactly the same manner as is being done in the other case.
If a conference between the bui-lding contractors, who employ members of your organization only, and yourselves, is deemed desirable the department will be glad to co-operate with you in exactly the same manner as we are attempting to do with the other organizations of builders and workmen.
Now, I do not say that the hon. member ever had seen this letter before he spoke-


Mr. MURPHY:: Is the right hon. gentleman reading the whole letter or just extracts?,	.	'


Arthur Meighen: No, I have read the
whole letter. The latter part of the letter in which it is suggested that possibly the workmen in Mr. Pin's organization would like a similar conference with their employers, the minister does not claim to have stated to the delegates. He did tell them what is expressed in the first part, that if Mr. Pin's organization would obtain the consent of the parties interested to his organization being represented, he-(the minister)-would be glad to extend invitations,-in a word, if justice was being done by the parties to the conference, they who were not parties would be treated precisely the same even in relation to that conference. What more the Minister of Labour could do I am at a loss to understand.
Now the hon. member complains that the Minister of Labour has not taken the line of seeking to avoid friction between the Catholic unions and the unions incorporated in the Trades and Labour Congress. I say, on the contrary, that the minister has taken precisely that line, and has always taken it. He has felt that friction was bound to arise when organization took place along those lines. He has felt that it is better for labour to be all together, to present its case as one, not as two. He has

always tried to get them together but his efforts have not received much response, and I know he feels discouraged by the attitude of those whose cause the hon. member has espoused this afternoon.
Now let me read what took place a year ago at this meeting between the representatives of the Federation of National Catholic unions and the Minister of Labour. This is a verbatim report of what he said.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Would the
Prime Minister allow me to correct one impression before he proceeds? He has made reference to a letter which my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) is not supposed to have seen. As my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has realized, the speech of the member for Quebec East had reference to a letter from the Minister of Labour which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on March 31. It was dated at Ottawa on March 27. The letter which my right hon. friend has just read, and which he says the member for Quebec East possibly had not seen, is dated March 29, two days after the letter was sent to the Montreal Gazette which details the whole ground of the controversy.


Arthur Meighen: The minister wrote the letter on the 27th to the Montreal Gazette, and he wrote the letter to Mr. Pin on the 29th. The letter of the 27th could not embody the letter of the 29th.
A moment ago I was challenged by the hon. member when I quoted from the minister's letter of the 29th to Mr. Pin to the effect that he, the minister, had told the delegates that if they would obtain the consent of the parties to the conference he would be glad to extend to them invitations to this conference. The hon. member interrupted me to say that the minister had not said that at the delegation, and that what he had said at the delegation was in the Montreal Gazette. Very well. I read from the Montreal Gazette letter:
The delegates are being invited upon the nomination of the employers' and workmen's respective organizations. The National Catholic Union delegates would be gladly invited if the consent of the parties participating were obtained, but instead of approaching them the National Catholic Union make a demand on the Labour Department to force representation for them, which request was declined. Why did the National Cathoi/ic Union make this request instead of seeking to co-operate with the two parties interested ?
Then he gives the reason why in his opinion they did not.
104i


Ernest Lapointe: What about the other parts of the letter? That is not the only reason he gives.


Arthur Meighen: I know that, but the hon. member said he did not give this reason in the letter. The hon. member's interruption reminds me of the man charged with a crime who, faced with the testimony of witnesses who said they saw the offence committed, contended [DOT] that he could produce many hundreds who would swear that they did not see him commit the crime. I was about to read from the words of the minister at the conference in 1920. I do not really know what the name of the .conference was ; I assume it was just a delegation similar to this one. It was held on January 20, 1920. I observe that Rev. Father Fortin was present, because I see one or two remarks put in by him. These are the words of the minister:
If I may be permitted-and I hope you will not regard it as presumption on my part to call one or two things to your attention-
We will see how this displays a "narrow", "partisan" and "anti-Catholic" mind. It is the language of the Minister of Labour.


Ernest Lapointe: Where is that report?


Arthur Meighen: This is a verbatim
report, taken in shorthand. Does the hon. member dispute it?


Ernest Lapointe: Where?


Arthur Meighen: Here, where the conference took place.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend refer to the conference of this year?


Arthur Meighen: No, 1920. The minister said:
If I may be permitted-and I hope you will not regard it as presumption on my part- to call one or two things to your attention, for the consideration of your federation, and it is for the purpose of promoting harmonious relations in the labour world and in the industrial world generally that I presume to advance these thoughts for your consideration.
There have been established in the province of Quebec during the last few years what you have been pleased to term your National Catholic Unions. I had the pleasure and honour of being received by Bishop Gauthier and several other gentlemen, including Father Fortin, in Montreal some ' weeks ago to discuss some of the things that I am going to mention now. Throughout all of the rest of Canada, and indeed all Northern America, the wage earners, the workingmen, are organized into what they term their craft unions. That is, the carpenters have their organization; the machinists have theirs; the boilermakers have

theirs; the street railway men have theirs; each class of men in railroad service have their particular organization; and the bricklayers, the stonemasons, the garment-workers, etc. Those organizations are all, or nearly all, international in character. That may or may not be a good thing, but what I want to point out in the first place is that there is no distinction as to any race, nationality or creed in that whole labour movement numbering several millions of people. The movement that has started in your province, setting up what is termed the National Catholic Unions, is having a very disturbing effect in the minds of labour men generally-those who are affiliated with these other unions that have been in existence for years-particularly in your province; and unfortunately it is true that the feeling is not all of a friendly sort. I think that it is unfortunate that there should be any friction between men whose interests are identical. But if you continue to increase your membership- in the province of Quebec among your own people, and the friction continues to grow by reason of certain provisions in your constitution, which may be misunderstood, misquoted, and misinterpreted in other parts of the Dominion, I honestly greatly fear that serious results will ultimately come out of what has been started, and I would like to make this suggestion to you gentlemen here. You have placed a number of important matters before 'Mr. Blondin and myself on behalf of the Government, for consideration by the Government, and I am therefore going to venture to ask you to give consideration to the proposal that I desire to make to you. It is that you should honestly and earnestly endeavour to find some method whereby your organization can work in more complete haimony with the other organizations representing labour in this country, and at least stop the growing friction that exists. Father Fortin was present when we had the conversation in Montreal, and we need not discuss the matter at the length we did there, because he is familial* with it; but I do respectfully submit, gentlemen, that there ought to be no religious distinction in the labour movement. In every trades union that exists in North America, Catholic and Protestant are alike welcome, and have equal rights, and the question of religion is never raised. The * secretary of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada is a most devout Roman Catholic; several of the executive of that congress are also of that religious faith, and they have the confidence and the admiration and the respect of their fellow workmen of all religious beliefs throughout the whole country, for they are elected by them.	.


Rev Father FORTIN:: Well, Mr. Minister-


The MINISTER OF LABOUR:: And what I wanted to say was that I do hope that as you proceed along your line of development you will earnestly endeavour to promote more harmonious relations between other organizations and your own, both your local unions and ypur federation, and if possible adopt the same principle that we are suggesting should be adopted between employer and employee, namely, by getting together with the executive officials of the other unions and endeavouring by conference to find some common ground on which you can work together in harmony.
That is exactly the policy which the hon. member Hays the Minister of Labour should promote.

Do not have them coming to me or to the Government-no matter who may happen to be Minister-and saying, "We won't participate in the Labour Conference if another organization is present." It is undesirable to have one organization representing labour coming to the Government and saying, "We want the eight hour day," and another organization coming and saying, "We do not." Unless there is harmony and unity of action, the Government is placed in a most embarrassing position in dealing with the presentations that are made. The Government has even been endeavoring, and with some success, to get labour and capital to sit down, talk together, and bring in joint recommendations. That is very desirable and has been useful where it has been done. Everything possible should be done to bring about a spirit of co-operation among all the organizations that are trying to improve the condition of the workingman in any part of this country. I think it is desirable that they should be pulling together instead of having any differences, and coming at different times and making opposite representations to the Government in some cases. I do not mean the remarks that I have made to be taken as in any way offensive, as I am sure you gentlemen will appreciate. I lived in the province of Quebec for some six years, and knew a great many of the people there and Lave great admiration for the French people. It is unfortunately true that in the distant parts of Canada our French-Canadian people are not properly understood, and in many cases not properly appreciated. Their ideas and aims are somewhat different from those of , other people in other parts of the Dominion. At the same time I believe that it is absolutely true, on the other hand, that the majority of our people in the province of Quebec, do not fully understand the people in the other provinces of Canada. It is only by the meeting of representatives of all parts of the country, whether of labour or capital, that we become properly possessed of the right ideas, the ideas that should prevail for the benefit of the country as a whole. So I leave that thought with you for your consideration.
This is what I want to emphasize particularly.	.
If at any time it seems to your Federation desirable that a conference should be held between officers of your organization and officers of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, with a view of trying to arrive at some common ground on which you can work together in harmony, or at least so work that friction -would be avoided, and if this Department can be of any service in bringing about such a conference, we would be delighted to co-operate with you in that way.
Even the words of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lapointe) himself could not more clearly or more forcefully express the devotion that a minister ought to show to the cause of co-operation amongst labour, to the cause of the abolition of that friction amongst labour classes, and especially of the abolition of friction that involves from religious division.
The hon. member must realize that, in so far as any administrative decision went, the decision of the Minister of Labour as

regards this question of being represented at this special council was specifically, the only administrative decision that he made. But when the hon. member (Mr. Lapointe) got up to charge him with discrimination, he gave, as he expressed it to me, " without cost," his opinion. The Minister of Labour has opinions as to the wisdom of organizing workers along the special line, the religious line, such as at the basis of this Catholic Union. It is not that the Minister of Labour is anti-Catholic. His opinion would be just the same as regards the organization for labour purposes adherents of any other religious body in Canada, It would be just the same as regards a clerical party in this House of any religious denomination whatever. Such is the opinion; it is not an administrative act at all. The Minister of Labour, so far as administrative direction goes, takes the ground that in his eye all must be treated alike; there must be no refusal to recognize anyone. But he believes that the best line of labour organization is not the line that marks the confines of a religious sect. That is his opinion; surely to that opinion he has a right, and the opinion applies to such an organization, no matter by what special religious boundary it may be confined. I will give you his reasons. He states that in his experience as a labour man, as Minister of Labour, the inevitable result of workers organizing on religious lines is to give ground for complaints of discrimination and unfairness on the part of employees, Catholic or Protestant, who cannot or do not belong to this Catholic Union so organized or to this special organization of labour within lines of particular faith. In his judgment there inevitably arise claims of injustice to those men who do not, who cannot, belong because they are in other unions or because they are not Catholics. Furthermore he holds this opinion on the far broader ground, namely that the projection of lines of division amongst our people on religious grounds into the labour field-and I think he would say into other fields-is not for the ultimate good of Canada. That is his opinion. But because he believes that it would be better to organize along other lines that is no reason why he should not recognize organizations if they choose to take form, so long as such organizations are within, and entitled to the protection of, the laws of this country and so long as the purpose of the organization is in no way destructive. That being his position, what fault can be found?
There is, however, an organization of another character that arose in the West, and in the judgment of the minister it had much to do with the Winnipeg strike. I am rather sorry to see the hon. member trying to lead the House to believe to-day that in the great conflict that arose in Winnipeg, his sympathies were wholly with those who precipitated that struggle there, some of whom were found guilty of grave crimes by unanimous verdicts of juries. I did not know that the hon. member would stand in this House and say that he was pleading their cause here when the Minister of Labour was in the West trying to restore order in one of the most trying and difficult situations that ever arose in Canada. I did not believe that he would stand in Parliament and try to prove his claim to sympathy with labour on any reasoning like that. I do not think that these grounds he will get very much sympathy from leading members of his party, whose views on. that occasion were expressed quite freely, honestly, honourably and truly, quite on the other side.
I have described the position that the minister took; the position that he outlines in his letter to the Montreal Gazette. That position is wholly compatible with his lifelong effort to bring about the best possible relations between labour units as they appear in the Trades and Labour Congress and labour units as they appear in the Catholic union, and quite consistent with that policy, from which he has never departed, of recognizing the one in the same way as he would recognize the other and in giving no preference to either. That is the position he has assumed all along. In that position, is he wrong? In that position, I venture to say he is supported by the majority, even of the religious faith of those who belong to the Catholic unions, and by the majority of labour men. I know it is his firm opinion that the majority do support him in that position, and I think he is a competent judge as to what side the majority are on. In that position I have not the least doubt that he is supported by the great body of fair, impartial, unbiased public opinion in this country; and in pursuing that course I think he is serving the ends of labour, the ends of the Dominion, and deporting himself with dignity and usefulness in the high office which he holds.
At Six o'clock, the House took recess.

After Recess


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull):: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in my remarks, for on no account would I spoil the good impression made upon this House by the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). I had the honour to accompany the delegates of the National Labour Union when they called upon the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Robertson); I heard all the proposals which were submitted to him; I heard their request which was to be presented at the industrial conference of employers and workmen, in Ottawa, on May 3rd next; a conference called by the hon. minister himself, and having for its object the bringing together of employers and employees with a view to securing a better understanding between them. They solicited the favour to send three of the thirty-seven delegates who will make up the conference, that is to say a quota proportionate to the 50,000 workmen they represented. Much to my surprise, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Labour, forgetting that he is the Minister of Labour for the whole country, whatever be the union to which they belong, refused their request, for the reason that these men are members of a Catholic National union. And here I mean to state, that the minister does not tell the truth when he says that the only protest against his refusal was that from the member for Quebec East. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Quebec East only served as an interpreter for the benefit of the Minister of Labour who does not understand French, and the delegates warmly protested, but in vain, as the minister's refusal was final.
When one looks over the political history of this country one encounters many politicians and other groups mixed up in intrigues having for their object to discredit all that is Catholic. I still remember the wars waged against Sir Wilfrid Laurier by certain fanatics; I have many times heard them say that they wanted no Prime Minister who received his directions from Rome and the pope, or other similar nonsense, but never before have I seen a minister of the Crown, supposed to represent all races and creeds of the country, forget himself to the extent of sinking to the level of the fanatical politicians I have just referred to. And this happens, Mr. Speaker, at the very moment when the Government try to have ministers elected in the province of Que-

bee, and tell us through their newspapers that they want friendly understanding and union to prevail in the country, and that they even regret not to see our province better represented in the Cabinet. I remember the account given of a grand banquet offered to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) in Montreal, where he declared that he had never uttered a word or sentence that could offend the province of Quebec. Well, Mr. Speaker, here is a fact which speaks louder than mere words, and if the Prime Minister be sincere, if he wants us to believe in his courting, let him repudiate the conduct of his colleague, the Minister of Labour, and demand his resignation.
After all, why this objection to the Catholic labour unions? Is it not admitted by everybody that it was the province of Quebec that saved the situation, that put an end to the friction which after the war existed in this country between capital and labour? Indeed, when strikes were taking place in all the provinces of the Dominion -I still have in mind the famous strike in Winnipeg-the province of Quebec was calm and peaceful and was the bulwark of order and harmony. Mr. Speaker, the reason is that the people, especially the working classes, are permeated with deep religious sentiments and follow the wise and patriotic advice of their clergy. Although the honourable Minister of Labour is adverse to the presence of a chaplain among trades unions, I wish to state on the floor of this House that as long as they follow the advice of the clergy our workingmen will not go astray and Quebec will be admired by the people of this country.


Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Quebec West) :: Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago-last Sunday it was-I had the good fortune to be present at a gathering called under the auspices of the National Catholic Unions of Labour in the city of Quebec. At this meeting held in the Market hall there were about three thousand people present, and many more were unable to get in. This large number of people had gathered to hear a very prominent member of the clergy, Abbe Deponcheville. He addressed this gathering of Catholic Labour Unions and I must say that I was very much impressed with his speech, as I believe everybody present was on that occasion. Did he say anything against other labour unions? No. Did he say anything particularly in favour of Catholic unions? Possibly so.

When I left that room I asked myself, how are we going to face the situation which now confronts us in view of what we had been told a few days previously by the Minister of Labour, the Hon. Gideon Robertson? Coming to Ottawa the next day, much to my surprise I received from people belonging to other labour unions a resolution which I wish to place in part before the House, the tenor of which was exactly to the contrary of what I had heard at the meeting I had attended the day previous. It is a resolution of the Quebec Typographical Union, No. 302, and says in part:	-
That whereas this Union has taken cognizance of the stand taken by the Hon. Gideon Robertson, Minister of Labour, in connection with the National Catholic Unions of this province in their efforts to divide bona fide labour organizations by means of religious and racial prejudice-
If it were true, Mr. Speaker, that the Catholic Unions want to divide bona fide labour organizations by means of religious and racial prejudice, I for one would by no means support any organization that would have any such tendency. I do not think the Catholic unions have any purpose of that sort in mind. The Abbe Fortin, who also spoke on this occasion, said that if Catholic unions wished to be advised by priests, it was their own business. He said further: We went to Ottawa for this very purpose of telling the Minister of Labour that whenever a labour congress took place, or a conference on labour matters was held, we wanted the Catholic unions of labour, representing over forty thousand people in this Dominion, to be heard. That was all. That was mentioned at that meeting by Abbe Fortin. He repeated there what he said in Ottawa that that was all the Catholic unions were trying to get from this Government.
The Minister of Labour has written a letter to the press, published in the Montreal Gazette, in which he tries to becloud the issue, saying that if the labour unions could not be heard at the coming congress it was because they were Catholic.
A day or so later another letter was published by the same gentleman, but he did not go quite so far as he did before. Now, it is our hope that whatever may be the nature of these organizations in the province of Quebec, whether they be advised by legal counsellors or by priests, they shall be given the same right to be heard by the Department of Labour as is enjoyed by any other union in Canada. There are
some forty thousand labour men in these Catholic unions, and they should have an opportunity of stating their views before any conference under the direction of the Minister of Labour. I will not go further on this subject because the whole field has been well covered by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), and everything that he has said concerning the whole matter I am pleased to endorse. I trust that the Government, taking his views into earnest consideration, and heeding the opinions expressed by some of us, will take such steps as will ensure to- these Catholic unions the right of being heard by the Department of Labour.


Mr. EDMOND PROULX (Prescott) :: It seems to me that the Labour Department is exercising a discrimination against the National Catholic Unions. There was a labour conference in September, 1919, at which those unions desired to be represented, but they were refused the right. Now, they serve a certain purpose in this country, and the Department of Labour should have no policy which would operate against the interests of any union of labour, whether its members belong to one denomination or another. Those Catholic unions want to be represented now at another labour conference, and they are denied the right by the Minister of Labour. Why is that? Are they not citizens of this country? They number about 40,000, and there is no reason why they should not be heard in any conference under the auspices of the Department of Labour. I wish to put on Hansard the views of a prominent labour man, who has had a large experience in the employment of labour in this country for the last thirty years. This man is not a Catholic; he is a Protestant named A. A. Wright, and writing from 9 Victoria Square, Montreal, under date of April 1; with reference to the National Catholic unions, he says:
To the Editor of The Gazette:
Sir,-I read with a great deal of interest yesterday your very able criticism of the position taken by the Minister of Labour, as shown by his letter in the same issue. It may be of interest to you to know that prior to' March, 1917, I had had over thirty years' experience in Ontario with unorganized labour in the lumber and shipping industries. During that period, the relations between the employing firm and * their employees were of the most friendly character, and nothing but harmony prevailed, mainly from the absence of paid agitators. From March, 1917, to date, I have been closely connected with firms from Port Arthur to Halifax, the first two years of that period being connected with the construction of patrol vessels in the shipyards from

Port Arthur to Quebec for the British Admiralty, under the Department of the Naval Service of Canada. This was my first experience with labor organizers or leaders of the Metal Trades Federation affiliated with the International Unions, whose activities are responsible for all the unrest in labor circles. It was my first connection also with the Catholic workers organization in the Province of Quebec.
I have no brief for the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church nor for the labor organization among members of that church, but I am compelled to state that from personal experience that if compelled to take my choice between dealing with the Catholic Workmen's Union or with the leaders of the International Unions, I would unquestionably prefer dealing with the Catholic Workers Union and their leaders for the following reasons:
The leaders and advisers of the Catholic Workmen's Union teach the workers to live up to the teachings of the Christian religion, and to give an honest day's work for a fair day's pay. They impress on the workers that the only source of employment is from the men who are able to use the savings of the people intelligently in producing commodities required by mankind, and that they can only pay the men the highest wages possible to them after paying for raw material, overhead expenses and a reasonable profit, and the difference between that, and the value of the commodities produced, is all that can possibly be available for wages.
On the other hand, the International Unions teach their members that the capitalist is the enemy of the workingman, who has been exploiting his services for the accumulation of wealth and not giving the worker a fair share of what he produces.
The International Unions, through some of their leaders, do admit that men should give an honest return for the wages they are paid, and when advocating the eight hour day guaranteed that if employers would grant the eight hour day, they would get greater production than they had been getting in the ten hour day. From observation in the industries with which I have been connected, instead of doing this the men have been giving, up to a few months ago, less than half of the production in eight hours which they had formel-y been giving in ten, because the workmen were privately, and in some cases openly taught, that the less work a man does the more men will get employment and the more prosperous workers will be. Further, I have been told by first class Union workmen, when asked why they belonged to a Union, since they were men of such a type that employers will bid against one another for their services, that they are virtually compelled to belong to the Union because there is an aggressive minority which, throught secret dealings with foremen and other means would drive them out of the shops if they incurred the enmity of the Unions and refused to join, because it is absolutely essential to the existence of the Unions that they have enrolled among their members a large number of skilled men, as without them the Union could not exist and these men are used to enable the indifferent and undesirable workmen to get and hold jobs.
I think it is safe to state that fully 80 per cent of the members of the labor unions are honest, conscientious, law-abiding citizens who take little or no interest in agitation, and that of the 201 per cent, of aggressive members,
[Mr. Proulx.I
possibly not over 5 per cent, are of the class which might be considered really undesirable citizens. When this is considered, coupled with the fact that organized labor affiliated with these International Unions does not embrace at the outside probably over 20 per cent, of all the workers in. Canada and the United States, it should be evident that too much attention is being paid to those so-called labor leaders (who arrogate to themselves the right to dictate through the press and public platforms to our Government as to what Labour demands), by the Government, press and public. They should be absolutely ignored, as if this country, or any other country, is to prosper, the Government elected by the people should only pass and administer laws for the benefit of all its citizens, instead of catering to a noisy minority by passing and enforcing laws for the benefit of a small minority of citizens at the expense of the majority.
I think a comparison of the ethics taught by the Catholic Workers Union leaders, and those of the International Unions, will justify the decision of many employers who after careful consideration now refuse to sign any contract with leaders of the International Unions, but will confine themselves to making agreements with men who are working for them who are willing to live up to their contracts, and give honest service in return for the highest wages which the firm can afford to pay.
A. A. Wright,
9 Victoria Cquare,
Montreal, April 1, 1921.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it has always been my opinion since the International Union entered upon an aggressive campaign against the National Catholic Union that the former wanted to kill the movement undertaken by the latter. They saw that in the province of Quebec the National Catholic Union was living up to the principles of the Christian religion in making-agreements with their employers and adhering to those agreements. You have not seen in the province of Quebec within the last few years any strikes worth speaking of, and even when strikes did occur they were very quickly settled. There has not been seen in the province of Quebec any such strike as the big one which occurred in the West. The members of the National Catholic Union are not members of the One Big Union. Nevertheless the Department of Labour has exercised discrimination in this matter, and I think the head of that department in so doing is acting at the dictation of the officers of the Trades and Labour Congress. I do not believe that the Minister of Labour wrote the letter which has been quoted here, I do not think he had the time to do so. I believe that letter was written by Mr. Tom Moore and Mr. P. M. Draper, the President and secretary respectively of the Trades and Labour Congress. The minister is taking

up the cudgels for these gentiemen and, I submit, acting unfairly towards the National Catholic Union. The members of that union number over 40,000. They are peaceful citizens who want to avoid strikes and to co-operate with their employers. We have heard much within the last few years about the necessity of having cooperation between employers and employees, and we cannot have industrial peace in this country without such co-operation. Well, the main principle of the National Catholic Union is that we should have co-operation along this line and they are carrying that principle into effect. If any employers who have made agreements with the members of the National Catholic Union were summoned and questioned before a committee of this House it would be found that all those employers are perfectly satisfied.
The Montreal Gazette is a very important newspaper, perhaps one of the most influential in the country, and in its utterances on this matter it knows whereof it speaks. That newspaper declares that the National Catholic Union should not be discriminated against and that it should be represented at any Labour Conference held in Canada, especially when the expenses of such a conference are met out of the public treasury. Has the International Union, I ask, any more right to come to this Parliament and ask that public money be devoted to meeting the expenses of a labour conference than the National Catholic Union? If the expenses of such a conference are met out of the public treasury, why should not the National Catholic Union be represented at it? My hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) was perfectly justified in accompanying the delegation that waited upon the Minister of Labour to ask that the minister recognize the National Catholic Union. I hope the Prime Minister will reconsider the decision arrived at in this matter; and I appeal to the Minister of Justice, who represents the province of Quebec in this House and who knows the membership and the principles of the National Catholic Union, to see that justice is done to them, and that they should be given representation at the forthcoming labour conference to be held in this city. I make this appeal hoping that the Minister of Justice will use his influence towards remedying the injustice which has been inflicted upon that organization.
Mr. HENRI E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec County) :	If I may be permitted I would
like to say a few words on this subject. I have no intention of discussing the question at any length because my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has very ably placed all the facts before the House, supplemented by the hon. memhber for Quebec West (Mr. Parent). I wish to say, however, that I endorse absolutely every word which has been uttered by both these hon. gentlemen. The treatment which has been meted out to over 40,000 of the most peaceful and honourable working men of the province of Quebec constitutes a great insult to our race-it is not only an insult to the labour classes of that province but it is also an insult to our race and our religion. During the course of a great number of years I have had the advantage of observing the work of the National Catholic Union in the city of Quebec. I have had the honour and the pleasure of knowing the most of their officers, and on many occasions it has been my good fortune to meet with them touching labour matters in the city of Quebec not only during the war but subsequent to it. The members of the National Catholic Union of Quebec comprise some of the most honourable and worthy people we have. In the city of Quebec during and subsequent to the war there were never any labour troubles owing to the praiseworthy action of the National Catholic Union, to say nothing of the international union whose members also do good work in the interest of the trade and industry of the country. Under the circumstances I could not let the opportunity pass without saying that I endorse every word that has been uttered by hon. gentlemen on this side, and I would have been greatly pleased and happy had I been called upon to vote for a resolution asking the Minister of Labour to tender his resignation in the Cabinet. The Minister of Labour has no mandate from the people, he is simply responsible to the Government, and, I repeat, by his action in this matter he has insulted our people.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not wish to participate in
the debate, I merely want to ask a question. For that reason I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in his place. When he was speaking this afternoon I had in my mind to refer to it but did not wish to interrupt him. In putting the question now I am merely asking for information. I understood the Prime Minister to say that the proposed conference will not be a general labour conference, but a conference of two groups-one representing the workmen and

the other the employers in the building trades. I think that is correct. The Prime Minister further said that the Minister of Labour was not in a position to admit any other parties to the conference. I think that is correct also. Then the question arises: If two bodies of men desire to have a conference why do they bring the Minister of Labour into the matter at all, why do they come to him for his opinion? There are conferences all over Canada every week between employers and working men, but why is the Minister of Labour drawn into this disagreeable matter? Perhaps the Minister of Justice can answer the question.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Before the
Minister of Justice answers the question I would remind the hon. member that he has exhausted his right to speak, and that if he wishes to ask any further questions he had better do so now.


William Stevens Fielding: I only desire to
ask one or two questions. I have stated the first one:	Why has the Government been
drawn into this matter, why could these parties not have their conference without bringing the Minister of Labour into the controversy? They did not need his permission. This conference, it appears to me, does not stand on any different basis from any other conference on the labour question in any part of Canada, and I cannot understand why the Minister of Labour and the Government are drawn into this very disagreeable matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the position correctly, and I think I do, it is this. A body representative of a large number of working men in the building trade and another body representative of employers likewise in the building trade came to an agreement that with a view to adjusting difficulties, actual or anticipated, that might arise in connection with their relations it would be desirable to have a conference. They asked, as I understand it, that the Minister of Labour should furnish an officer of his department to act as chairman of that conference and, in a sense, to help bring the parties together.


William Stevens Fielding: Could they not come together?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They certainly could
if they had thought proper to do so. But, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Quebec East this afternoon,-and I think

he read from the statutes-the function for which the Department of Labour exists is to do everything in its power to facilitate and further the getting together of employers and employees, and thereby to ensure the maintenance of peace and concord in our industrial operations. Whether these gentlemen who desire to have the conference were right or wrong in the view that it would promote concord between them, they did request what they thought would be helpful, and the Minister of Labour desiring to meet any expressed wish for such co-operation, agreed that an officer of his department should preside over this conference and should issue the invitations. I am not prepraed to say that it wag absolutely necessary, but it does seem to me that it was quite within the line of the duties of the Minister of Labour to meet such a request if it was at all possible to do so. I think that is the entire explanation of how the Department of Labour came to be connected with the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: And, incidentally, the Government pay the bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Incidentally the Government, I understand, do pay the expenses connected with this conference. But I leave it to this House whether, if conferences of this kind conduce to bringing about and maintaining a good understanding between employers and employees, it is not the proper function of the Ministry of Labour to encourage them and to co-operate with labour.


Ernest Lapointe: To co-operate with all labour.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. But when particular bodies representative of large numbers of men occupying towards each other the position of employers and employees represent to the department that a conference between them would be conducive to the results I have mentioned, even if they do not embrace the entire body of employers and employees throughout the country, is it not worth while to co-operate with those who seek to confer together and help them to that end?
Now, that is the whole explanation of the mystery, if there be a mystery connected with the matter. That being so, so long as the department offers and is ready to extend the same co-operation to any other body of employees and employers, it seems to me fairly clear that there can be no question of discrimination. But the difficulty seems to have resulted entirely

from a misapprehension on the part of the applicants of the nature of the conference in question. It has been said that I know something about the people that compose these Catholic unions. I do, and I believe that they are reasonable people, people that are not seeking to make trouble, and I cannot but believe that if they had fully understood that they were asking for representation, not at a general labour conference but at a conference between two particular bodies of men of which they did not form part, they would have realized that there was no intention to discriminate against them, and that they were not the victims of the injustice which the hon. member for Quebec East and possibly they themselves seemed to believe that they have been subjected to. I am confident that when the members of these unions come to understand the misapprehension under which they labour they will realize that there was no refusal of recognition and no injustice done to them. I think that was made abundantly clear by the offer to them of the same good services of the department if they thought there was any conference which they could have with their employers that would tend to produce the same results of good will and harmony.
I do not think there is any substantial difference of opinion about the principles that ought to govern this matter. The right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) was quite in a postion to agree to the principles laid down by the hon. member for Quebec East. The difficulty seems to be that there was a misapprehension as to there having been a violation of those principles or a desire to ignore the particular request in question that led to the one administrative, action which took place. Surely, as the hon. member for Quebec East himself pointed out, the questions that may arise out of the correspondence he read are, after all, abstract questions upon which people may honestly differ in opinion, and, as he pointed out, each one is entitled to entertain his own opinions and to act upon them so long as he is within the law. The Minister of Labour, like everybody else, formed his opinions upon those abstract questions which, after all, do not arise here for us to discuss or de-, termine.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my right hon.
friend allow me a question?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: Will he take responsibility for what is stated in the letter written by the Minister of Labour to the Montreal Gazette?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am just pointing out that for the opinions of the Minister of Labour upon those abstract questions I have no responsibility. I have a responsibility for the administrative actions of this Government, and in view of the explanation of the Prime Minister, what was done in this particular instance, nobody, I think, can question. There are doubtless many abstract questions upon which action is not called for on the part of this Government in connection with which I might not be in agreement with my friend the Minister of Labour, or, possibly, with some of my other colleagues. But there is no necessity that we should be in agreement. In a country of this kind there are many questions upon which the patriotic duty is to agree or disagree, to respect each one's liberty, to entertain the opinions he entertains, and, so long as he is within the law, and to act upon those opinions. As I have pointed out, no substantial difference of opinion is involved here. But it is not conducive to any good purpose to endeavour to bring about an agreement concerning certain matters when we all know that we shall not succeed in the effort. . Let us learn, after all, to respect our respective opinions, to respect the liberties of each man to form his own opinions upon such questions as are involved here, to respect the right of each man to act conscientiously upon his own opinion within the law, and we shall get along a great deal better. I trust that the hon. member for Quebec East may have performed this valuable service: that he has caused it to be made perfectly clear that in the action that was taken there was no refusal to recognize the status of any organization because of the religious belief of its members. That is a good thing to have made clear. As regards the particular action that took place, and as regards the particular conference, I think it is equally clear that there is no room for criticism. And for the rest, may we not hope that after this debate we shall realize perhaps more fully than we did before the wisdom of recognizing the liberty of opinion to which I have referred and the liberty of action within the law upon the conscientious opinions which each one may hold.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope the Minister of Labour will accept that doctrine.


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference and respect to the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), I must say that notwithstanding his explanation, I am no clearer upon this subject than I was at six o'clock. Having listened intently to the able speech of the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) I had come to the conclusion that a labour congress or conference was to be held in Canada under the auspices of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Robertson) in the month of May next, and that it was to be a general and universal labour congress or conference. If that is the case, the point made by the member for Quebec East is unassailable-that is, that all labour unions in Canada should have been invited to participate in that conference. Now comes the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government with the statement that the labour conference is going to be held as between employers and employees in one particular trade, the building trade. If that is true, I do not see the necessity of inviting the unions referred to this afternoon, though, as has been admitted by the Prime Minister himself, a large number of persons engaged in the building trades are members of the national so-called Catholic unions. Even if only one thousand out of the thirty-nine thousand members of the National Labour Union were connected with the building trades, they should be represented at that conference.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. member will allow me, I think he has not fully grasped the statement of the Prime Minister. It was that this was to be a conference between a certain association of employers in the building trades and certain associations of workmen in the building trades, certain distinct bodies, not a general conference even of the entire building trades of the Dominion.


Henri Sévérin Béland: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Railways and Canals,-salaries, contingencies, $230,025.
William Stevens Fielding: May I suggest to the
minister that, in view of the notice given by the Prime Minister as to an inquiry into railway matters in another form, it would be wise for my hon. friend to defer for a day or two these Estimates? I do not want to press the matter unduly; but in view of the general discussion likely to be raised on that motion, we may be duplicating our work by going into railway matters to-night. I quite realize, of course, that it was mentioned yesterday evening that Railway Estimates would be taken up to-day.


John Dowsley Reid: The Prime Minister
intended going on with Labour Estimates this evening, but unfortunately it is impossible for him to be present. I could take up Civil Government and a few other items to which there could not be much objection. Some members want to get information in connection with the Railway Estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: With the promise of an early adjournment, the minister might, perhaps, make some progress.


Georges Parent: What salaries are generally paid to agents at various stations on the line?


Georges Henri Boivin: Before this question
is answered and before any other questions of a like nature are asked, I think it only fair, in order that nobody may be called to order, to point out that when we reach the item providing the large amount for the administration of the Canadian National Railways, these questions and all other questions concerning the administration of the Canadian National Railways will be perfectly in order and may be asked, and there will be no desire whatever on the part of the Chair to restrict any such questions. As regards the outside service or the administration of the lines by a commission, the Chair must now rule that questions concerning these are not in order upon an item providing for Civil Government, which is merely the payment of employees in the department at Ottawa.


John Dowsley Reid: With reference to civil government, during the last fiscal year we had 104 employees and the salaries paid totalled $208,204.91. During the coming fiscal year our staff will be reduced to 95, and the total amount that we ask for is $201,425.


Mr. CANNON:: What offices have been
abolished?


John Dowsley Reid: On page 96 of the Estimates the details in regard to every officer in the department are shown. The hon. member will see, by the details, the offices that have been abolished, because they are not included in the 1921-22 list.


Lucien Cannon: Who decided to abolish
all these offices?


John Dowsley Reid: There are some positions that we have abolished on the recommendation of the deputy minister, which recommendation is approved by the Civil Service Commission. We had a staff under Mr. Monsarrat that were not further required when the Quebec bridge was completed, and we took them over and used them in connection with the railways. We have abolished four or five positions there. On page 96 the hon. member will see the title "Head statistical clerk." Some employees in the Statistical branch were taken over by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Lucien Cannon: If Mr. Monsarrat was
on the Quebec bridge, would he not belong to the Outside Service?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. We brought him here, and he was here in the department after the Quebec bridge was completed.


Lucien Cannon: I understand that these changes in the staff were decided upon the recommendation of the deputy minister as approved by the Civil Service Commission?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: That is, the Civil Service Commission is the body which decides whether the staff shall be increased or decreased, and not the minister or the deputy minister?


John Dowsley Reid: The deputy recommends the decrease of the staff or the abolition of an office, and the Civil Service Commission must approve.


Lucien Cannon: That is as regards the
Inside Service. The Outside Service is also under the control of the Civil Service Commission?


John Dowsley Reid: In exactly the same
way.


Lucien Cannon: And it is the duty of the management of the railways to look after the employees on the railways?


John Dowsley Reid: When the Civil Service Act was passed by Parliament, railways were excepted in so far as the Civil Service Commission was concerned.


Lucien Cannon: If the minister has no control over the Inside Service of his department, no control over the Outside Service and no control over the employees of the different railways, why have we a minister at all?


Ernest Lapointe: What are the duties of the minister?


William Stevens Fielding: In view of the very large portion of the hon. gentleman's department which has been transferred to the Board of Directors at Toronto, there must be much less work to be
9 p.m. done in his department than formerly. This year and last year the reduction in the staff has not been very great, but there may have been in previous years a reduction to correspond with the decrease in the work. Has there been any decrease in the staff at Ottawa, having in view the large part of the business now transferred to Toronto?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot say that there has been much reduction. Prior to the Government railways passing to the management of the Canadian National Railway system, the details of the work in connection with the Government railways were largely done at Moncton, so that the work was merely transferred from Moncton to the Canadian National railway management, and the work has not decreased as regards the Railway Department. On account of the system being enlarged by the taking over of the Canadian Northern, there is more correspondence and more work.


Ernest Lapointe: I see that last year
there were four senior clerk-stenographers, and that this year there are ten. On the other hand, there were fourteen clerk-stenographers last year, as compared with eight this year. By what process have so many clerk-stenographers become senior clerk-stenographers with an increase in salary?


John Dowsley Reid: The increase is due to the reclassification by the Civil Service Commission.


Ernest Lapointe: I thuoght the reclassification was to reduce the salaries.


John Dowsley Reid: It increased the salaries.


Georges Parent: What are the duties of
the hydraulic engineer?


John Dowsley Reid: He has to do all the
engineering work in connection with the canals, the Welland and St. Lawrance canals, for instance.


Georges Parent: He has to do with water-powers ?
- Hon. Mr. REID:	Yes, and work generally in connection with the canals.


Georges Parent: Has he anything to do
with providing water for the locomotives and things of that sort?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Mr. DUFF:: Would the minister explain why the chief engineer's salary has been raised from $6,000 to $8,000?


John Dowsley Reid: That is a typographical error, and I intend to move to reduce that by $2,000.


Ernest Lapointe: I notice that there
are three secretaries to executives. What are the functions of these gentlemen, and who are the executives in the Railway Department?


John Dowsley Reid: The deputy minister
has a secretary, and so has the chief engineer, and the comptroller. These positions were classified by the Civil Service Commission in that way.


Lucien Cannon: I see we are asked to
vote the salary of a solicitor and counsel, and further down in the list I see "assistant solicitor." I am very much surprised that the department should have these officials, because I understood we had taken over the legal staff of no less than three railroads. I understand these staffs are still at work and, extraordinary to relate, some of them are fighting the Government, but nevertheless we are supposed to pay the cost. If we have all these legal gentlemen why should we retain a counsel in the department, or if the departmental counsel is a competent man, as I trust he is, why not dismiss the others? The time has come for strict economy. In former years my hon. friend the minister would come to Parliament, and, with his very pleasant ways, get his Estimates through without much difficulty, but this year I think even his genial smile will not allow him to get his Estimates through so easily in view of the serious railway situation confronting this country.
Furthermore, I do not think it is reasonable for the minister to try and screen himself behind the Civil Service Commission. Whenever any information is asked as to the salaries of any of these officials, the minister says: That was done by the Civil Service Commission. Now the minister is either responsible or irresponsible. If he is responsible, he is the man who should give us the information. If he is not responsible, he should not be there at all. I should like him to give us a full explanation concerning the legal staff of his department.


John Dowsley Reid: We have in the department a solicitor and an assistant solicitor. Their time is occupied very largely in drawing up leases and contracts, and doing other work of that kind. There is a large amount of that work to be done in the department. Very important cases that have to go to court are referred to the Justice Department, after a brief has been prepared in our department. These important cases that go to court are not in charge of our own counsel. We have always had a solicitor in the department for the departmental work, and I can assure my hon. friend that there is sufficient to keep him busy all the time.


Lucien Cannon: These men in the department are drawing up leases?


John Dowsley Reid: And agreements and
contracts.


Lucien Cannon: I do not think the minister can seriously contend that a man with the title of head counsel for the department, and the assistant counsel, are occupied simply in drawing up leases. I know something about legal work and about leases. We do not need a head counsel to draw up leases because it is simply routine work. The minister mentioned a moment ago that most of the legal work of his department was referred to the Justice Department, and was done, apparently, by the officials of that department.


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, no. I say that some
cases are referred to the Department of Justice, which is the legal department for all the other departments of the Government.


Lucien Cannon: Then why refer these
cases to the Department of Justice if they are handled by the Department of Railways and Canals?


John Dowsley Reid: The brief is prepared by the solictor for our department, who understands the matter, but if it is a very important case it may be referred to the Justice Department, who will pass on it finally. If you have a legal gentleman doing that work, he is entitled to the title of solicitor.


Lucien Cannon: This gentleman does not do any work in court?


John Dowsley Reid: He is there to assist
the counsel that acts for the Government. He would prepare the brief.


Lucien Cannon: Where cases go before
the court, the Justice Department selects the counsel?


John Dowsley Reid: But our department
counsel prepare the whole case, as well as assist the outside counsel in court. A number of cases arise from time to time that must go before the court.


Lucien Cannon: Then if the department
solicitor does all that preparatory work, why does he not go to court and save the expense of engaging another man?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman
knows that the counsel employed in cases that go before the Exchequer Court or the Supreme Court is usually a gentleman who has had experience in these courts. Generally these men command a large fee. The salary paid to our solicitor is $5,000. You would not expect a man drawing that
salary to have the same experience as a counsel handling very important cases involving a large amount of money.


Lucien Cannon: If, according to the
statement of the minister, the departmental counsel is not competent to appear in court-


John Dowsley Reid: He does appear in
court.


Lucien Cannon: But the minister said a moment ago that we had to retain outside counsel because his own counsel had not enough experience and was not competent to appear in court.


John Dowsley Reid: What I said was that he appears as solicitor assisting the senior counsel in court.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I quite realize that no large business enterprise can be properly carried on without the assistance of lawyers. That is a self-evident proposition. But what I want to be clear upon is this: Does the Railway Board now operate the Intercolonial?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: That being so, why should we have counsel engaged in railway matters in Ottawa and also a large staff of counsel in Toronto?


Ernest Lapointe: And in Montreal.


An hon. MEMBER:: And in Quebec.


An hon. MEMBER:: And in Moncton.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Yes, in Montreal,
Quebec, and Moncton.


Georges Parent: And Toronto. .


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I said Toronto.


An hon. MEMBER:: And Brome.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: No, not in Brome.
The people in Brome are so honest and fair and sensible that we do not have lawsuits with the railways. I want to know why it is that we should have a large staff in Toronto when there are counsel in Ottawa.


John Dowsley Reid: There are many cases in connection with the Intercolonial that are yet to come before the courts; and it is only a short time ago since the Canadian Northern was taken over. Probably in the near future however, we shall be able to reduce the staff. There are a number of cases in connection with the Intercolonial on which the solicitor is busy all the time getting ready his briefs. Those cases are about to go to the Exchequer Court.


Mr. FOURNIER:: The minister says
that lawyers are preparing leases. Are not the right of way agent and the assistant right of way agent competent to do this work?


John Dowsley Reid: They are not solicitors. We have a right of way lease agent who is employed to value properties, but he has nothing to do with drawing leases.


Lucien Cannon: I understood the minister to say that the principal work of the departmental counsel is the drawing up of such agreements.


John Dowsley Reid: That is one of his
duties.


Lucien Cannon: The minister said it was his main work. My own experience as a lawyer in my constituency and around Quebec is different. Whenever the Transcontinental railway expropriates land in the county of Dorchester, or in neighbouring constituencies through which it passes; the agreements and leases are not drawn up by departmental counsel, but by friends of the Government. I want to call the attention of the minister to the fact that some of the gentlemen who do this work are most dilatory. I do not know whether they get paid on the basis of the time they take to do the work of the department, but I know that, in certain cases of expropriation in my constituency, farmers who entered into agreements had to wait for months before they could get their money from the department. I do not think the minister can fairly make the statement that leases and agreements are drawn up by this gentleman to whom we pay $5,000 when I know, as a matter of fact, that in the city of Quebec friends of the Government are engaged to do the work. I am not blaming the Government for throwing work in the way of their friends; but whenever I have advised any of my people in Dorchester, or any people in Quebec, to enter into agreements, I have observed that the department has never made the mistake of sending them to a Liberal notary. They always happen to strike a good Tory. Now, why should we go to the expense of getting outside help when we pay this gentleman for drawing up leases? Are the leases drawn up in Ottawa, and sent to these Tory notaries in Quebec-and I suppose it is the same all over the province-


An hon. MEMBER:: All over.


Lucien Cannon: -are they drawn up in Ottawa and sent to these men merely for

the sake of giving them a little money? The hon. minister cannot afford to bestow these gifts on his friends. His department ought to be run strictly on economical principles, and if we are paying $5,000 to someone to draw leases he ought to do the work. The Government, I submit, should change the present system and save money; but if they do happen to take outside legal help, as they have done of late, the minister ought to see to it that whoever does the work does it expeditiously and with satisfaction to those concerned. At present there is no satisfaction. For example, there was an expropriation in my constituency at St. Malachie, where a sand pit was taken over by the Transcontinental. Representatives of the Government went there and made a certain agreement, and a notary from the neighbouring parish who belongs to my hon. friend's constituency of Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier), a Mr. McKenzie, was engaged. This man has kept the parties waiting months and months.


Georges Parent: Is he a census commissioner?


Lucien Cannon: Evidently the Government was so well satisfied with his work in this connection that they have appointed him census enumerator in the same constituency. He is one of the strongest Tories, and while I do not blame the Government for giving their friends some work, I think they should have the courage to get up in the House and admit it. This gentleman received the documents for examination and study and although they were in his hands for months he kept the farmers waiting for quite a while. Now, such a condition of things should be remedied, and if Tory notaries do not give satisfaction, then the minister should try others, even though they may be Liberals, provided that they do the work.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: As they will.


Ernest Lapointe: And as Liberals always do.


Mr. MICHAUD:: When the Government railways were directly under the control of the minister, although we had difficulty in getting cases against the railways settled, yet there was more satisfaction to be obtained than is possible now since the railways have been placed under the direction of a corporation. Before the railways were transferred from the direct control of the minister to this body, I must admit

we had some satisfaction, such as it was; but now there is no hope whatever for any man of small means to get a case settled against the railways. We have had considerable trouble along the Transcontinental railway for about a year now. It takes about three or four months to get any reply, and then a claim agent goes over the ground to ascertain whether the railway caused any damage or not, and finally the claimants are told: "No damage was done, and you may go ahead and sue if you want to." A great many people living along the railway line have not the means to sue the Government railways to recover their claims, and I promised some of my clients to bring the matter up before the minister, seeing that we have no other means of reaching the Railway Board than through the hon. gentleman himself.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Alward was the solicitor in charge of that work on the Intercolonial and Trancontinental and he is in that position still.


Lucien Cannon: Well he ought to lose it.


John Dowsley Reid: As far as my information goes he is a good man. If I remember rightly he is a good Liberal too, at least he came from New Brunswick-


William Duff: Possibly a Unionist.


John Dowsley Reid: No, I think he was appointed by the late Mr. Emmerson and he is a good man. I understand he is still in the same position and doing good work. He has, I think, been moved to Montreal. He was brought into the department by the late Mr. Emmerson and was promoted to Moncton by the late Mr. Cochrane. I understand he has now been promoted from Moncton to Montreal.


Ernest Lapointe: I understand my hon. friend to say that this gentleman is a law officer of the department and that he has been transferred from Moncton to Montreal?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. I repeat, that as far as I know, Mr. Alward is a good man. I cannot understand why there should be so much delay when this work is all under the same officer.


Pius Michaud: Is he living in Montreal?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes he has been moved from Moncton.


Pius Michaud: He is living rather far away from his field of operations.
105	-


Lucien Cannon: I endorse absolutely
everything that has been said by my hon. friend from Madawaska (Mr. Michaud). In my own constituency merchants have merchandise sent to them over the Transcontinental railway. The Government for reasons not apparent to me have adopted a rather extraordinary way of running their railway through my county. They have stations, but in most cases no station agents, so that the freight is very often lost and consequently merchants are obliged to make claims to the railway. These claims have to be sent down to Moncton, at least that used to be the practice and from there they would be sent somewhere else. Very often we did not know where the claim was sent, but the Moncton people would say "We have received your claim and have sent it to the proper authorities to attend to." Weeks and months would elapse, very often over a year would intervene, and we would have no other news about the claim. That was the condition which existed up to very recently. I know, for I sent a claim to Moncton on behalf of one of my electors in Dorchester. That procedure is absolutely unbearable. If the minister were to say " Well, our staff is not sufficient, that is why we cannot give as good a service as we would like " the committee would, in a manner, understand; but all over the country-in every small centre as well as in every large centre-the Government employs a number of lawyers. Some lawyers are supposed to look after the Intercolonial railway, others are supposed to look after the Transcontinental railway, and still others are supposed to look after the Canadian Northern; the Government has so many lawyers that we really do not know to whom to apply. As an hon. member near me remarks, nearly every Conservative lawyer that we know of has something to do with the government railways in one form or another. I want to draw the minister's attention to another fact which has relation to this special item. A very great hardship for people-not only in my own district but, I think, all over the province-is that the special Order in Council which was to be passed to give legal existence to the famous corporation constituted to look after the whole system of Canadian railways has not yet been passed, if I am well informed. So that every railway which has been taken over by the Government has retained its separate and distinct entity-each is a separate and distinct organization. That is another conditions of things that ought to be changed. If I have a claim against the old



Quebec and Lake St. John railway, why should I have to see the officers of that company when the railway was taken over by the Government several years ago. And the Quebec and Lake St. John railway has a special lawyer in my city-I know him- and has other lawyers in the region through which the line passes. The same condition exists in connection with the Quebec and Saguenay railway, and with respect to every railway taken over by the Government. Why does not the Government resolve once for all, to run the national system on business lines? Why not group all these railways together and have one corporation? The minister has very often said in the House, "I cannot give information that is asked for because that information should be given by the corporation." But that corporation does not exist; it has no legal existence. For instance, what authority has Mr. Hanna to run the Canadian Northern railway? He has no authority from Parliament, and if Parliament did not give him authority, where could he get his authority from? There is no corporation created by law to enable Mr. Hanna and his associates to run the Canadian National railways. Every railway which has been taken over by the Government is still a separate organization. I do not think that is a business way of running things. It is no wonder we have deficits. In the matter of the legal department does the minister for one moment contend that it is a proper policy for the Government to retain all these lawyers acting for the different railways? In my own city, if we have a claim against the Intercolonial we have to go to one gentleman. If we have a claim against the Canadian Northern we have to go to another; and if we have a claim against the Transcontinental we have to go to a third. Is there any sense in that? Why not group all these railways together and have one or two lawyers in each large centre attending to railway matters, and not employ six or seven as is done now? There is absolutely no reason to have lawyers attached to the Department of Railways because the work is done by railway solicitors and not by these gentlemen. The minister mentioned Mr. Alward. I have not the pleasure of knowing that gentleman personally. I do not know whether he is responsible for the system existing at Moncton. If he is as efficient and competent as the minister has said he surely is not responsible, because from the way things were run at Moncton we could not get any satisfaction no matter how hard 
we tried; we would have to wait months for the settlement of claims for such small amounts as $15, $25 or $30. Sometimes over a year and a-half would elapse before repayment was made. I think the minister should give consideration to that special branch of his department because it needs plenty of reform.


Mr. ROBB:: The hon. member has spoken of the loss of freight. I have had some experience with lost freight and overcharges in the case of different railways and I have never had to employ a lawyer to settle the claim. The railway companies generally have their claims agents and if the claim is good it is attended to. I think the minister might now make a statement as to whether there are claims on the national system of railways, and whether these claims agents are doing their duty. If every claims agent is doing his duty there should be no necessity for employing lawyers in such cases.


John Dowsley Reid: The railways, of course, have their claims agents who go round settling these claims. There may be occasions when they might have to go to the courts, but as a rule these cases are all settled by freight .claims agents. The hon. member was talking about some land expropriations and also-


Lucien Cannon: And even about freight claims of very small amounts.


John Dowsley Reid: Those claims go to the agent appointed especially to settle them. The hon. member asked why we did not consolidate all these subsidiary railways. That is impossible. The Canadian Pacific railway keeps alive all its subsidiary companies and operates them separately, as it were; for instance, the Quebec Central and the Kingston and Pembroke. It is the same with the Canadian National system. The railway the hon. gentleman mentions is part of the Canadian Northern system, although it is called the Quebec and Lake St. John. If judgments were obtained against that subsidiary line the Canadian Northern would of course be responsible.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Are there three boards of management, one for the Canadian Northern, one for the Intercolonial and one for the Transcontinental? I understand very well what the minister has stated regarding the Quebec Central railway, which is leased to the Canadian Pacific and is still administered by its own board. Are we to understand that for each of these Government railways there is a separate board?


John Dowsley Reid: No. What I wished to convey was this. The Canadian Northern railway for instance has a board of directors, and for any subsidiary companies that form part of the Canadian Northern system the same board of directors is appointed. For the Intercolonial, the Transcontinental and the Hudson Bay railways of course there is no separate board of directors because they have always been owned by the Government. The hon. member will recollect that when the Bill was passed for the consolidating of the Canadian National system we excepted those three railways so that any bonds could be issued against them, The board of directors of the Canadian National system were appointed managers of those Government railways, and/ in that way they are treated as one system.


Georges Parent: Now that we have had the legal aspect of the situation, probably we can get some information about the engineers. Quite a number of them are mentioned on page 96. Among all those engineers I am wondering whether I could find some one responsible for what has happened in the yards of the Transcontinental railway near St. Foy facing the Quebec bridge. A couple of years ago an artesian well was sunk there at considerable expense. A year or so afterwards some one dropped a big piece of steel into that well, with the result that its usefulness has been destroyed and the money expended is a total loss. I wonder if any one of these engineers could remove that piece of steel.


John Dowsley Reid: The engineers mentioned on page 96 are not connected with railway work at all. Those now in the Railways and Canals Department are employed on engineering work in connection with navigation and highways. The engineer who dealt with this well at Chaudiere, as the hon. member stated would be connected with the Intercolonial railway. The engineers referred to in the Estimates are in the Inside Service.


Georges Parent: Undoubtedly somebody must be responsible for the acts of other engineers even if they work in the Outside Service. If the mistake was made by some of the men working under these engineers, they should report to the department, and the minister ought to know what is happening.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. member will give me some information I will make inquifies about the matter. I have not heard of it before.


Georges Parent: I did not think the
minister understood my question. I did not talk about Chaudiere at all, which is on the Intercolonial railway. I was speaking of St. Foy right opposite Quebec bridge on the main line of the Transcontinental. This artesian well was built to give the people on that side of the river a water supply. It was destroyed because it was part of the Transcontinental line, and the engineer even went so far as to sink a piece of steel in the well. Surely some one is responsible for this destruction.


John Dowsley Reid: I will make inquiries and get the information for my hon. friend.


Mr. PEDLOW:: I find thre is included in this list an assistant purchasing agent, a junior purchasing agent and senior supplies clerk. It certainly would indicate to my mind that there is a senior purchasing agent in charge of this branch of the service. Is there such an officer?


John Dowsley Reid: We had a purchasing agent for the whole system, a Mr. Lavoie. When the Government took over the railway systems Mr. Lavoie was transferred to Toronto, and this is really the junior clerk. The Civil Service Commission gave him that title. Our purchases are now being made through a purchasing commission, but the services of a clerk are necessary in the preparation of the requisitions, and so on.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I find that there are two purchasing agents in the list, one at a salary of $2,520 and a junior purchasing agent at a salary of $1,925. Does it require two men to make out the requisitions for this department?


John Dowsley Reid: It requires one man and another to assist him.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Then the name "purchasing agent" as given by the firm who classified the Civil Service would seem to be a misnomer. These officials are simply clerks.


John Dowsley Reid: They have to understand purchasing, the nature of goods, and so on, in order to be able to prepare the requisitions and do the necessary work connected with the obtaining of supplies.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Then they are merely requisition clerks, not purchasing agents. They fill out the requisitions for the requirements of one particular part of the service and pass them on to a purchasing commission in Toronto. If they are really purchasing agents, a salary of $2,520 would

be altogether too small. I find that a file clerk in this department receives a salary of $2,400. The work of a file clerk is of a routine character, and does not require very much brain power, ability or experience, but a capable purchasing agent can scarcely be obtained for the amount named in this item, $2,520. That is why I direct attention to the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. member that you could not get an expert purchasing agent for |2,520. But the duties of these officials are more of a clerical nature, although, as I say, they must understand the nature of the goods, the making of the requisitions, and so on.


William Stevens Fielding: Are the requisitions
for the Canadian National Railways made out in the office at Ottawa?


John Dowsley Reid: No, just for the canals now.


William Stevens Fielding: Then these two clerks do not requisition for the Canadian National railways?


John Dowsley Reid: No, for the canals only.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There is another item here with regard to which I would like some information. The Griffenhagen firm or whoever made the reclassification have apparently not been consistent in assigning salaries to employees doing to same work in different departments. lit the Interior Department, for instance, junior file clerks receive $615, $630, $660, whereas in the Department of Railways employees doing the same work are paid $1,300. File clerks in the Interior Department receive $1,005, $1,080 and $1,170, whereas in the Railway Department they receive $1,300. In the Interior Department senior file clerks receive $2,240 and $2,160 whereas the head file clerk in the Railway Department receives $2,400. Has the Minister any explanation to offer of the difference which exists in these cases?


John Dowsley Reid: It was the Civil Ser

vice Commission and the officials of the department who took this matter up and arranged the salaries of these employees, I had nothing to do with it. For each of these positions, however, there is a minimum and a maximum salary, and some officials may have been longer in the service than others, which would result in a difference in the salaries paid. It is the first time it has been brought to my attention that the head file clerk in the Rail-

way Department receives a higher salary than an official doing the same work in the Department of the Interior. If the hon. member would like to get an explanation of the matter, it can be obtained from the Civil Service Commission, and I will make a note of it and, if he so desires, give him the information the next time the Railway Estimates come up.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I appreciate the position that the minister finds himself in with regard to the question I asked and the impossibility of his giving a satisfactory answer to it. But does it not strike the minister that there is something wrong in the work done by the Civil Service Commission? That is to say, a file clerk in each department does similar work; there is not much difference in the quality of the work or the requirements for doing it. A file clerk merely files documents, and the same talent, the same ability, would be required to perform the same work in each department, sc that the salary for that class of work should be the same throughout the departments. No doubt one of the reasons why there is so much unrest and dissatisfaction amongst the civil service at present is because employees in one department find employees who are doing the same work in another department getting double the salary. I call the attention of the minister to this point, and I think it would be worth while inquiring into it for the general good of the Civil Service at Ottawa.
I understand the Railway Department is not going ahead with much new construction work during the coming year owing to the financial condition of the country. Why, then, does the minister require the services of these solicitors, a right-of-way agent and an assistant right-of-way agent? The services of these men might be dispensed with temporarily, if the department is not proceeding with the construction of new roads.


John Dowsley Reid: We have a great deal
of work going on all the time in connection with the St. Lawrence canal, the Welland canal, and river work. There is plenty of work to keep these men going. When we were looking after the Intercolonial, we had a solicitor and his staff at Moncton doing work, but this work is entirely different from the work in connection with the canals.


James Alexander Robb: I want to draw to the attention of the minister a matter which will come up later under another item, but inasmuch as the minister has referred to the

fact that these engineers are mostly associated with the canals, I want to draw his attention to a matter of urgent importance. It is the case of the road around Hungry bay in the county of Beauharnois. The minister will remember an arrangement made between the Government and the county to maintain that road as a dyke, and the road was well maintained and kept in excellent shape until the outbreak of the war when we economised wherever we could. It appears that we have been economising to the extreme, because the reports that are coming to me now are that the road is breaking away into the muck and there is danger of the water washing through. Therefore, it is of urgent importance that the minister instruct his engineers to attend to this matter without delay.


John Dowsley Reid: I will take the matter
up with the engineers to-morrow morning and see whether we have not provided something for repairs, and when my Estimates are taken up again, I shall be able to let the hon. member know just what the condition is.


William Duff: I see the minister has four travelling auditors, two at $2,640 and two at $2,520 a year. As most of the work in connection with this department has been taken over by the Canadian National Railway Board at Toronto, there surely cannot be sufficient work to keep four travelling auditors busy in this department. The minister might explain why it if necessary to have these four gentlemen, and if his explanation is satisfactory, I will accept it.


John Dowsley Reid: These auditors are employed largely now in connection with highway work. The provinces receive grants from the $20,000,000 that was voted for highways, and we do not pay any accounts until our auditors have gone over them very carefully and certified that the expenditures are correct. They are really kept busy all the time even with that work. The Railway Department has also to audit the sums of money passing through the department between the Finance Department and the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk, as well as other expenditures in connection with the Railway Department. These men are, therefore, kept very busy.


William Duff: Do I understand the minister to say that accounts in connection with the Railway Department are first audited by auditors of the Railway Department and then sent to the Auditor General's Department where they are again audited? As
regards the amounts advanced to the provinces for highways, I under-
10 p.m. stand that the department send these auditors to the provinces to do the work. If the Dominion makes a grant of money to the different provinces, the least the provinces might do would be to send the accounts to Ottawa for audit, instead of the Federal department having to send auditors to the different provinces to audit these accounts.


John Dowsley Reid: I hardly think that
would be possible. The hon. member will see that the provincial officers would have to bring to Ottawa all their books, vouchers and everything else connected with the transaction, so that it would be much cheaper and much more satisfactory for our auditors to go, say to Toronto or Quebec, and examine the books. In fact, the provinces probably would not let these documents out of their hands; and when our auditors go to the provinces, they are able to get the explanations from the provincial officials who understand the accounts. I think that is really the only way in which the work could be done. As. regards the other question, every account that passes through the Railway Department is audited by our officials before it goes to the Auditor General. Our auditors check up and audit all these accounts, and it saves a great deal of trouble to every one to have these men do the work.


William Duff: I understand there are two sets of auditors, those in the Department of Railways, and then the regular staff in the Auditor General's Department. I am satisfied with the explanation given by the minister. The minister, however, said that a good deal of the work of these auditors is in connection with grants by the Dominion Government for highways. These grants only commenced a few years ago. Are these four auditors new appointees, or have they been in the department for years, previously doing work in connection with the railways when the Government had full control of the Government railways?	.


John Dowsley Reid: These men have been in the department for some years. When the Intercolonial was taken over by the management of the Canadian National Railway system, there was less work passing through the department, but the highway work came on at the same time and these men fell into that work.


Lucien Cannon: Under the new condition of things created since the taking over

of all these railways and the establishment of the Canadian National Board at Toronto, what is the quantity and character of the work actually done by the department as regards railways?


John Dowsley Reid: We have a good deal of work to do. There is a great deal of correspondence in the department in connection with the railways and, of course, we have control of all the canal work as heretofore.. Then there is work in connection with the accounts passing through the Finance Department and the Railways Department. These matters must all be looked into, and there is considerable correspondence in connection with them.


Lucien Cannon: If I understand the Minister rightly, the work is mostly clerical.


John Dowsley Reid: It is more than that.


Lucien Cannon: Am I to understand from the minister that all the accounts coming from the different railways are sent to his department, and afterwards forwarded by his department to the Finance Department?


John Dowsley Reid: No, we send our men out to audit the accounts.


Lucien Cannon: Suppose the Canadian National Railways have spent $15,000,000 during a certain period. Has the Department of Railways, or have any of these officials whose salaries we are now voting, anything to do with that expenditure? Are returns made to the department? Do the department's auditors audit these accounts of the different railways?


John Dowsley Reid: Parliament votes a
certain sum of money, and the items for which the money is voted are given in the Estimates. The Department of Railways follows these items and sees that the money is expended as Parliament provided. That is the duty of our auditors.


Lucien Cannon: The railways, according to the system which has been established, run for twelve months. Now, either they have a surplus or a deficit, as has been the case ever since the railways were taken over by the Government, at the end of that time. The amount to cover that deficit is supplied by a vote of Parliament. Is the Department of Railways kept informed every week or every month of the amount that is expended in excess of the amount provided by Parliament? For instance, did the minister know three or four months

after the opening of the year that the deficit on the railways was a certain amount, or was he kept in absolute ignorance until the end of the year?


John Dowsley Reid: We know how the accounts stand from month to month. They are audited every month. The Finance Department will not pay out anything until they have received the certificate from the Department of Railways and Canals that the money has been expended by the railways in accordance with the vote. Our officers go to the head office, or wherever it is necessary for them to go to make the audit, and on their report the Finance Minister issues the cheque.


Lucien Cannon: Do I understand the minister to mean that the board in Toronto cannot expend any money without the minister authorizing that expenditure?


John Dowsley Reid: They can expend all the earnings without any certificate from the Railway Department, but they cannot get any money from the Finance Department until they get a certificate from the Railway Department that the work is necessary. Then the money is provided as the work proceeds.


Lucien Cannon: If I understand the minister rightly, there is this distinction to be drawn. The board in Toronto has the right to expend all the receipts of the railways, but thqy cannot expend any money in excess of those receipts until the expenditure has been authorized by the Government.


John Dowsley Reid: They have to get a certificate from the Railway Department.


Lucien Cannon: Then this year, with a .deficit of $70,000,000, the minister authorized the expenditure of every cent of that $70,000,000?


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, we must authorize it. If the receipts are not sufficient, our auditor must go out and audit the amount over and above the earnings before the board can get any money from the Finance Department.


Lucien Cannon: That is the money is expended and the accounts are audited afterwards? Am I to understand that there is no official in the Department of Railways, not even the minister himself, with any authority to control the expenditure, and that the only thing the Railway Department does is to send out its auditor

and then the Government pays to the railways whatever amount the auditor finds has been expended in excess of the receipts?


John Dowsley Reid: That is right. None of the officials or the minister has anything to do with the expenditure. That is left entirely to the management.


Lucien Cannon: Suppose there was gross mismanagement. In the face of evidence of such mismanagement has the minister no authority, or has no official in his department authority, to stop that mismanagement? Can the board continue to squander the money without the minister being able to interfere?	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member must understand that if any case of mismanagement or wrong-doing is brought to the attention of the Government, we could put an end to the management at any time, but we have had nothing of that kind brought to our attention.


Lucien Cannon: Does the minister maintain that even though the returns this year show such an enormous deficit, and even though the accounts are audited by his officials every week or every month, whichever it is, there is nothing wrong with the management, and that he has never interfered with the Board? Am I to understand that he has never interfered on any occasion at all?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not yet had
brought to my attention any case of wrongdoing so far as the railways are concerned; neither have I had any case of mismanagement brought to my attention. The fact that there is a deficit of $70,000,000 does not mean that there has been any wrongdoing. If it did, then every manager of a railway in the United States should be dismissed, because their railways show deficits. A deficit does not imply wrongdoing or even mismanagement.


Lucien Cannon: I am not talking about
wrong-doing; I simply used the word mismanagement. Does the minister say that though he observed this deficit piling up every month he never interfered? Did he think everything was all right all through the year?


John Dowsley Reid: We have a board of
management operating the Canadian National railways. They were placed in charge, and have been operating the railway. I have not in any way interfered with them. I feel that if the operation of
the Canadian National railways is to be made a success, as I hope it will, there must be no interference by the Minister of Railways or any other member of the Government. That is the position I take.


Lucien Cannon: I do not say that I disagree with the minister, although I think his experience might be very useful even to the board. Perhaps the minister is really too modest when he says he should not interfere. Sometimes interference might be effective. If the management of the Canadian National railways is exclusively under the board, why have a minister of railways at all? Let the hon. gentleman be minister of canals, or of any other department, because it would be a pity for him to leave the Cabinet; but why have a minister of railways when he has absolutely nothing to do with our railways? And there is a personal consideration in the matter. I do not see why the hon. gentleman should shoulder the responsibility for our railway situation and be held accountable throughout Canada for present conditions if, in fact, he has nothing to do with them. Why should he persist in keeping this portfolio when he has no authority whatever? I think he should change the name of his department, and restrict his activities to the canals of the country; the blame for the railway situation should certainly not rest on his shoulders if he asures lis that he has nothing to do with the railways. In any event, what has he to do? I think that is a fair question, and it calls for a fair answer. This is an important matter, and I will repeat the question: Why have we a minister of railways? The minister does not answer, but I should like him to justify his retention of the title "Minister of Railways." When am I to receive an answer to this question?


Mr. McCURDY:: Next sitting of the House.


Mr. POWER:: What are the duties of
the Minister of Railways?


John Dowsley Reid: I have explained that.


Lucien Cannon: The minister explained
it by saying that most of the work done by his department consisted in correspondence. Well, I am sure that the hon. gentleman does not do the correspondence himself, and I think that the committee ought to be told exactly what the powers and duties of the Minister of Railways are. The hon. gentleman said plainly a moment ago that he had nothing to do with the railways, and has never interfered with their administration.

Then, if the Minister of Railways has nothing to do with railways, what on earth is he doing?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not wish to interrupt the minister if he is about to reply to the hon. member. If not, I want to ask another question. Returning to the matter of highways, the minister says he has a numerous list of engineers and others employed, because of service in connection with the highways. I take it for granted that it is understood the arrangements between the Dominion Government and the provinces are to continue for the present year?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The hon. member will recall that the Act provided a period of five years; the arrangement is being carried on this year.


William Stevens Fielding: So far as the Dominion Government is concerned, it is intended to continue the same system?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes; the agreements
were and are being made. We must pay our forty per cent so long as the Provincial Governments continue the work.


Lucien Cannon: Will the minister answer my question?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish to be
discourteous, but I cannot give any other answer than I have already given.


Mr. CAHILL:: No occupation.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is the minister content to remain in well paid inactivity, as Mr. Winston Churchill says?


Frank S. Cahill: I want some light in regard to the directors. Do I understand that these men are directors of the Canadian Northern railway only?


John Dowsley Reid: And of the subsidiary companies also.


Frank S. Cahill: But not of the Intercolonial, the Transcontinental, or the National railways?


John Dowsley Reid: No, because they are
not a corporate company. They are owned entirely by the Government. The direction of these roads is under the management of the Canadian National railways.


William Stevens Fielding: They are directors of the Canadian National Railways Company?


John Dowsley Reid: No, of the Canadian
Northern.


William Stevens Fielding: Are there no directors for the Canadian National Railway Company?


John Dowsley Reid: That Bill has not yet
been brought into effect.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no such company as the Canadian National Railway Company?


John Dowsley Reid: That is only a descriptive title. We passed an Order in Council providing that the title "Canadian National Railways" should be used until we brought into force the Act passed two years ago.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that the term "Canadian National Railways" is descriptive of-


Mr. McGIBBON (Argenteuil):: Mr. Chairman, I have been attempting to speak pretty often and so far I have not succeeded in getting the floor. Now I am going to stand up until I get what information I want. I think it is about time that the Minister of Railways and Canals had a few minutes' rest.


John Dowsley Reid: Hear, hear.


Peter Robert McGibbon: Now, I have not very many complaints to make; I made them before the Government bought these railways. I had the courage to get up and warn them what was coming. I told them it was going to be a knock-out blow to. the country, but they did not believe me. I told them that it would involve a debt not only on the present generation, but on unborn generations, and my words are now proving pretty nearly true. Not only have we not got the debt approximately discharged, but generations to come will be shouldered with a great burden. We have two lines of the Canadian Northern running through my country, as well as a canal, and I think there are sufficient employees on those two railways and the canal to win the next general election for the Union Government.


William Duff: That is encouraging.


Peter Robert McGibbon: They have been making improvements from time to time, and whenever any work is needed to be done a good old Tory gets the job. Two bridges were built in that constituency about ten years ago, and the engineers at that time said they were going to build structures that would be strong enough to stand for all time. Now what do we find? Last year these splendid bridges were pulled down

and clumsy, cumbersome things put in their place,-bridges that have no strength whatever. What farmer, if he had; ia waggon that was not strong enough for his purposes, would, instead of fixing the wheels and axles, make an enormous body that would carry millions of tons?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter Robert McGibbon: Well, the comparison is not so far fetched after all, in view of the nature of these bridges. I say, what farmer would neglect the wheels and axles and build a disproportionate body for his waggon? That is just the case in connection with these bridges. They are tremendous structures capable of bearing a heavier weight than a passing train, but they are placed on weak abutments. I am not an engineer, but I have common sense, and, in my opinion at least, these bridges are not as strong as they were before. It provides work, and the people are employed from one end of the country to the other-they all get jobs. However, I do not know where the money is coming from.
I think it would be well for the Minister of Railways with such a big expenditure going on in the county which I represent to take a run down there and size things up for himself. I would be satisfied with his judgment if he would say that this bridge was good for a number of years yet until we get out of debt. Leave it alone for the present; it will carry us all right. But we never find the minister going down there and looking into these things, he leaves matters to the managing committee that is putting the country to such expense from day to day until such a situation is reached that the chances are ten to one if we will ever get out of it.


Frank S. Cahill: I wish to ask the minister a question in connection with these directors. I understand that these gentlemen are directors of the Canadian Northern and its subsidiary companies-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele) :: There was a ruling given by the Chair earlier in the evening that a discussion of such matters is at present quite out of order.


Frank S. Cahill: Matters of what kind?


Georges Henri Boivin: Any discussion relating to the item under consideration will of course be quite in order. The item relates to detail of civil government.


Frank S. Cahill: I understand that the Deputy Minister of Railways is a director of the Management Board-is that your understanding, Mr. Chairman?


John Dowsley Reid: I might say that-


Frank S. Cahill: I was asking the Chairman for his ruling.


Georges Henri Boivin: The ruling of the Chair was that discussion of any matters connected with the Outside Service of the railway was quite out of order. Only discussion upon matters pertaining to the vote we are now considering is relevant.


Frank S. Cahill: Am I to understand that discussion pertaining to outside matters is relevant?


Georges Henri Boivin: If the hon. gentleman did not grasp what I said I will repeat it.
I say that discussion of matters pertaining to the Outside Service is not in order.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the Chairman tell me whether the deputy minister would be regarded as belonging to the Outside or the Inside Service? I see that he is a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways, and I would therefore like to know if he is to be regarded in the Outside or the Inside Service?


John Dowsley Reid: I would have to explain that. The deputy minister's salary as such is included in the item under civil government. His position as a director comes under another item, but of course I am willing to give the hon. member any reasonable information he wants. I have no objection to enlarging the field and discussing this or any other item, but the Chairman has ruled that the discussion must be limited to the item we are now considering. If we pass this vote the next item will enable hon. members to talk upon the activities of any branch of the railway system.


Frank S. Cahill: What does the minister mean by the next item?


John Dowsley Reid: I mean that upon the next item we will take up you could discuss any question in connection with the railways system. I am not raising any objection to the present discussion, except that I think perhaps it would be well to adhere to the ruling that has been given.


Frank S. Cahill: I am quite satisfied, Mr. Chairman, to abide by your ruling but I want you to carve the deputy minister and tell me just what portion of him belongs to the Outside Service and what portion to the Inside Service? Then I can follow your ruling and not render myself liable to be called to order. I have no desire

whatever to dispute your ruling; in fact, I wish to follow it. I now wish to know whether the deputy minister, and the other directors of the Canadian National system appoint the management for the Government railways, or whether they are appointed by the Minister of Railways?


John Dowsley Reid: That is a question I will have to answer myself, and the Chairman can then give such ruling as the case seems to call for. The question has been asked whether the deputy minister comes under this item. He is paid a salary as deputy minister in the Inside Service and that is included in this item. Then as a director he gets a certain amount but that appears in another item altogether.


Lucien Cannon: He gets a certain amount beside his salary?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, besides his salary. In the item we are now considering, the amount the deputy minister receives as a director is not included. When we come to the next item hon. members may ask any question they please about the deputy minister or any other of the other directors.


Frank S. Cahill: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I wish to know what the minister means by "another item." I did not have any idea that we were to go on with any of the Estimates of the Department of Railways to-night. In view of the explanation given by the Prime Minister that a committee was to be appointed to deal with the railways I understood the Miniser of Railways would take up only the items relating to Civil Government. 1 now ask if it is the intention of the minister to go on with any other item.


John Dowsley Reid: What I meant was, that if we passed the item relating to Civil Government and proposed to take up another item I would not see any harm in doing so. Then hon. gentlemen could discuss any matters in connection with the operation of our railways. If we remain in committee on the items of Civil Government then the ruling of the Chair must be borne in mind. I am not urging that the next item should be passed if we do go on, but I would then be in a position to give the committee information that was asked for with respect to any item that might happen to be discussed.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What is covered by the item "Sundries, $10,000?"


John Dowsley Reid: My deputy tells me that aplies to incidental expenses in con-

nection with the department. [DOT] He is now getting the details and they will be available in a moment.


Lucien Cannon: While waiting for those details I would like to again refer to the matter of the salary of the deputy minister. The minister has informed us that the deputy minister is also a director of the Canadian National Railways. I do not think that this is good policy or that it is a all in consonance with the principles of good organization. We are asked to vote this gentleman a salary as deputy minister, and the same official will go to Toronto and sit on the Board of directors and be independent of his own boss. How can we reconcile the two positions? I do not wish to attack the deputy minister, I am sure that he is a good official, but I say that he cannot satisfactorily hold the two positions at the one time. Let him be Deputy Minister of Railways and draw his salary as such, or if he prefers to be a director of the Canadian Na tional Railways let him be that; but he cannot be both. Earlier in the evening the minister explained that all moneys expended by the Canadian National Railways are checked up by the department. Naturally one of those who sees to the very close checking up of those accounts would be the deputy minister, and if on the one hand he is paid to protect his department, on the other hand he is paid also to go to Toronto to spend the department's money, I do not think this anomaly ought to continue any longer. I do not see the reason why Mr. Bell, after being appointed a director, remains deputy minister. I would like the minister to give the committee an explanation on this point and say whether the arrangement works out well. I do not see how it possibly can. How can the deputy minister, after attending to his departmental duties, go to Toronto and act as a director absolutely independent of his minister?


John Dowsley Reid: The deputy minister
gets the usual director's fees. The other directors receive $2,000 each, and there is no reason why he should not receive that amount as well. As I stated a few minutes ago, a large amount of money that is voted by this House on account of the National Railways must be certified to by the board of directors. I think it is a good idea to have an official of the department at the directors' meetings to see that the moneys are properly expended and give any explanations that are necessary.


Lucien Cannon: The moment the deputy head of the minister's department sits on the Board of Directors, and a decision is taken by that board in which the deputy minister concurs, the department is bound. If that decision is not in the best interests of the country how could the department move to have it changed if the deputy minister as director has concurred in it and has shared in the expenditure? The hon. minister had not considered that apparently when answering me a minute ago. To sum up my objection,-the deputy minister represents the department at the board; therefore the department is a party to all decisions taken; and if bad decisions are taken and money is expended which should not be expended, the department is bound by those decisions and cannot exercise a proper checking up of the expenditure.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, the hon.
member knows that a decision of the board would be final any way, but the deputy minister being on the board would not agree unless they were carrying out exactly what was intended by Parliament. If by any chance that board should do something other than what Parliament had authorized, of course, the deputy minister would inform the minister of the Government on his return, and the mistake could be corrected. I think it is a great advantage to have him on the board.


Lucien Cannon: Has the deputy minister ever disagreed with the decisions of the board?


John Dowsley Reid: If he disagreed the board would do what was right, because they would not want him to report and recommend the Government to take action. The board might innocently take some action not in accordance with what should be done, and having the deputy minister present he would be able to give them information and advice and see that what Parliament authorized was properly carried out. If he made a report that the board had passed some resolution not in accordance with what Parliament had authorized, I think that some action would be at once taken by the Government.


Lucien Cannon: I do not understand the minister very clearly. At first he told us that decisions taken by the board were final. If such is the case, how could the deputy minister have them changed?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that the actions of the Board of Directors are supposed to be final, and are final unless they are not in accordance with what Parliament has authorized. Now, I say that if the deputy minister reported next day that such irregular action had been taken, the Government would have power to remove the directors. I am satisfied that the presence of the deputy minister to give advice and point out the intention of Parliament is of great assistance to the directors, and I have no doubt they would follow his advice.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: How often does the Board of Directors meet?


John Dowsley Reid: The Board of Directors have a regular meeting once a month. Of course, they may have special meetings now and again.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Dui^ng 1920 how
many special meetings were held besides the regular meetings?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not that information now, but I will get it.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Are regular minutes of the Board of Directors kept?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, by the Board of Directors in Toronto.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Will those minutes show the attendance of the directors at the meetings?


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon.
member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) perhaps was not in the House when this item was first reached, and the ruling was given that anything relating to the Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways could be properly asked only on the item providing the expenditure incurred by that board, which, I hope, will be reached during the evening. The discussion which was brought up by the hon. member for Dorchester was of course more relevant because it related to the position of the deputy minister upon that board, and for that reason was allowed.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I think it would be
proper to ask the minister to ask the deputy minister how often the board met.


Georges Henri Boivin: That question was
allowed.


John Dowsley Reid: I said to the hon. member that I did not have that information, but that I would have it at the next sitting.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I asked the minister
a question a while ago with regard to the item of sundries. We cannot hear very well

at this end of the chamber, and I did not' catch his reply.


John Dowsley Reid: The amount is for
temporary assistants and various small items, typewriters and things of that kind-small supplies.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There ,is another
item here for $13,000 covering printing and stationery. It seems to me that $10,000 is a pretty large item for sundries. If a man included in his statement of election expenses an amount of $10,000 for sundries, his statement would be questioned. The item appears to me to be too large to be allowed to pass without our having some information as to what it is intended for.


Frank S. Cahill: Is there a gentleman
named Hayter ip the Department of Railways and Canals?


John Dowsley Reid: He is in the Auditor
General's Department. I think he is the official who has Charge of the railway accounting in that department. He has never been paid as an official of the Railway Department.


Frank S. Cahill: Who is Mr. Cope? Is he in the Railway Department?


John Dowsley Reid: When Mr. Bell was
promoted to the position of deputy minister, Mr. Cope took his place as financial comptroller of the department.


Frank S. Cahill: At page W-234 of the
Auditor General's report, volume 3, 1920,
I find some correspondence on the subject of the audit. I find that Mr. Hayter asks for permission to audit the Canadian National accounts, and the correspondence apparently concludes with a letter from G. A. Bell to the effect that all the cheques, vouchers and other documents relative to expenditure made by the Government railway under vote number 96 will be supplied to any person having authority to call for them. I would like to know what "Government railway" means in that connection.


John Dowsley Reid: The Intercolonial and
the Transcontinental.


Frank S. Cahill: The letter refers first
to the Canadian National railways and afterwards to the Government railways.
It would seem to be misleading in that respect.


John Dowsley Reid: It says:
I have been advised by the treasurer of Canadian National Railways that all the

cheques, vouchers and other documents relative to expenditure made by the Government railway-
And so on. The Intercolonial and the Transcontinental have been known as the Government railways.


Frank S. Cahill: Under what item do we find the appropriation for the salaries of the managers of the Canadian National Railways?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Hanna and his staff are paid out of the total earnings of the whole system-that is, the several railways that go to make up the Canadian National Railway system. There is apportioned to each part of the system its share of these salaries.


Frank S. Cahill: That cannot be, because there is a separate company there, the Canadian Northern. They employ certain gentlemen and the minister, in tu!rn, employs certain gentlemen for the purposes of management; in this case they happen to be the same persons. Where is the vote for the payment of these men? The expenditure must be submitted to the Auditor General, unless you are cutting corners.


John Dowsley Reid: The salaries of Mr. Hanna and his officials do not appear in the Auditor General's report. The report laid on the table of the House gives the total revenue and the total expenditure of all these railways, but the details are not at hand just at the moment. However, I will give the information to the House when we come to the particular item concerned, and as it is asked for.


Frank S. Cahill: Well, it is being asked for now.


John Dowsley Reid: It does not come under this item.


Frank S. Cahill: That may be so, but we are voting the salaries of Civil Government employees in connection with the management of the Government Railways. As I understand it, the Government railways stand in the same position as the Canadian National; they did not change their status in any particular. That is, they bear the same relation to the Government and the people of Canada as they did before, except that the minister employs the same management as he has for the Canadian Northern system.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Hayes was the manager of the Intercolonial before the Canadian Northern was taken over, and the Transcontinental was under Mr. APRIL 6, 1921
Brady. Both these managers reported direct to the Government. They resigned these positions when the other railways were taken over and assumed other duties in connection with the Canadian National Railway system. Then we appointed the hoard of Directors of the Canadian Northern,-what we now call the Canadian National,-as managers also of the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental, and the management was therefore taken over entirely by these gentlemen. Of course, the salaries and expenses in connection with the Canadian Northern system,-what we call the Canadian National system,-are all paid at Toronto and the details kept there. Any information the hon. gentleman wants, I can give to the committee in connection with any of these expenditures. If the hon. gentleman lets me know a little time ahead what information he wants, I can have it ready for him when I am on my Estimates again; or when I am on my Estimates, if he lets me know the information he wants, I can get it for him.


Frank S. Cahill: The other night the minister seemed to be under a sort of eclipse and no information was available. I am delighted to hear him say to-night that he is going to give any information that may be required. He told us this evening that the Canadian National Railway Company, the Bill for which was forced through this House, was never brought into operation. Therefore, there is no such thing as the Canadian National Railway Company; it is not a company; it has no standing, and it is not in a position to hire people and pay them, because it has no funds. Therefore, the employees, the civil servants in connection with the Canadian Government Railways, must be paid by some person. If that does not appear in this item, I should like to know where it appears.


Georges Henri Boivin: It appears in item 126, for a loan not exceeding $50,000,000, which may be used "to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred at any time by or on behalf of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, the Canadian National Railway Company, or any company comprised in the Canadian Northern Railway system." If the hon. member will also look at item 341, he will find an appropriation there of $7,000,000 towards any deficiency in receipts and revenues necessary to meet working expenditures on the Canadian Government railways. He will see that there are two separate items, and his question would, of
course, be in order when those items come up.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister stated that there was no such thing as the Canadian National. The Canadian Northern is a different proposition. We have a Canadian Government railway.


Georges Henri Boivin: I cannot answer for the minister; I can speak only for the Chair. The ruling of the Chair is that the question and the discussion in answer to the question put by the hon. member are out of order at this stage.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Some time ago, in answer to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), the minister made it quite clear that it was no part of his functions' to interfere in the management of the Government roads. He also wished the hon. mefti-ber for Dorchester to state whether he referred to cases of dishonesty or fraud. Would the minister interfere if he had brought to his attention a case of fraud or malpractice on the part of an employee on the Canadian National railways in the discharge of his duty?


John Dowsley Reid: Matters of that kind have been brought to my attention, and I have immediately brought them to the attention of the Board of Management and they have always taken action. I would be very much surprised if, when a case of that kind was brought to their attention, they should not take action.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I asked that because complaints have been made to me with reference to one such case in which the directors would not take action.


Georges Henri Boivin: I certainly cannot allow the hon. member to go into that case on this item.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am not going into it.


Georges Henri Boivin: It will have to came up under item 126 or item 341.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not wish to offend the Chairman in any way, but I would ask him to call me out of order when I am out of order. I was not going into this matter; I was asking the minister if I could bring such cases to his attention.


Georges Henri Boivin: I will say that the hon. gentleman is out of order in asking the question.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am quite satisfied that the Chairman can call me out of order whenever he likes, and he knows that. But

I am asking when I might bring this matter to the attention of the minister, and I do not see that there is any occasion for heat on the part of the Chairman of the committee. I understand, in answer to some question by the member for Dorchester, the minister stated that a reason for a decrease in this item was that Mr. Mon-sarrat had left the employ of the Government. Who has replaced Mr. Monsar-rat.


John Dowsley Reid: We have abolished that position.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Who controls the Quebec bridge ?


John Dowsley Reid: The Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. COPP:: Has the minister a purchasing agent in the department at Ottawa?


John Dowsley Reid: We have an agent
here, but he does not make the purchases direct as was done heretofore. Mr. Lavoie used to make the purchases before the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental came under the Canadian National Railway system. Mr. Lavoie was removed to Toronto. We have at Ottawa one or two men who prepare requisitions and attend to arranging items, and then the Purchasing Commission makes the purchases.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I notice in this item there
is so much for an assistant purchasing agent and so much for a junior purchasing agent, but nothing for a purchasing agent.


John Dowsley Reid: I explained a little
while ago that the Civil Service Commission gave those men those titles. They were employed here as assistants under Mr. Lavoie who had quite a little staff when he was in the department. We had to keep those officials in the department to carry out the work in connection with getting requisitions ready for the Purchasing Commission.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What work do the assistant purchasing agent and the junior purchasing agent do? Is it in connection with the Government at Ottawa or in connection with purchasing for Government railways generally?	-


John Dowsley Reid: Only purchases in connection with the canals. They have nothing to do with the railways in any shape or form. The purchases for the Intercolonial, Transcontinental, Canadian Northern and all those systems is done through Mr. Lavoie, the purchasing agent at Toronto.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In purchasing for the canals, do the assistant and junior purchasing agents have full authority, or do they just report to the minister?


John Dowsley Reid: They have no authority to purchase at all. The purchases are made now by the Purchasing Commission which purchases for the several departments of the Government.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Are they members of that
commission?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What are they here for if
they have nothing to do?


John Dowsley Reid: They prepare specifications and requisitions. There is a good deal of work in connection with getting specifications and all that sort of thing ready before tenders are called.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I see an item in regard to four travelling auditors.


John Dowsley Reid: I explained that a few minutes ago, but I do not object to giving the explanation again. These men have been in the department for some time. They have a great deal of work to do. They1 were there when we had the Intercolonial and Transcontinental, and since those roads have been handed over to the management, the highways work has been transferred to our department. All the expenditures in connection with that work made by the different provinces have to be checked up by our auditors. Then they have the canal work as well. We alpo have to send them to Toronto to audit the expenditures that have been voted by the House. So they are fully employed.


Frank S. Cahill: Since the department is no longer managing our railways, what is the object of retaining a right-of-way agent?


John Dowsley Reid: He is busy all the time in connection with the canals. Then there is purchasing to be done in connection with other works. Leases, for instance, are being granted almost daily for properties along the canal. I may add that this man used to do work in connection with the Intercolonial. He is a splendid man, a first-class man, and for that reason we have loaned him to other departments, the Public Works Department, for instance.


Frank S. Cahill: I am not making any
objections to the man at all. I do not know whether he is a first-class man or a third-class man, but I cannot understand why

we should be passing this item for the Department of Railways and Canals when there is really no work pertaining to the railways for this man to do. If his work pertains solely to the canals, why not say so, and let us dispense with this discussion when the Railway Estimates are being considered. I understood that these Estimates pertained to both the railways and canals, but apparently all these officials whose salaries we are voting are doing canal work only, since the Government have washed their hands of the railways. Is the deputy minister considered as the deputy minister of Canals here or as the deputy minister of railways?


John Dowsley Reid: He is Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals.


Frank S. Cahill: What are his functions as Deputy Minister of Railways?


John Dowsley Reid: He has a lot to do in connection with the items we are passing. We are voting very large expenditures in connection with the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk, and the deputy minister is responsible for the work in connection with these items.


Frank S. Cahill: That would be in his
capacity as director of the Canadian National Railways?


John Dowsley Reid: No, as deputy minister.	-


Frank S. Cahill: Why do we need a comptroller and a secretary and the rest of these gentlemen, now the railways have been transferred to the company?


John Dowsley Reid: The comptroller has
charge of the expenditure. There is a comptroller in every large spending department.


Lucien Cannon: I see there are three "secretaries to executive". Who is the executive?	'


John Dowsley Reid: There are three secretaries, one for the deputy minister, one for the chief engineer, and one for the comptroller.


Lucien Cannon: And the minister also has a secretary?
Hon. Mr, REID:	Oh, yes. The Civil
Service Commission has given this title to the secretaries of the three officials I have mentioned.


Lucien Cannon: It seems extraordinary that the comptroller, for instance, should
be designated an executive. I understood the executive of a department to be exclusively the head of the department.


Frank S. Cahill: What are the duties of the bridge and structural engineer?


John Dowsley Reid: That was Mr. Mont-sarrat. When the Quebec bridge was completed, it was decided to keep Mr. Montsar-rat on for a year or two, in order to see that that work was all right. We kept him on, and two or three other gentlemen, and that was the title he had. He retired from the department on March 31.


Frank S. Cahill: Has he been transferred to the company?


John Dowsley Reid: No, he has gone into private practice.


William Duff: We are asked to vote $202,000 for salaries, and $28,000 for contingencies, for the Department of Railways and Canals. The salaries are to be paid to ninety-five officials. It seems to me that as they cannot have the work to do that they had before the railways were transferred to the so-called company with headquarters in Toronto, there should be a reduction in the staff, unless the minister can show the committee that there is as much work to do in the department now as there was four or five years ago. The country certainly cannot understand why there should be as many officials in the department now as there were before the railways were transferred. I can understand that the minister is not in a position to give me the information to-night, but I should like him to tell the committee when his Estimates are up again, how many officials were employed in connection with this item under Civil Government in 191415, or, say, the year before the railways were transferred to the company.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall be very glad to get that information. I may say to the hon. member that we made a reduction in the staff last year. I might also say that the highways work has been transferred to the department, which means the addition of a few more officials, at least.


Frank S. Cahill: I see that the head statistical cjerk has been eliminated from this year's vote. Is there a statistical branch in the department now?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Payne was head statistical clerk, but he has been retired from the Government service.


Frank S. Cahill: Is there no statistical
branch in the department of railways now? Is there no statistical branch available to the Canadian people in any department at the present time?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes. About one or two years ago a Bill was passed transferring the statistical work of all departments to the Department of Trade and Commerce, and providing that a report should be laid on the Table every year showing the statistics for each department. The Board of Railway Commissioners also keeps statistics.


Lucien Cannon: I see that there is an official here called a records searcher. Am I to understand that the records are lost in the department and that he is supposed to search after them?


John Dowsley Reid: We have one man, Mr. Ross, who has been in the department many years doing this work of turning up records as they are wanted. A great many applications are made by the public for documents, and this gentleman, who has been engaged in this work for a long time, hunts them up.


Lucien Cannon: Would it not be better to call this official "Keeper of Records"? Was the present title given by the commission?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: I wish the minister
would have more control over the commission.


John Dowsley Reid: So do I; I should be glad to.


Lucien Cannon: Any man who looked at the list and saw that this gentleman was a record searcher would naturally be under the impression that records were lost for which he had to search. If he keeps records, let him be designated accordingly. I see that most of the titles ascribed by the Civil Service Commission are quite inappropriate. It would be better for the minister to have proper titles for his officials so that people might know exactly what they were doing.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. gentleman. I have not been entirely satisfied with some of the titles given by the Civil Service Commission, but they have power in the matter.


Frank S. Cahill: I should like some information in regard to Mr. H. Forman, who appears at page "234-W" of the Auditor General's Report.
[Mr J. I). Reid.]	.


John Dowsley Reid: He is treasurer in Toronto. I will have information in regard to hipi when we come to the next item.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The Minister of Railways has told us that he has no control over the Board of Directors. He has said on two or three different occasions that the deputy minister attends meetings of the Board of Directors, and may exercise certain control over their deliberations. Does the deputy act under the direction of the minister? If he does, we can establish the connection and show that the minister in an indirect way, through the deputy minister, has control over the Board of Directors.


John Dowsley Reid: I must answer, "no."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty for the adjournment of the House:
William Stevens Fielding: What will be the business to-morrow?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We expect to take up the Estimates of the Department of Marine and Naval Affairs, and of Railways, and the motion for the appointment of a committee in connection with railway operations.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a motion of which we require longer notice. I will not press my objection at the moment, but it really requires two days' notice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it is not ripe for action, it will riot be taken up.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Thursday!, April 7, 1921