[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that an Order of the House do issue for all papers in connection with the Eastern Extension (Nova Scotia) arbitration.
Motion agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER laid the papers on the Table of the House.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 127) to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.-Hon. Mr. Fisher.


Mr. ROBINSON (Northumberland) asked :: 1.	Have the government received an address or resolution unanimously passed by the provincial legislature of New Brunswick, urging upon the government the acquiring of the Canada Eastern Railway?
2.	Have any similar resolutions been received from the boards of trade of the city of Fredericton and the town of Chatham, in the county of Northumberland, N.B.?
3.	Has a similar resolution been received from the city council of the city of Fredericton?
4. Is it the intention of the government to introduce any measure, or ask for any appropriation at the present session to carry the wishes of these various public bodies into effect?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The answer to the first three clauses of the question is, Yes. The answer to the fourth clause of the question is : It is not the intention of the government to introduce any legislation or to ask for any appropriation at the present session.



I.C.R.-CLAIMS' AGENT.

Mr. GAUVREAU asked :: When does the hon. Minister of Railways intend to appoint a commissioner for inquiries into accidents and injury to the property of farmers on the line of the Intercolonial Railway? Does he intend to appoint a French Canadian, or only a person conversant with both languages?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The Intercolonial Railway has at present a claims' agent or officer whose duty it is to investigate these matters, but we recognize the importance of having one who is thoroughly familiar with both languages, and we will make such arrangements as will secure the object my hon. friend (Mr. Gauvreau) has in view.



COLLECTOR OF INLAND REVENUE, TORONTO.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CARSCALLEN-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Does the Inland Revenue Act compel the position of Collector of Inland Revenue to be filled from one already in the service who has passed the civil service examinations and promotion examinations ?
2.	Who is the Collector of Inland Revenue at Toronto? Has he passed the civil service examination and necessary qualifications for the position? If so, before what examiners, and what percentage of marks did he receive?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to appoint collectors of inland revenue from persons who have not passed the civil service examination ?
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: No.
2.	H. R. Frankland. He has not passed the civil service examination.
3.	It is the intention of the government to follow the law and regulations.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT.

Mr. TAYLOR asked :: Was a resolution passed by the House of Commons at its session of 1900 as follows :- ' Inasmuch as it is desirable that legislation be enacted having in view the further restriction of the liquor traffic, it is therefore expedient, in the opinion of this House, that the Canada Temperance Act be enlarged in its scope, and the provisions for its administration perfected'? If so, is it the intention of the government to introduce and pass legislation at the present session giving effect to the above resolution?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Such a resolution was passed last session, and if my memory serves me right, my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) voted against it. Several representations have been received by the government, which are now engaging its attention, but no conclusion can be declared to-day.



SUPPLY-THE VALLEYFIELD STRIKE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. IV. S. Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['I agree in that. The intention is that the Minister of Railways will have priority following the Minister of Agriculture, but the Minister of Railways has not been very well of late, and that is the reason I put in the qualification.']
Mr. GEORGE M. LOY (Beauharnois).: Before the House goes into Committee of Supply, I wish to refer to a matter which seriously affects some of the citizens of Valleyfield, on account of the serious charges which were made against them, as well as against the labour union of that town, and also against the Deputy Minister of Labour, with reference to the strike or strikes which took place in Valleyfield last fall. The hon. member who preferred these charges promised to lay on the Table of the House affidavits in support of his statements, and I would ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if such affidavits have been laid on the Table of the House.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: As the question seems to be addressed to me

more than to anybody else, perhaps you will allow me to state that I have communicated with the parties, who, as I stated at the time, had given me that information, asking them to procure the affidavits, and they have promised me to procure them. I have not received them yet.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: It is a long time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In this connection I may say that the motion which was granted called for papers from the Militia Department. There was a most important report, as I understand, made by Col. Ibbotson, or, at any rate, by the officer in command of the militia force that went out to Valleyfield. That report, upon which, I believe, great reliance is placed, is not among the papers brought down, and I would avail of this occasion to ask the Prime Minister why it is that that report, a most important one, is missing from the papers that the motion called for.


Mr. SPROULE.: It is a long time since the motion was passed.


George di Madeiros Loy: As these statements were made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) on the 3rd of April, and the affidavits were promised to be furnished at the beginning of the following week, I think it is my duty now to prove to the House the incorrectness of the statements then made, and to show that the responsibility does not rest upon the Liberal party, who are accused of being the instigators of that strike. In support of this, I shall read affidavits which I have in my possession. The affidavits were made in French, but I will read the translation, and lay the copies on the Table of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no objection that these affidavits shall be read. Indeed, if there has been any misapprehension as to the conduct of Mr. King, I would be the first to see that justice is done him. But, perhaps, it would be better to wait until the affidavits I have been promised shall come.
'Some hon. MEMBERS. How long?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not see anything in the point of order. I would suppose from what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) 'stated, that he would be the first to rise in this House to make the amende. He knows very well that a most serious charge is made against this young gentleman, Mr. King. I called his attention to it at the time. I told him I believed I was justified in saying that there was not the slightest foundation for the statement, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) volunteered to bring proofs. The time has long since passed. This has been referred to in the press throughout the country, and we have had no move so far on the part of the hon. gentleman to do some small measure of justice to this young Mr. MONK.
gentleman, who has been so seriously injured by the statements made in this House. The hon. gentleman from Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) now proposes to show what the truth about the -matter is, and I submit that he is not out of order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think it is right to put that construction upon me facts. When I made the motion, I stated I was making it on the information I received, and my information was to the effect that affidavits would be procured to prove all the facts. I stated that if that were not well founded. I would be prepared to consider that the statement as regards Mr. King was not well founded. I think I should have the necessary time to procure those affidavits. My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) was not here the day my motion was passed, and I believe there is something in my contention that the whole of the papers should be brought down. That motion was passed by the House on the same day that this matter to which reference is made took place. These papers were here, but they have been sent back to Montreal, as I am informed by the Minister of Militia. Why are they not deposited on the Table of the House ?


Mr. SPEAKER.: If I understand tSe question that has been raised, it is this, that the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) should not proceed to-day with the reading of the affidavits which he has declared his intention to read because the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) intends to bring some papers or produce some other affidavits.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And because the papers which were called for by the motion are not here.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It may be that the papers brought down are not complete-I do not know anything about that; but that is not a reason why an hon. member should not have the right, on the motion to go into supply, to discuss the question, and to read affidavits which are outside of the record.


George di Madeiros Loy: These are the affidavits translated into English-I have the originals in French :
Province of Quebec,
Distriot of Beauharnois,
Town of Salaberry of Valleyfield.
I,	Nepthalie Benoit, weaver, of the town of Salaberry of Valleyfield, solemnly declare that :
1.	The labour union of Valleyfield is not a political institution ;
2.	That there has never been nor ever is question of politics ,in its meetings ;
3.	That it is the contrary to the constitution of the union to talk politics at its meetings, this being even a cause of expulsion from the union ;
4.	That as soon as the general elections were officially announced the labour union of this town immediately adjourned its meetings to a date after said general elections; and the same thing was done for the provincial elections ;
3757 APRIL 25, 1901 3758	
5.	That the union took no part in the strike which occurred at Valleyfield last autumn, and, on the contrary, made every effort to prevent its members from participating therein ; 6.	That Mr. Mackenzie King, Deputy Minister of Labour, who came to Valleyfield to settle the difficulties existing between the workmen and the Cotton Company, made no allusion to politics, and profited neither of his position nor of his mission to do anything of a nature to favour any political party. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath in virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893. (Sgd.) NEPTHALIE BENOIT. Declared and signed in presence of (Sgd.) C. A. LAVIMODIERE, N.P. I have similar- affidavits from Pierre Le-febvre, joiner ; Hyacinthe Chevalier, jr., labourer ; Jean Baptiste Faubert, labourer ; Joseph M. Decliene, tailor, Celestin Theoret, clerk ; Amedee Laberge, carter; Laurent Dagenais, jr., labourer; Julien Rouleau, labourer ; Pierre Benoit, weaver ; Etienne Leger, farmer ; Charles Poirier, labourer ; Charles Tessier, labourer ; Louis Leduc, jr., labourer, and Damase Ledue, stoker. In addition to these, I beg to read the following which are also made in French and translated into English : Province of Quebec, District of Beauharnois. I, Narcisse Wells, machinist, of de Salaberry cf Valleyfield, solemnly declare that on the morning of the strike, the 22nd October, 1900, I heard Mr. Damase Tessier, one of the foremen of the Cotton Company at Valleyfield, say to the crowd then present the following words : [DOT] I myself have always been against strikes, hut this morning I counselled my men to stop work.' And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath in virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893. (Sgd.) NARCISSE WELLS. Declared and signed in my presence at Salaberry of Valleyfield, this 15th day of April, 1901. (Sgd.) C. A. LAVIMODIERE, N.P. I beg to remark, Mr. Speaker, that this Damase Tessier, who is here spoken of, is a well-known Conservative. Here is another affidavit : Province of Quebec, District of Beauharnois. * I, Frank Decoste, labourer, of the town of de Salaberry of Valleyfield, solemnly declare that on the day of the strike, the 21st October, 1900, in the afternoon, one of the foremen of the Cotton Company at Valleyfield, Mr. Damase Tessier, asked me to go and see the employees who were working further off under another foreman, to find out if they were willing to stop working the same as those under his own orders. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing it to be true, and knowing that it has the same force and effect as if made under oath in virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893. (Sgd.) FRANK DECOSTE. Declared and signed in my presence at Salaberry of Valleyfield, this 15th day of April. 1901. (Sgd.) C. A. LAVIMODIERE, N.P.	Another : Province of Quebec, District of Beauharnois. I, Amedee Laberge, carter, of the town of de Salaberry of Valleyfield, solemnly declare that on the day of the strike, in the morning, Mr. Damase Tessier, foreman of the Cotton Company at Valleyfield, came to where I was working a little further away under another foreman and asked me if our gang would consent to stop working when his would cease, and when he would raise his arm in the air to give us the signal, that a little later on he gave the signal himself, and then the employees stopped working. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it has the same force and effect as if made under oath in virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893 (Sgd.) EMEDEE LABERGE. Declared and signed in mv presence at Salaberry of Valleyfield, this 15th day of April, 1901. (Sgd.) C. A. LAVIMODIERE, N.P. Now, iMr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up the attention of the House any longer ; but I leave hon. members to draw their own conclusions between the statements which were made without proof given and the statements which I now make denying all those allegations and producing affidavits in support of my statements. Mr. MONK. Mr. Speaker, I can only say that it seems to one that my hon. friend would have been only acting in accordance with what I believe is the custom among members of this House if he had given me some intimation that he intended to bring this matter up to-day. With regard to my own position, to these members who beard the statement which I made at the time this matter was brought up, I do not think it is necessary for me to make any correction of what I said. I brought the matter up on information which was given to me by reliable persons, who knew the responsibility of a member making statements such as I made ; and I brought it up, as I thought I was in duty bound to do-I had no personal interest in it-on the assurance given to me that any fact which I might articulate could be abundantly proven either before a committee of this House, if the House saw fit to grant one, or by affidavits. The House will remember that in consequence of these representations I read from a paper which I had in my hand, so that I should not vary any the facts as they were given to me. Since then I have been almost continuously in Ottawa; but on every occasion when I have been in Montreal, I have seen the parties interested, and have applied for those affidavits. I have alwavs been informed that the affidavits could be procured by any one going to the county of Beauharnois ; and there the matter rested. I have not received those affidavits. I have not pressed the matter on the parties beyond telling them when I had a chance, during my weekly visits to Mont-

real, that I desired to have them, and that unless proof were forthcoming, I would he prepared, as any man ought to be, to state that so far as Mr. King was concerned proof did not seem to be forthcoming. I have not received the affidavits as yet. No doubt if my hon. friend from Beauharnois had intimated to me that he intended to bring the matter up, I would have prompted the parties with more vigour, by telegraph, or by telling them that the matter was going to be brought up ; but more than that I cannot do. I understand that parties applied to for affidavits are not willing to give them. In fact, I may say to the House frankly, several people informed my informant that the facts were as they had stated to him, but that they felt some reluctance in giving affidavits. If the minister, however, will name a commissioner, as I believe he has the power to do, and let that commissioner take evidence in the county of Beauharnois, he will take a far better step, I think, towards the vindication of the reputation of the official concerned. This will give people ample and open opportunity to furnish proof of what they have done, and if they failed to do so, their failure would stand as a much better vindication of Mr. King than any default on my part. At any rate, the House will remember under what circumstances I gave the information ; and I will produce the affidavits if I can, or take the consequences.


George di Madeiros Loy: If I am in order, I would heartily support the request of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier for an investigation to be held into the cause of the strike, and I have no fear of the result.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: With regard to certain words which were uttered by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) on another occasion, when he referred to an incorporated company, I desire to state that I have been informed since that the particular society to which I made reference had no incorporation whatever. Possibly there is an incorporated labour union in the county of Beauharnois ; but the information given to me was that the union to which I referred was not an incorporated company.


Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) complains that the hon. member (Mr. Loy) who has brought this matter up to-day did not give him notice of his intention to do so. I would like to say that we have been waiting for three weeks for that hon. member to substantiate his charges. He made certain charges on the floor of this House three weeks ago to-day, stating plainly, that he would produce the affidavits in the following week-that is two weeks ago-and if he was not able to do so, he would retract his statement. That is on record in ' Hansard.' We did not consider for a moment that it was our Mr. MONK.
business to give the hon. gentleman notice of bringing this matter forward, as we had been waiting for two weeks to give him an opportunity to prove the charges that he made. Now, these charges were, in the first place, against the members of an incorporated trade union in Valleyfleld. The hon. gentleman stated that that union was a political institution. The second charge was against the Deputy Minister of Labour, who, he said, had gone down there to take part in the settlement of the strike and had acted as a political partisan. The hon. gentleman stated these things very plainly. We can read in ' Hansard ' that be repeatedly made the statement with regard to the Deputy Minister of Labour. Now, the members of this trade union, seeing what the hon. member had charged them with, repudiated hi,s statement very strongly, and they went to work immediately and prepared some sixteen or twenty affidavits declaring the very opposite of the charges of the hon. gentleman to be true, and these have been read too by the hon. gentleman who has brought this matter up to-day. Now, our position is this-I supported the resolution calling for the correspondence, and if the evidence brought forward by the hon. member had substantiated his position that Mr. King had gone down to Valleyfleld on the occasion of that strike and had used his position for political purposes, I would have supported the hon. gentleman's position still further. But, when lie made the serious charge against an imxiortant officer of the government that that officer had used his influence for political purposes; and when he promised to produce affidavits to' prove his statement and said that if he was not able to produce the affidavits he would take back the whole matter; and when two weeks have elapsed over and above the time within which he promised these affidavits-I think it is reasonable to demand that, so far as Mr. King and the members of this union are concerned, the hon. gentleman ought to be prepared to give some proof of his position or take the whole thing back. It seems to me that that is a very reasonable position. The hon. gentleman 'says that he has great trouble in getting affidavits. Well, we had no trouble in getting affidavits. These people were perfectly sincere; they knew that they could prove their case, and in forty-eight hours after the hon. gentleman had made his statement there were sixteen affidavits in the hands of members of this House to prove the opposite of the statements he made. In justice to Mr. King the hon. gentleman ought to make a plain statement of the position.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will do so, after the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith, Vancouver) has made his statement about the Peterborough affair.


Ralph Smith: That is to*say, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) is in such a fix that he must refer to a matter which has nothing to do with this question in order to avoid the discussion of the subject before us. So far as I am concerned, I am ready whenever the House is willing, to fight out the question of the Peterborough affair. But that is not the question before us. I made no such charges against any officer of the government or any member of the House as he has made; and the information I gave to this House, I gave from an open telegram and read the signature of the gentleman who sent it. But this hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) asserted that he was able to give proof by affidavit of his statement. He has not given the proof, and he evidently cannot give the proof. He told us that if he could not give the proof he would take the whole thing back. He has not given the proof, and he has not taken the whole thing back. This House is entitled either to have the proof he promised or to have a straightforward, manly position taken, exonerating the officer of the government whom he charged with using his position and influence for political purposes, and exonerating also the members of this labour union. That is the position I take and I think that that is a reasonable position.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: This matter of the Valleyfield strike, of course, could not rest where it was left about three weeks ago. I think my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. I,oy) was perfectly justified. after waiting for this length of time, in bringing the matter up and laying his information before the House. However, the suggestion has been made that a commissioner should be appointed to go down into that district and obtain all the information available on the whole subject; and I wish to support that application. I think that would be a proper thing to do, because I notice that there is another question coming up in connection with this, a question which I drew attention to some time ago-the payment of the militia who were called out from Montreal at the time of the Valleyfield strike. On the 13th of February, I asked, among others, this question of the Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Borden)-and I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not in his place at the moment:
At whose expense, were these military operations carried out, and have the accounts been settled?
And the hon. minister replied :
At the expense of the town [DOT] council. It is not known whether the accounts have been settled or not.
Since then it is pretty well understood, publicly at ail events, that the account has not been settled; and I very much suspect that an attempt is being made to have the Department of Militia pay the money.
| On the 18th of this month there were sent | out from Montreal to most of the news-| papers of the country telegraphic despatches dealing with this question. From this and other things I apprehend that an attempt is being made on behalf of some parties interested, to have the expense of this movement of last October-that is, just before the last general election and now charged to have been got up for political purposes by some of the parties interested -foisted upon the Militia Department. I object to that, and I think we should have an investigation to find out who was the primary cause of calling out the militia. Was it the city of Valleyfield ? Or was it the Cotton Company ? Or was it due to parties who were trying to work up an agitation for political purposes ? While these accounts are unpaid, I think it is proper to have the question sifted and find who was to blame and who should bear the expense. I read from the Montreal Witness of April 18 :
For some time there has been much dissatisfaction beneath the surface among the men of the Montreal militia corps who were on duty in aid of the civil power at Valleyfield at the time of the big cotton mill strike last October. At last this spirit of dissatisfaction has broken out in public complaint, a proceeding which cannot fall to have a ba:l effect upon the discipline of the force.
The trouble is all due to the failure of the Militia Department to provide the pay of the force employed upon the occasion in question.
Of course, I do not assent to this, but this is what is being put forward as a plea why the Militia Department should be called upon to pay these bills.
It will be remembered that the troops were called cut in the regular way by a requisition signed by the mayor and three other magistrates of Valleyfield, addressed to the district officer commanding. That officer first ordered out the 5th Royal Scots, but as many of the officers and men were unable, owing to business engagements, to get away at such short notice, the second regiment Canadian Artillery, the Duke of York's Hussars, the Victoria Rifles and the 65th Regiment were ordered to send up such men of these corps as could get away to reinforce the Scots. The result was the mobilization in Valleyfield of a force of some 400 men, with a large number of colonels, majors, captains and other commissioned officers. This is one of the ostensible reasons why the pay has been so long withheld, as the reperesentatives of -the Valleyfield corporation maintain, not merely that the presence of the troops was not necessary, but that the pay-lists were abnormally large considering the small number of men on service. Of course, the officers' pay is very much heavier than that of the men.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be well to have this matter settled now, because it seems to me, that if these matters do come before this House, there should be some responsibility in giving sanction to the calling out the militia. At the present time, as has been stated, the Minister of Militia was not consulted, and I suppose

the provisions of the Riot Act would need to be amended before he could be consulted.
It seems to me that there is no necessity why we should have the matter of calling out the militia in the hands of purely local parties. All points are now in close communication by telegraph with the capital, and the important details of any trouble can be immediately reported to the Minister of Militia. I think that, in future cases, more especially in strikes and labour troubles where it is usually for some secondary purpose that troops are called upon, the responsible minister should have the power to give or withhold his sanction for the calling out of the militia. Not wishing to take part in the little disturbance this afternoon, but thinking that the matter is not closed and should not be closed until we have the facts, I support the proposal that the question should be investigated on the spot.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Apparently this matter has been brought up at the instance of the acting Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), and it has been brought up without the usual courtesy extended across the floor of this House of
giving notice to the hon. gentleman


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 1 suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will do me the justice to hear my answer at once. I did not even know that the matter was to be brought up until I heard the hon. gentleman (Mr. Loy) speak, so it could not have been at my instance.


Robert Laird Borden: 
The PRIME MINISTER.: I will with great pleasure give the reasons so far as I am concerned. My attention was never called to the fact that there was any deficiency in the papers brought down. I understand the papers moved for have been brought down.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: May I state, with the permission of the right lion, gentleman, that I called the attention of the Minister of Militia and Defence to the absence of these two documents, and he wrote me a note stating that they had been returned to Montreal and he expected them back in a 'few days.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Now, the leader of the opposition has the reason why I am not called upon to give an explanation today. I never heard the report was brought down. But it appears that certain papers which the hon. gentleman expected to be in the return were not in it, and he called the attention of the Minister of Militia to the fact. These are matters of detail as to which the Minister of Militia never spoke to me. Now, the hon. leader of the opposition understands why I can not give an explanation, and why these papers were not brought down. He now has an explanation from the hon. member for Jacques Cartier of the reason, who says that he called the attention of the Minister of Militia to the absence of these papers, and I suppose the Minister of Militia is now corresponding with the authorities in Montreal to procure them.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not attributing any default to the right hon. gentleman personally, because I understand that he can not deal with all these matters of detail in the different departments. But I suggest that these papers should have been brought down in the first instance. I *would like also to point out to the right hon. gentleman that great fault has been attributed to my hon. friend in consequence of the delay which has taken place in regard to the production of this very important document.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am not going into the matter as to where any fault may lie. The Minister of Militia has done his duty so far as he could. Certain papers were not in the report, his attention was called to the fact, and, I presume, that in a very short time he will be able to produce them. I will say now, moreover, in justice to the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Boy), that he informed me last evening that he intended to bring up this motion to-day, and I saw no objection to his doing so. As to issuing a commission to investigate this matter, I must say that the House certainly will not expect a commission of this kind. There has been no charge made
against anybody. Insinuations have been made against Mr. King, the Deputy Minister of Labour, but the hon. member for Jacques Cartier does not even take the responsibility of that charge, he does not give the warrant of his name in support of that charge; he simply says that he heard statements from some party, but he gave them for what they were worth. Well, so long as we have no more substantial charge than that against a competent officer like Mr. King, I do not think there is anything to investigate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is one peculiar thing about it. The hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) could inform the First Minister, but he could not inform my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, that he intended to bring this matter before the House. My hon. friend made certain allegations in a speech which he made before this House, but he is in a measure stopped from substantiating them for want of the very papers which the government ought to produce.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The only interest I have taken in this matter was on account of the language used by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier the other day in reference to the Deputy Minister of Labour. With reference to the statement of the leader of the opposition, I may say that I do not think that previous to that time or since, have I spoken to the hon. member who brought up this question, nor has he spoken to me about it. I have no recollection of having had any conversation with him.


Robert Laird Borden: I accept the statement at once.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I may say that after I asked the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) why he made such a serious charge, affecting the character of a young man holding a responsible position, perhaps affecting his future success in life, and on what grounds he made such a serious and pointed statement in this House, he at once said that his information was well founded, and that if he could not substantiate it by affidavit he would withdraw it. I took the hon. gentleman at his word, believing that his own sense of justice and right would have led him to fulfil that promise. I have not been anxious to press the matter, believing that the hon. gentleman would produce his evidence, knowing as he must that this young man is suffering a great injustice. I am willing to say that if I thought the hon. member for Jacques Cartier was not sincere in his statement, and if he did not of his own accord bring it up in the House, I would have felt it my duty either
to bring it up myself


Robert Laird Borden: Not without I notice.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Not without notice. If my bon. friend from Jacques Cartier did not bring it up I would have been the first one to do so. I have no interest in this matter except to see that justice is done to the gentleman who is attacked. As to the merits or demerits of the case, I suppose that, both at the time of the occurrence and since, there has been an effort made to make political capital by the parties locally. However, that will be taken up, X suppose, by other parties. I want, Mr. Speaker, to confine myself to the interrogation I made at the time to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and to ask him if he will now name some reasonable time within which he will take an opportunity, either to substantiate his allegations, or withdraw them. Surely that hon. gentleman, as a lawyer of experience, should know that before making such a charge, and before asking for a committee of investigation, he should have some reliable foundation to work upon. I would ask him now to say what time he would consider reasonable within which to produce his proof. The reference to the papers in the Militia Department can have nothing to do with the matter now under discussion or with the statement made against Mr. King. It does not affect it at all whether they exist or do not exist, or whether they are brought down or whether they are not brought down. I would ask the hon. gentleman if it is not fair and in the interest, not only of the gentleman accused, but in the interest of all parties that he should take whatever reasonable time he thinks requisite and say that he will, at the expiration of that time, be prepared to act according to whatever information he may have. That is all I can ask of the hon. gentleman.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am quite prepared to state, in answer to the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), that as far as arranging a delay is concerned it seems to be a reasonable request. I would be prepared to say that I have sent for a telegraph form and I intend to telegraph to the parties who gave that information what has taken place here to-day. Any reasonable delay will suit me, and if these affidavits that have been promised are not forthcoming the House and the country may draw their own conclusions.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Some day next week ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Some day next week. I do not think the circumstances under which this matter has presented itself warrant the violence of language of some hon. members, nor do I think that my demand for a commission is an unreasonable one. The government has time and again granted commissions under circumstances far less important than this one. I think the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Puttee) would still more justify that demand for a commission. I gave the information for what it was worth as the hon. member has just stated.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would remind the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) that he has already spoken on the question.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: X am closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker. We had the direct statement from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) that a contract which he defended had been completed when it had not, and last night he could not say that the contract had been returned executed, when, as a matter of fact, it had been in his department for three or four days executed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). We propose to take up the immigration item on page 36.
['X am closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker. We had the direct statement from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) that a contract which he defended had been completed when it had not, and last night he could not say that the contract had been returned executed, when, as a matter of fact, it had been in his department for three or four days executed.']
Mr. WILSON.: I think it is most unfair that we should take up these estimates when we have had no opportunity of investigating the question of immigration before the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization. There was a meeting one day this week when Mr. Pedley was before the committee. He is to be before the committee again to-morrow, and then it is proposed to have the deputy minister and Mr. Preston. I think that evidence should be taken and reported to this House so that if any hon. members wish to discuss it they will be in a position to do so.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: How many meetings will suffice ?


Uriah Wilson: If it were not that the Railway Committee is meeting to-morrow, I think we would be able to get through with Mr. Pedley to-morrow. The Railway Committee is meeting, and it is a question whether we can have a meeting of the Agriculture Committee or not.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Will two or three meetings do ?


Uriah Wilson: I think two or three meetings will do if w'e can get the evidence reported to the House. Would the hon. minister state when he would be prepared to take this up, or would he leave it over for about a week ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If my hon. friend (Mr. AVilson) would wait a moment I will let him know what the decision is.
Geological Survey, $62,730.
Mr. LaRIAHERE. Will the minister tell us of the explorations that are intended to be carried on next season ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Does the hon. gentleman want It for the whole of Canada ?
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Yes.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will give an account of the plan of operations for the coming season. Of course this is subject to change in minor details, according to circumstances, but the plan at present intended is as follows :
Yukon Territory : Mr. R G. McConnell, Mr. Joseph Keele, assistant; gold district of sixty miles, Thistle Creek and South Forks of Big Salmon river-possibly the coast west of White Pass Railway and south of White Horse. British Columbia ; Mr. R. W. Brock, assistant Mr. W. W. Leach; Boundary Creek, Mr. James McBvoy and Mr. Theo. Denis, assistant; Crow's Nest Pass coal field. Manitoba and North-west Territories : Mr. Lawrence Lamb and one assistant; Red Deer river, collecting cretaceous fossils. Ontario r Dr. A. E. Barlow, Sudbury district, lithological investigations; Prof. John Macoun, botany of north shore of Lake Erie and of east shore of Lake Huron to Cape Hurd; exploration of Temagami Lake Park. Dr. Ellis, with two assistants, will finish what is called the Kingston district. Mr. Robert Chalmers will go to the St. Lawrence Valley and westward to Lake Huron to investigate wells and borings for water, gas and petroleum. It is also intended to explore the region between Lake Nipiging and Lake St. Joseph, the north shore of lake north of Jackflsh Bay and Muskoka distriot. In Quebec and Ontario, Mr. W. J. Wilson, with one assistant, will go to the valley of Abitibi river, and Mr. Frank Johnson with one assistant will go around Lake Abitibi and northward and eastward in connection with Mr. Wilson. Dr. Ami will be in the valley of the St. Lawrence, in Quebec city west of Lake St. Francis, and Ottawa Valley west of Mattawa. In northern Ontario and the district of Keewatin, Mr. D. B. Dowling and Mr. James Macoun, with one assistant, will be in the region south-west of Cape Henrietta Maria track survey of Opazotika river, geology and zoology and botany. Mr. A. P. Low will be east of Hudson's Bay and the outside chain of islands in the eastern part of the bay. In New Brunswick, Prof. Bailey will continue the work of 1900 in the south-west part of the province. In Nova Scotia, Mr. Hugh Fletcher, with Mr. McLeod and Mr. Alan McKinnon, will be in Annapolis, King's and Cumberland counties ; Dr. George Matthews collecting fossils at Bras d'Or and Mira, and Mr. E. R. Fairbault in Halifax, Lunenburg and King's counties.
That is the plan prepared by the director for the coming season, but of course it is subject to change.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. While I do not want to find fault with the programme of the hon. minister. I think it is about time that a separate account should he kept as between Manitoba and the North-west Territories. In a great many instances we see in the public records that Manitoba and the North-west Territories are combined as in the present programme. I fail to observe that any explorations are to be made in Manitoba proper, but yet the province of Manitoba, together with the Territories, will be charged with the cost of explorations
that are exclusively to be made in the Territories. It is about time that the province of Manitoba should stand by herself in these accounts, the same as the other provinces, because we are debited with expenditure that is not properly made in the province of Manitoba. It is made to appear that Manitoba draws certain expenditures from the public treasury which is not the case in reality. It is the same way with regard to other accounts. I might say that Manitoba is not properly treated with regard to her exports. She is not credited with the am'ount of exports she makes, and I think it is time to put a stop to this mixing up of the accounts of Manitoba and the Territories.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think we should have any difficulty in meeting the wishes of the hon. gentleman (Mr. La Riviere), so far as the geological survey is concerned, because that is a very simple matter indeed. I may remark that as to the commercial returns, the question has been before the department several times, brought up by the secretary of the Winnipeg Board of Trade.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Yes.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is found to be very difficult, indeed, without altogether disproportionate expense, to get the returns so separated that they can be properly credited to the province to which they ought to be credited. I believe the ministers concerned have made reasonable efforts in that direction.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Sifton) will set the good example by separating the accounts in his own department.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: Has the minister made any appointment to the vacancy caused by the death of Dr. Dawson, director of the Geological Survey ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There has been no permanent appointment made, but Dr. Bell, who is the oldest member of the survey, has been appointed acting director. The government intend, immediately after the session, to take the matter into consideration.


Edward Gawler Prior: I suppose a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We are pretty well through with the main estimates now. and I wish my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) would endeavour to get the evidence before the Committee of Agriculture disposed of as quickly as possible. That would be mutually agreeable, I fancy. I shall facilitate the hon. gentleman in any way I can.


Uriah Wilson: I have been very anxious to get these people before the committee

for some time, but it was deemed advisable to get through with the Experimental Farm so as to distribute the evidence of the officers while the House is in session.
I am anxious to get through as quickly as possible. I hope the minister will instruct his supporters to facilitate the business. Sometimes there is delay, after the evidence has been taken, in getting it reported to the House, and it is necessary to have it reported to the House before we can use it.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR,
When does the committee meet again ?


Uriah Wilson: To-morrow.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
You can get a quorum to go on and take the evidence ?
Mr.	WILSON. I	think so.The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Then, I will see the officers to-day.
Militia-Clothing and necessaries, $110,000.


Edward Gawler Prior: Has the minister come to any conclusion with regard to the clothing to be worn by the men in camp ? In the report of the general officer commanding, ] he expresses himself as heartily in accord with the clothing worn at London and Niagara camps last year, namely, straw hats and flannel shirts. In a hot climate like this in summer, it is of immense benefit to the men in the ranks that they should be allowed to wear some clothing of that kind, instead of tunics that are buttoned up and very warm.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am entirely in favour of the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman, and I think some preparations are being made with that end in view.


Mr. BELL (Pietou).: I have a letter from the commanding officer of the battery at Pietou, in which he expresses the desire that serges should be served out to the members of that battery instead of tunics, which they have at present. He says that the battery is in splendid condition, very largely manned and in'an excellent state of efficiency, but that they feel themselves somewhat behind others in respect to their clothing. I understand that there is a regulation as to the number of years a tunic is to last, and it may be that in this case they have not lasted their full time ; but I would urge on the minister, in view of the state of efficiency of the battery and the great interest the men have taken in their training

I believe they have two or three officers and some sergeants with certificates -that he should if possible meet the views of the men in that respect.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: My hon. friend will understand


Uriah Wilson: that it is absolutely necessary to have regulations governing the issuing of clothing ; but the department is always ready to put the most lenient possible construction on these regulations *when it can be shown that for" any good cause an issue is required before the time fixed in the regulations. I shall be very happy to look into this matter-it does not come before me as a matter of course, as the hon. gentleman knows-and meet the views of the corps if possible.
Militia-Provisions, supplies and remounts, $130,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This vote is to provide rations, forage, fuel, light, water, hospital and veterinary medicine, postage, rent of post office boxes, barrack furniture and utensils, supplies for artificers' shop, &c., and also to purchase 20 remounts for 10 per cent of the establishment. The increase of $5,000 is due to the fact that we have to purchase a few additional remounts.


Edward Gawler Prior: Is the clothing all furnished by tender, and the lowest tender accepted ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Edward Gawler Prior: From whom is it got principally ?


Tiie MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: During the last year the clothing has been made principally by the Sanford Manufacturing Company. It has also been manufactured by Workman and Company, of Montreal. If there have been any manufacturers outside of these employed, it has only been to a very small extent.


Edward Gawler Prior: Were the tenders public tenders, or were a certain number of firms only asked to tender ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The tenders originally were public tenders, that is, I think, for two years. Then from the lowest tenders received, a certain number were selected, and since that time we have not asked for public tenders. I may say that we found that the advertising for public tenders got us into a great deal of trouble. The first year after I succeeded my hon. friend opposite, as he knows, certain contracts were terminated because the Minister of Justice of that day gave it as his opinion that it was not lawful to enter into contracts for a year or two ahead.


George Taylor: How about steel rails ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I do not know. That was Sir Oliver Mowat's opinion. We advertised in all the leading newspapers of Canada for tenders, and we gave a contract in Sep-

tember or October to the lowest tenderer for $75,000 worth of clothing to be delivered,
I think, before the 1st of April of the following year. Not one single article of that clothing was delivered, nor has it been delivered yet, and we had to go to the old contractors, chiefly the Sanford Company, and ask them to take over the work and do it. 1 learned a lesson then, and I have tried to profit by it since-that it is useless, and worse than useless, to call for public tenders and enter into a contract with a concern which has never had any experience of this kind of work. So that we have as largely as possible adhered to the men who have experience, and who gave satisfaction.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: In other words, you have reverted to the previous practice of the department ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Very much so.


David Tisdale: And although you cancelled the contracts when you came into office because of the way they had been obtained, you found that was the wisest plan, and adopted it ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Practically so, except that we are not making contracts for a year ahead. We are only making them for a single year.


Edward Gawler Prior: Has the hon. gentleman had any complaints in regard to the quality of the clothing ? There used to be a good many complaints about the trousers.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No ; on the contrary, from the very fact that we are sticking to the same men, I am happy to say that the clothing is reported to be improving year by year, and so far as I know there are no complaints at all. I had occasion myself to visit some of the smaller regimental stores, and I heard only one report, that is, that the clothing is very satisfactory indeed, both as to the making and the quality of the cloth.


David Tisdale: Are you still adhering to the practice of sealing up the sample, so that it is impossible to change It, and it is known whose sample it is ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Oh, yes, absolutely.


Mr. CLANCY.: I would like to ask the Minister of Militia if he has had any complaints with regard to some of the young men who enlisted to replace those taken from the mounted police somewhat more than a year ago, with regard to having had to pay the charges or a portion of the charges for their transportation, and for some portion of their equipment ? I have had letters from some young men who are now in the service-I think they enlisted at the
city of London-complaining that they were compelled to pay a portion of their transportation to the North-west, and were also compelled, contrary to what they believed to be an understanding, to pay for some portion of their outfit.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The North-west Mounted Police does not come under my control at all, but under the control of the premier. I have heard no complaints at all. There were some complaints on the part of men who came from the North-west, at some distance from the railway, to go to South Africa with the second contingent. The former leader of the opposition, Sir Charles Tupper, brought the matter to my notice, and I looked into It, and sent him a reply to the effect that I did not think the country was liable, and I have heard nothing more about it. I know nothing of any other complaints.


Edward Gawler Prior: How does the hon. minister obtain these-by tender ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, in all cases.


David Tisdale: Tenders called for publicly ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, publicly advertised in the newspapers.
Militia-Chargeable to Income-Transport and freight, $40,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The details of this item include : Transport of officers of headquarters and district staff and the permanent coips to staff duties, annual drill excepted, and for the transport officers and men of the active militia and permanent force attending schools of instruction, also the transport of a permanent corps to and from the different military stations-that Is when exchanges are made of officers between the different depots-also charges of expressage and truckage on stores. The first item is $12,000, the second $10,000 and the third $18,-000-mmking a total of $40,000. This is the same item as we have had for several years.
Grants to associations, $38,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This is for rifle associations.


Edward Gawler Prior: This has nothing to do with the new rifle clubs ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Nothing at all. This includes : Dominion Rifle Association $10,000, Dominion Artillery Association $5,000, Provincial Rifle Association $8,300. And then there is an allowance for bands for the active militia $7,900, and militia institutes $300.


Mr. BENNETT.: In this connection I would like to call the attention of the minister to what I think is a manifest injustice to companies which may be stationed outside of county towns-and I will draw the attention of the minister to the circumstances existing in the county of Sirncoe. At the town of Barrie there is a very fine armoury. As I am informed the new issue of rifles-the Lee-Enfield 1 believe they are called-for the whole battalion are kept in store in the armoury at Barrie. Now, in the town of Orillia, which is in the constituency I have the honour to represent, and which is a town of upwards of 6,000 inhabitants, there are stationed two companies. In that town there is, I am pleased to say a good deal of martial spirit, so much so that I think there is no town of its size in the whole province-or in the whole Dominion for that matter-from which so many young men went to the recent troubles in South Africa. Now, I aon informed by the gentlemen who have charge of the two local companies that they have made application to the colonel of the battalion that the rifles for the two companies may be placed in some safe place of deposit in the town of Orillia. At an interview with the colonel the request was refused, on the ground that he had instructions-as I am advised, from the department-not to hand over to these two companies or the officers in charge of them their allotment of rifles. I brought the matter to the attention of the hon. minister's department, and a letter was written from the department pointing out that these rifles, under instructions, as had been before stated, were retained at the central armoury in the town of Barrie. I think that that is a great hardship. If there is not to be, at the places where these respec tive companies have their headquarters, a supply of arms for the men, the officers in charge will have great difficulty in interesting young men in the militia force. In the town of Orillia there has been a great deal of rivalry in rifle shooting. This was due to the fact that there was a civilian rifle team there and also the two rifle teams connected with the local militia companies.
I would also call the attention of the Minister of Militia to the fact that in the town of Orillia there is a large public building used for the purpose of post office, customhouse and other official uses. There is a large room in the rear and on the ground floor of that building that would be safe, so far as fire is concerned, for the storage of these rifles. And I would ask the Minister of Militia, in consideration of that fact to be pleased to direct the colonel of the 35th Battalion to hand over to the safe keeping of the captains of the two local companies the rifles intended for those companies. It is very difficult, as I am informed by the gentlemen connected with the militia, to keep those companies togeth-


Mr. BORDEN (King's).: er. One great fact about the militia, as I am informed, is that there is considerable rivalry between the civilians and those connected with the force in the matter of "rifle shooting ; and, if men who are connected with the force are not to have access to the rifles except when they have drill, they will not be able to handle the rifles in the same manner as they would if the arms were entrusted to their keeping throughout the year. The same remarks are equally applicable to the local company at Penetangui-shene which also is in East Sirncoe.' I understand that there they have a safe place for the storing of the arms. I do not know whether it is the experience of other hon. gentlemen in the House that there are complaints on this subject; but, I hope the Minister of Militia, having regard to the circumstances of Orillia and Penetangui-shene will instruct the colonel of the 35th Battalion, after having taken the proper guarantees, which, I suppose, are usually taken, from the captains, for the safe keeping of the arms, to hand the arms over to the captains of the local companies in Orillia and Penetanguishene.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: 
William Humphrey Bennett: I understand the minister to say that instructions have been given or will lie given, that the captain of each company, on making application, shall have handed over to him at least ten rifles for his own company-that is for the purpose of practice, I presume, and to enable the men to fit themselves for the proper handling of the rifles. I may say that will meet with a certain amount of favour at the hands of the men. But there is one trouble 1 see if you are only going to allow ten to each company. There will be on the part of the captain a selection of ten men to whom they are to be allowed, and that will produce, 1 fear, bad feeling among those who have not been selected, and who have not been permitted to have a rifle for their use.
THE MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE. There are only forty men in the company, and it is not often that more than ten, generally less than ten, have any special desire to take up rifle shooting for the purpose of going to rifle matches. Furthermore, it is found quite possible for two men to use one rifle. That is done frequently without any inconvenience.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, on making application now there is a direction that ten rifles will be allowed each company ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, that is not what was in my mind. We are organizing rifle associations under regulations which have just been printed, I have a copy of them now ; and under those regulations we propose to issue rifles. The exact terms have not been settled upon, so I would not like to make any positive announcement beyond saying that it is the intention to issue rifles and to offer every possible facility to militiamen and to others who become members of these associations to learn to shoot and to perfect themselves in the art.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Will that regulation *also apply to the riding that I have the honour to represent ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: My remarks are general.
Mr. COdHRANE. It appears to me that if they could take care of ten they could take care of forty. How does the hon. gentleman arrive at the conclusion that where men are capable of taking care of old rifles they cannot take care of the new ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I can only say that this is a much more delicate weapon. Furthermore, as regards taking care of ten, I said up to ten, it might be five. A man who is fond of rifle shooting takes good care of his rifle, *but it is another thing if you put a careless man who knows nothing about rifles in charge of a delicate weapon such as this.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What is the use of giving rifles to men if they are not permitted to use them ? I thought that the war in South Africa proved conclusively that the best shots were the men who did the best service. It appears to me that if you want men to do practical work, you must let them possess and take care of their rifles, so that they can become proficient in their use and able to handle them in time of need.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I may say that the whole militia now is turned out every year in camp, and in camp every man fires a certain number of rounds, and gets a certain amount of training with the new rifle.


Mr. FOWLER.: My idea is that both systems advocated by the minister are wrong.
I think that all the equipments should go into the company store instead of into the regimental store. It used to be that the company captains had charge of the stores. If a man is not fit to have charge of the stores of the company of which he has command, then he is not fit to have command of the company. I think this difficulty would be obviated if the stores were put in charge of the company commanders. As for the rifle being a very delicate arm, and for that reason ought not to be placed in the hands of the company commanders, It seems to me that is a very slim reason. That rifle is not kept for exhibition purposes. Although it is a delicate piece of mechanism, it has to be sometimes placed in the hands of these men. They get but a small amount of use during the camp, because, as it has been pointed out already, there is only one day of shooting in camp, and when you consider the number of men who shoot in one day, each man can do but very little shooting. Therefore, particularly in the case of city corps, they should have a chance to use this arm, and to my mind the proper way would be to



issue tlae full quota of rifles to each company, and let the company commander take care of them. He 'will then give these men an opportunity to use them. The objection that the arm is a delicate weapon and should not therefore be put into the hands of the men, is so absurd that we need not consider it. The same in regard to the regiments of cavalry. I think the equipment for each troop should be in charge of the commander instead of lying in the regimental stores. It is sufficient to keep the reserve equipment in the regimental stores.


David Tisdale: This is one of the most difficult questions the minister has to deal with. In the first place, as to regimental stores, I do not agree with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Fowler) that the equipment should be kept at company headquarters. Of course, it may be well to keep at the company headquarters (the clothing of the men, especially of a rural battalion. I do not see any difficulty about the equipment. If the hon. gentleman has had experience, he must have found, as I did when I was captain, that it is very difficult to keep all the stores intact, for they disappear to some extent by carelessness or otherwise, generally by carelessness, because I do not mean to say that they are stolen. It is generally found when you turn out the second year that something has gone astray.


George William Fowler: But there is an inspection.


David Tisdale: But we are dealing with volunteers, many of them changing their residence every year. Now, take the rifle question. When we had the old En-fields, which were not delicate weapons at all, it was with the greatest difficulty that you could get the different companies to take proper care of them, when they were distributed among the men, and there was no one specially in charge to care for them or to keep them clean. But when we got these expensive weapons the whole thing was changed. Of course, I was not in the department long enough to have anything to do with the difficulties at headquarters, but I am speaking simply as commander of a battalion. Even then there was the greatest difficulty in keeping the rifles in good condition. The men would take them out for shooting squirrels and for all sorts of purposes. If you put these valuable weapons where the men can get hold of them whenever they please, they will not only lack proper care, but many of them will be used in such a manner as to be dangerous to the community on account of their long range, because a man shooting squirrels in the woods is a source-, of danger, the rifle will carry a mile. It may be said that he has no business to have the rifle, but nevertheless in many cases we know they get them and use them. This difficulty, however, can be partly overcome, in some such


George William Fowler: way as proposed by the hon. member for East Sirncoe (Mr. Bennett), that is, that where you have a town as headquarters and the men are convenient to it, then the care of the rifle can be regulated much better than in rural places, where the company headquarters are of small size. Further, there are many men in these companies that never assemble except for the purpose of getting ready to go to the annual camp, and during the rest of the year they very seldom have any rifle shooting at company headquarters. With these new weapons it is going to be still more difficult, on account of getting safe places for rifle practice. I think the minister's suggestion of keeping a certain number at company headquarters where they are wanted, would meet the case, because if you have got forty men, ten can use them at a time. Then there should be a strict regulation that the rifles should only be taken from the place where they are stored, and should be returned immediately after they are used. If the captain would undertake to become responsible for their proper care and would keep them in his individual charge, or put them in charge of some other person named by him, it seems to me the practical difficulty would be overcome, but if you abandon the regulation which requires them to be kept at regimental headquarters, I will guarantee it will not be long before these expensive and delicate weapons get into very serious condition. I agree with both of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken, that it is very desirable that the men should have every opportunity for practice and that they should have, if necessary, a greater quantity of free ammunition furnished to them, but at the same time, it seems to me that a system which would be safe to the people in the community where they are going to practice, should be adopted, and that means should be taken to, as far as possible, prevent the deterioration of the weapon. If the weapon is not kept in proper shape there is not going to be much use of trying to shoot with it. It is a very difficult proposition, but one that I think the department should grapple with, by making such regulations for practicing shooting as would secure the best results with the least possible risk to the weapon.


George William Fowler: I do not agree with the position taken by the hon. minister in respect to this matter. There could be just as satisfactory an inspection at company headquarters as at regimental headquarters, because, surely, officers who are in command of companies are just as responsible men as those officers who hold higher positions. These men are responsible for the stores that are placed in their charge, and they cannot get these stores to-day in regimental headquarters without a proper requisition. When these rifles are issued to a captain of a company he is responsible for every one of them. He is not only respon-

sible for the return of the rifles, but he is responsible for their return in proper order, and he would be held accountable by the department for any damage done to the weapon. Therefore, the argument of the hon. gentleman is entirely baseless and has no foundation. As far as this weapon is concerned, if you are going to keep it in a glass case for exhibition purposes, in a very few years it will be outclassed altogether. Changes are constantly taking place, the weapon will be outclassed, and it will serve no purpose whatever unless you give the men an opportunity of perfecting themselves in the use of the rifle. It is most important, if shooting is to become such an important branch of the service, that every one should have an opportunity to use the rifle, because the men cannot shoot unless they have a weapon to shoot with. If you are not going to allow them to use it, what is the use of an issue of ammunition ? My hon. friend contends that in the rural districts they will have an opportunity to practice. They will not have an opportunity to shoot, because they have no rifles or ammunition to shoot with. Supply them with rifles and ammunition. and you will soon see a. very different state of affairs. The hon. minister proposes to establish rifle clubs all over the country. What better rifle clubs could you establish than by putting into the hands of rue men who are enrolled in the militia service this weapon, and giving them ammunition so that they will have an opportunity to shoot? My hon. friend says that they will go about the woods shooting squirrels. I do not think there is any danger of that. I have n better opinion of the officers and men of our militia than that, and I am rather surprised that an hon. gentleman who has been in command of a battalion as he lias, should express so strange an opinion of the subaltern officers of the militia. I think that no better plan could be adopted by the department to instruct the young men of the country in the use of the rifle than this very plan of issuing to the company commanders rifles, and giving them free ammunition, so that in these rural districts the men could have an opportunity of meeting from time to time and perfecting themselves in the use of the rifle.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would like to ask the hon. minister when he will be in a position to make a definite public announcement as to the issue of these rifles, and the formation of these clubs ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I could not say, but I think likely before the end of the session the regulations will be published. The regulations in regard to the rifle associations have already been promulgated, and I think the others will follow before the end of the session.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Mr. Chairman. I have had some experience in the older times in taking care of rifles, and 1191
I think that unless the responsibility is placed on some important person, the experience of the future will be as it has been in the past, that a good many of them will be missing when the proper time comes to take stock. It is all very well to speak of personal responsibility, but it is not so easy to punish people for neglect of duty in matters of this kind. Therefore. I think it is essentially necessary that there should be one responsible person to look after the rifles, and to see that they are properly taken care of in some proper place.
Royal Military College-For all expenses in connection, except repairs to buildings, $75,000.


Edward Gawler Prior: I see there is an increase in this vote. Will the hon. minister say what it is ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The increase in this item is not real. It is due chiefly to the fact that there is a larger number of the students attending, and the money will come back on the other side of the account. There is a credit in thq Receiver General's account every year of the money paid in by the cadets, and, of course, as the number increases, the expenditure will have to be increased, and the amount received back by the Receiver General will be increased. There is a very slight increase of $G00, which is due to fuel. The electric light has been introduced more extensively into the college, ana there is an increase of $500 for that.


Edward Gawler Prior: I see by the report of the commandant of the Royal Military College that there are not quite as many cadets at the college now as there were a vear ago.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: On account of the absence of a great many who went to South Africa.


Edward Gawler Prior: Now, I see, that, under the heading of ' conduct,' there is rather a regrettable clause in the report. The commandant says :
I am able to report that the conduct of the cadets has been satisfactory except in one particular. I regret extremely to observe how prevalent^ the dishonest habit of cribbing and cheating in the examinations has become. On no less than five different occasions have charges of this nature been proved against the cadets and in many other instances it has been more than suspected, but owing to want of certain proof, charges were not preferred.
In other respects, I am fairly satisfied with the discipline which has been maintained by the cadet N.C. officers.
My hon. friend on my right (Mr. Fowler) says that this is a very amiable fault. I cannot say that I agree with him. I know that boys at school do not think much of it if they can look over and see what another boy is doing, and obtain an answer to a question, but, I think, in a case where men are being examined for positions, because

they are men, to all intents anil purposes, it is a more serious matter. It is a matter that should be looked into, and we should see if we cannot make an example of one or two of these young men, if we can catch them. It is manifestly unfair, when a cadet who has put in true, honest work for three years and comes up for examination, to find that another cadet, who has not paid half as much attention as he has to his studies, by cribbing, can, perhaps, pass a higher examination than he is able to do. It is a serious matter, and it lowers the morale of the cadets who resort to this practice to a very great extent. We look forward to these men joining the British service, or our own service, and I think they should set an example of honesty and upright bearing. A young fellow cannot do that if he will take undue advantage of his brother in a competition such as these examinations are. I do not want to appear here as highly moral

Some lion. MEMBERS._ Hear, hear.


Edward Gawler Prior: Hon. gentlemen say.
' hear, hear.' I do not suppose I am any better than any of them, and I do not think that I am any worse. I do think this subject is worthy of particular attention, and that an effort should be made to put a stop to it.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Prior). I think there is no more contemptible or meaner business than for a young man to engage in this practice of stealing, or cribbing, which is nothing less than stealing, In order to get an advantage over one of his fellow-students. I agree entirely that we should punish such misconduct to the fullest possible extent. Col. ICitson came to see me about this matter, and I told him that I would back him up in dealing with the utmost severity that he thought necessary with any such fault as this. The other day the new commandant was here, and we discussed the matter, and I repeated to him what I had already said to Col. Kitson. It must be absolutely stamped out. It seems to me that for a soldier nothing could be more contemptible than to resort to tactics of that kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George William Fowler: I quite agree with what the minister and the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Prior) has said. It seems to me that the examination of the standing of the cadet ought not altogether depend on this, but that it should be taken into account how he went through his course for the year.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That is what is done.


George William Fowler: The cadet would lay himself open to very grave suspicion if his


Edward Gawler Prior: written paper were much superior to his standing as observed by the instructors. This, however, is a fault you will find in all institutions of learning, and I do not know that a soldier should be called upon to be any more strict with regard to this, than one in another walk of life. I have heard of this sort of cribbing being done even in theological seminaries by young gentlemen who were students for the ministry.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George William Fowler: I think you may be asking too high a standard from those young gentlemen who are going to be soldiers.
I would ask the minister whether in making appointments to the permanent force it is necessary that the appointee should be a graduate of the Royal Military College at Kingston.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: An alternative requirement, according to the regulations promulgated on the 1st July, 1898, is that he shall be a royal military college graduate or shall have matriculated in a chartered college or shall have taken a long course, &c. It is not a sine qua non that he should be a graduate of the Royal Military College. There is a regulation, however, subsequent to that, that all appointments to the most technical branch of our permanent force, the artillery, should be made from the Royal Military College. I regret to say that although we have offered all the artillery commissions for three years to our military college graduates, we have not been able, so far as I know to get one, certainly not more than one. We have four or five vacancies in the artillery at present and are not able to get a single Royal Military College graduate, although we would gladly take them.


George William Fowler: It is very important that these positions should be open to the graduates seeing that we spend so much money on this institution. It is strange, that the graduates of the Royal Military College do not wish to go into the permanent force.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: More than twenty have gone to South Africa.


George William Fowler: I cannot understand why these gentlemen attend the Royal Military College if they do not intend being military men.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: A great many of them go into the British army.
Government cartridge factory, $118,000.


David Tisdale: Why this increase of $7,000.
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DE-EFNCE. We bought a large quantity of cordite cartridge which turned out to be

bad, and last year, with the consent of the War Office, we changed that to the extent of $15,000. It will take about $7,000 more, and this money will be paid back to the Receiver General of Canada.


George William Fowler: Do you manufacture all your cartridges now ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes. In the supplementary estimates for next year I will have a further item to Increase the capacity of the Quebec factory, and It will be more convenient, perhaps, to discuss the matter then. I expect not only to manufacture all the cartridges we require, but to do a good deal towards having the surplus which we ought to have on hand.


Edward Gawler Prior: Last session it was brought to the attention of the government that we should have a cartridge factory further west in the interior of the country, and nothing has been heard of it since. It seems to me that under certain circumstances it would be wise to have a cartridge factory so situated.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I quite agree that it is unwise to have all your eggs in the one basket. The suggestion is certainly worth considering.
Defenses of Esquimau, $112,270.


Edward Gawler Prior: I presume this decrease is on account of the fortifications getting near completion.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: 
Edward Gawler Prior: When the general officer commanding was in British Columbia he was told by the local officers that they felt sure that they could not possibly get men to join that corps, but he thought as it was done in Scotland it could be done in British Columbia. You cannot get the same class of men there to do the same class of work as in the old country. I would draw the attention of the minister to the fact that some time ago a defence commission was appointed and sat, and I presume they drafted a defence scheme for the Dominion of Canada. Is that so ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Edward Gawler Prior: That being the case, it seems to me. knowing the little I do about it, that this defence scheme should be pretty
well understood by the officers commanding the different districts. I am given to understand that the district officers commanding all over the Dominion know nothing about this defence scheme whatever. They have not been posted as to what would be required of them in an emergency, or as to what the militia will be supposed to do. I am informed that some of them at all events are utterly in the dark as to what duties may be required of them.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I dare say that it is to some extent the fact, but I do not think it would apply to the more senior officers. The fact is that the report was sent forward to the intelligence branch of the War Office promptly, but it was not returned here until some time last summer. Through some inadvertence on some one's part I was not aware that it had been returned until about the beginning of the session, and I have not had time to look into it. I have in my possession a draft copy and the maps, and I am discussing with the general officer commanding what use shall be made of it. My own idea is that the district officers commanding might be very properly brought here to go over some of the particulars of it. I do not think it is absolutely necessary to give them the whole scheme, but they should have an opportunity of going over such parts of it as the general may think necessary. It is, no doubt, very necessary that a portion of the scheme should be unfolded, so that in case of an emergency these officers will know how to act at once, without reference to the general officer commanding, for which there might not be time.


Edward Gawler Prior: I am a great believer in responsibility being given to the men who should shoulder it, and in the decentralization of authority. To my mind it is not a good thing to have everything centred in the Militia Department in Ottawa. Officers capable of holding the positions of district officers commanding should have more confidence reposed in them. I see by the papers that this question has been taken up by the War Office at home, and they have come to the conclusion that the old state of affairs should be changed and that the officers in command of districts should have more authority than they have had in the past. I remember reading a good book on Napoleons wars, in which it was pointed out that some of his disasters were due to the fact that he wanted to do everything himself and not let his generals have much scope. The result was that when it came to a tussle, those generals were ignorant of his intentions, and disaster followed. I think the district officers feel that they are not taken sufficiently into the confidence of the government considering the positions which they hold.

Rifle ranges, $75,000.


David Tisdale: Have you any system evolved in regard to rifle ranges ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, except that there is to be a rifle range at Winnipeg, there is one being constructed, I think, at Victoria, and some less expensive ones will probably be requir ed in British Columbia. There will be one at the city of London. There is one now under construction at Bedford, near Halifax. I am not able to apportion the whole vote at the present moment. I have not yet settled where all this money will be expended, but I can assure the committee that it will be expended where it is most urgently required.


David Tisdale: Have you taken up the question of rifle ranges at battalion headquarters, or is this only for large centres ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENSE.: Only for large centres. On the vote for maintenance and repairs I stated that $20,OttO would go for rifle ranges at battalion or regimental headquarters.


George William Fowler: Is any portion of this intended to be expended at Sussex in King's county ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, but there will be an expenditure at St. John in connection with a rifle range there. I do not know that there is any intention to enlarge the range at Sussex, but I should think, from what the hou. gentleman says, that that would be necessary, and that a portion of the money would be used for that purpose.
For 500 maps of the seat of war in South Africa, $973.33.


Edward Gawler Prior: I suppose these maps are a little better than the ones which were given to the British soldiers ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I suppose so. They were ordered by the Post Office Department, and were brought here and handed over to us. They were distributed, I think, to the district headquarters and among the departments.


Edward Gawler Prior: Were they printed in England ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.
Department of Labour, including $500 each to C. P. V. Beroard, French translator, and W. J. Johnston, accountant, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $50,000.


Arthur W. Puttee: This is practically the first time this item has been taken. The bureau, the expenses of which it is to cover, has been in operation something less than a year, and it seems to me that we should have


Edward Gawler Prior: some statement of the work it is doing, its scope, and so forth. Some six weeks ago I made a motion for papers in a matter that had been referred to the Bureau of Labour. The papers have not been brought down yet, and therefore I do not feel in a position to deal with the matter as I would wish to. The expenditure of $50,000 is very consid-. erable, and this Is a department which is expected to give great satisfaction ; but at this early stage of its operations we should be particularly careful that the initiatory proceedings are properly carried out. At the present time there is some difference of opinion as to how the work is being done. For instance, we have two fair-wage officers in connection with the Department of Labour ; and yet, in response to a question which was put to the government a week or two ago, the House was informed that the determination of disputes lay in the department which was having the work done. That seems to me to be a very strange state of affairs, that we should have an officer specially commissioned to look after the fair-wage clause and to arrange the schedule, and yet, when there is any disagreement, the same department should not be entrusted with the investigation and the final settlement of all claims. I suppose the acting Minister of Labour will, have some statement to place before the committee before this vote is taken.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I fear I shall not be able to make such a statement as would meet the wishes expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Puttee). In any case I could hardly hear what he said. I understand that he suggested that the fair-wage officer should, have power to decide. I hardly think that the House woidd agree that we could in the present state of the department, which is a new department, delegate the power to the officer to act in matters of this kind. The officer reports to the department whether the Act regarding fair wages is being carried out or not; and I think that the minister in charge of the department, subject to the criticism and control of this House, would be expected to see to it that the Act was fairly carried out, and, if not, the House would deal with him at the proper time. 1 hardly think the committee would agree that we should delegate this power to the fair-wage officer.


Arthur W. Puttee: It was investigation I was talking about. Investigation should be in charge of the fair-wage officer and not of those who know nothing about the current wage clause of the wage schedule.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is his duty to report to the department, and it is for the officer there to decide upon the evidence furnished as to the facts being established or not. That does not require

one specially informed upon labour questions. But the minister would be responsible for the decision. The department has been in operation for only a few months, and I think that in that short time it has been able to do a good deal in improving the conditions of the labouring classes and that it has been fairly successful in dealing with the cases that have come before it. But there is a great deal to be learned by experience. If any improved method can be shown of dealing with these matters either by the fair-wage officer or the other officers of the department, I am sure the suggestion will receive the most careful and favourable consideration of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When we were first informed of the intention of the government to establish the Department of Labour we were only given an outline of what was expected in the future. Since then the department has been established and we are now asked for $50,000 to run it. I think that the hon. minister ought to give us an outline of how the department has been organized, its mode of work and the officers that are employed in carrying out the Act.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I shall be glad to do so.


Arthur W. Puttee: I would ask the hon. gentleman to permit me to refer to this other question first. I do not think that what I am asking is unreasonable. It is the simplest and would appear to be the only way of attending to matters of dispute. The department have an officer who ascertains the current rate of wages in the district where a contract is intended to be let. He ascertains the wages and makes a schedule, which schedule becomes part of the specifications-it is as important a part of the specifications as any other, for instance the quality or even the quantity of material. In carrying out the contract, if it is found that the specifications are not being observed and fair wages paid, complaint is made to the fair-wage officer. I can give one instance in which great delay has occurred. Complaint was sent to the fair-wage officer, and he sent it to the Department of Public Works. The Department of Public Works, after some time, instructed its officers to investigate the matter. Some weeks afterwards they did so, and reported to the Public Works Department, and the Public Works Department sent it to the Department of Labour. After compiling the information, the Department of Labour referred it back to the Department of Public Works, and we expect-though I believe it has not yet been done-that the Department of Public Works will settle the case. It was last October, nearly six months ago, that complaints were made, and they are yet undetermined. It does seem that the principal benefit of having a fair-wage officer and having a fair-wage clause is that the men who are doing the work shall be paid a certain current rate of wages. If this is to be operative, time is an essential factor in the matter. If the case is to be laid over from fall till next spring, it would seem that there is too much machinery. My suggestion would simplify the matter. We are paying the officer to do the work, and, it can be done without interfering with the other departments, for he is the proper person to decide the facts.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Decide what ?


Arthur W. Puttee: Decide whether the schedule has been violated or not. Of course, he cannot cover every point. There are cases of dispute as to whether a man was employed at work that comes under the schedule or not. These should go to the fair-wage officer. Of course, as I say, I am at a disadvantage in discussing this matter. 1 tried to get the information and moved a motion to have it brought down. But it has not been brought down, though I understand it simply means the copying out of a dozen or so of letters. The motion for this information was carried six weeks ago. The non-production of this information puts me hardly in a fair position to deal with the matter.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Does the kon. gentleman refer to papers in charge of the Public Works Department ?


Arthur W. Puttee: I moved for all the papers in connection with the contract known as the St. Andrew's lock contract. I did not ask them particularly from the Public Works Department. In fact I thought the answer would come from the Department of Labour, but the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said he would be glad to bring down the papers if the motion was carried. But the papers have not yet come down.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am not aware of anything in the office relating to the motion which was made. What papers would there be in the Labour Department except the report of the officer on current wages ?


Arthur W. Puttee: I know that the claims were filed first in the Labour Department. Of course I did not specify papers from the Labour Department, though I thought that, being connected with the question of fair wages, the Labour Department would have the papers. However, it was the Minister of Public Works who replied and said that the papers would be brought down.


Mr. INGRAM.: It seems to be rather a
delicate matter to inquire into the working

of the Labour Department. When the department was being organized I gave my best assistance to make it as efficient as possible. I took pains during this session, to make inquiries respecting the fair-wage officer of the department, and I find I am attacked in a paper published by my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) for having made this inquiry which I had a perfect right to make as a member of this House. I did not make this inquiry because Mr. O'Donogliue was the fair-wage officer, but because he was a new officer appointed by this government and was taken from the employ "of the local government and removed here from Toronto. X thought then and X think still that there are competent men who are friendly to the government, who are residents of Ottawa, and who have put in considerable time watching legislation on behalf of the workingmen and who, I affirm, enjoy to a far greater extent the confidence of the working men than does Mr. O'Donoghue. On the 18th of March, I asked this question which was within my right, for if Mr. O'Donoghue is an officer of this government, he is as much a subject to criticism as any other officer of the government. I do not know that there was anything offensive in the question, and I did not ask for an offensive answer-nor did I get an offensive answer, but I think I got an incomplete answer :
1.	What is the date of the appointment of Mr. D. J. O'Donoghue, and by whom was he recommended?
2.	What amount of salary does he receive annually, and what are his duties?
3.	Did the government pay his removal expenses from Toronto to Ottawa? If so, how much did the government pay?
4.	By what authority did the government pay his removal expenses? If by order in council, will the government lay said order in council on the Table of the House?
5.	If by order in council or otherwise, what precedent has heretofore existed for paying the removal expenses of any new appointment ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	On 30th March, 1900.
2.	$1,500 a year as a special officer to decide on a scale of fair wages to be paid employees on government contracts. And claims and other matters referring to the fair Wages conditions in contracts.
3.	Government did not pay for Mr. O'Dono-ghue's removal expenses.
I asked if there was an order in council in existence for paying the removal expenses of Mr. O'Donoghue. and if there was one in existence, I asked the government to lay it on the Table. That question was not answered, that request has not been complied with. Now, I take the Auditor General's Report, Y-329, and I find this :
Removal Expenses of Newly-Appointed Officer.
Audit Office, Ottawa, April 4, 1900.
Sir,-Let me call your attention to the order in council of March 30, 1900, concerning the


Andrew B. Ingram: appointment of Mr. D. J. O'Donoghue, and his removal from Toronto to Ottawa.
In recommending the payment of Mr. O'Dono-ghue's removal expenses, it may be that the department considered this action to be the usual course.
I do not remember having seen, in the twenty-two years of my service here, a case where a newly-appointed officer received his removal expenses to Ottawa.
If it is concluded to act on the order in council, please see that the payment is not made through the departmental letter of credit, but that application is made to this officer for a Receiver General's cheque.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,



[Stage Direction]
The Acting Minister of Public Works..
Now, it is quite evident by that letter that there was an order in council issued for the purpose of paying the expenses of Mr. O'Donoghue from Toronto to Ottawa. The Prime Minister stated that the removal expenses had not been paid. Then, I asked why 'was this order in council not laid on the' Table ? It struck me at the time that it was an unusual thing, and I was in my right as a representative when I asked this question. As I said in the first instance, you are establishing a precedent for bringing in parties here and paying their removal expenses. On the other hand, I contend that there was no necessity for the government employing this man, because there were competent men here in the capital, men who have, in my estimation, the confidence of the workingmen of this country. Now. I had good reason for asking the question, What is the duties of Mr. O'Donoghue. During the election in my riding, Mr. O'Donoghue came there on the eve of the election for the purpose of finding out what was the current rate of wages in the city of St. Thomas for builders, bricklayers, carpenters, &c. Why was be sent there ? He was sent there for the purpose of making political capital for the government, and for no other reason. Why do 1 make that statement ? Because not one cent was placed in the estimates for a building with reference to which he came there for the purpose of ascertaining the current rate of wages to be paid to the workingmen. So, the bon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee), who is connected with a labour paper, and who. I am sorry to see, is not above party tactics either, allows his paper to publish something like this :*

[Stage Direction]
That is the heading. X am not jealous of the cost, nor do I care whether he gets $2,000 or $10,000.
Here is an amusing little incident which we cut from the Hansard for March 18th. Mr. Ingram wants to know all about the O'Donoghue.
X know all about him without asking in this House, and so does every person else who knows the man.
379:

Fitty officials carrying larger salaries might have been appointed in the ordinary way and for ' ordinary ' purposes-
I have no fault to find with that, nor have I fault to find with any gentleman occupying a seat on the government side of the House so long as he is a straight party man, and will stand up and defend his party. But, when a man sails under false colours, and does not pretend to be a party man, but does the trick a party man would not resort to, then, I have only contempt for such a man.
-and Mr. Ingram would probably never have turned a hair of curiosity. But this has something to do with the workingmen, and this vigilant guardian of the people's money-box wants to know all about it, and so turns his argus eye on the O'Donoghue thus :
[Stage Direction]
Then, the paper quotes the question and answer that I have just read from the ' Hansard,' and goes on :
Are you satisfied, Mr. Ingram, that there has been no stupendous jobbery?
I never charged any stupendous jobbery in the matter of the salary of Mr. O'Donoghue, neither do I now.
All right. Now continue your investigations through the whole service, and if you inquire, laying aside party spectacles, you may find a richer haul than the man appointed to see bare justice done to workmen when the public is spending its own money. A workingman who possesses the confidence of his class, and has thus compelled the recognition of the government. We are not denying the right of Mr. Ingram to seek the information in the way ho chooses, but he could have got it all in five minutes by referring to the proper department or the records of last session. If it was a swipe at the O'Donoghue, well, it failed.
It was not a swipe, and it did not fail. What was the object of this purely independent paper ? What is there wrong about making the inquiries that I did ? 1 was quite within my right, and I was justified in making inquiries concerning that gentleman. because the history and pedigree of that gentleman for years past have not been in the interest of the workingmen of this country. He has been a stool pigeon for the Ontario government for years. He lias never missed an opportunity of pulling the chestnuts out of the fire for the government of the province of Ontario. He has been associated with the Trades and Labour Council of the city of Toronto, and he has never missed an opportunity to stab the Conservative party in that province, nor in the Dominion either, for the purposes of party gain. I go further than that. I have been associated with the labour interests in this country. I have been nominated by the Conservative party in every instance, and ever since I have been a member of this House, whenever I could say a word on behalf of the workingmen. I have never neglected to do so, irrespective of party. 1 have reserved the right as a Conservative
to support my party, and I intend to support my party as long as I believe they advocate Conservative principles. But, in doing so, I do not see how I am precluded from supporting the interests of the workingmen of this Canada. While taking that right to myself, I grant the same right to the member for Winnipeg, to the member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith), or any other gentleman in this House. But, when they rise in their places in this House and say to members on both sides : We are independent of both parties, both parties are wrong, and we are right, while at the same time never missing an opportunity to drive water to the Grit mill. I strongly object to that course of procedure. I do not complain because they drive water to the mill of lion, gentlemen opposite, but I complain because they sail under false colours. They are just as much party men as I am. the only difference being that I stand up openly for" my party, while they pretend to stand up as the independent party in this House. That is the difference between the hon. gentlemen and myself.
Now. with respect to the Labour Department, I have no fault to find with its establishment. I believe it will be able to accomplish a good deal of good. With regard to the conciliation Act, I believe it is a step in the right direction, and I said at the time the Act was passed in this House that it was a step in the right direction. But. what I find fault with is the way it is run. When hon. gentlemen on either side of this House stand up in their places and advocate and assist any measure in favour of labour legislation, if they do it in behalf of the principle on which the Act was based, then, that department should miss no opportunity of giving credit to hon. gentlemen on the government side or hon. gentlemen on this side, for the part they take in promoting labour legislation. But. when I look over the Labour Gazette, I find the names of certain gentlemen mentioned who have taken an active part in promoting labour legislation, and 1 know as a matter of fact, that these very same gentlemen have not uttered one word to ten words uttered by other hon. gentlemen in this House whose names are not mentioned at all. I say if that is the way the Labour Department is run. then, we have just reason to find fault with it. I take this stand, that we have already causes enough of division on ordinary party questions ; but, when a question comes up that we believe to be in the interest of labour, then. I think we can fairly consider it as a non-party question, and as members on both sides, we can discuss questions of that character freely and independently of party politics altogether. So. I want my independent friends in this House to understand that, so far as I am concerned. I am just as much in favour of promoting the interests of the workingmen as they are. and
[Stage Direction]
being a Conservative, I see no reason wliy I cannot support my party on purely party questions the same as any Liberal member of this House, or the same as my lion, friends who call themselves independent members.
Having said that much with respect to the O'Donoghue case, having found, during my election, that he was very eager to secure party support for the Liberal candidate who opposed me, I think it is right that I should inquire what are his duties. I know that he consulted some parties there, and he told them that it would be to their interests to support my opponent. Well, if that is to be the business of the man whose duties are supposed to be entirely restricted to finding out the current rate of wages of workingmen employed on public works, I think the sooner this country understands it the better. We have a right to demand that he shall confine his duties to the office to which he was appointed, and to that office alone. I want further to say this. The government may have a reasonable expectation of being in power for some time, but the day will come when the parties in this House will change places, and what is good for them now may be equally good for them when the parties change places. So, I say that gentlemen like Mr. O'Dono-ghue should be given to understand that he had better pay strict attention to his duties for which he is paid, and not interfere with party politics at all. That is all I wish to say on this question. I would be glad to find out from the editor of this paper, who professes to be an independent man in this House, if he finds any fault with the question I asked, or any reason why that item should be placed there for the purpose of making a little party capital ?
Arthur W. Puttee: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) who has just taken his seat, is very sensitive on this question. He complains of being attacked. I would like to know where he was attacked. He has quoted from a paper published in the city of Winnipeg, with which I happen to be connected. If he reads the dates he will see that this issue appears since the session opened. I have read the article and that is about all the connection that I have had with it. But, it seems to me that it is only a fair comment. The hon. gentleman, who is apt to be a little inquisitive, asked his question at the time, in order to create a feeling of suspicion in the country, to show that he wanted, especially in connection with this fair-wage officer. to try to place some blame upon Hie party that put hint into office. The article, I think, is fair. I do not write such articles as that myself, but I have no hesitation in fathering this one as far as my connection with the paper is concerned. I think all the hon. gentleman wanted was a chance to attack me, and therefore he


Andrew B. Ingram: told us what his idea of independence is, and showed that his idea fits his own purpose. His language, I think, is not worthy of the labour people of the country. He has a perfect right to his opinion, if he thinks by such language lie can do service to the party with which he is affiliated. I do not think the same way as he does, but I deny the right of the hon. gentleman to in any way reflect upon my standing in this House. I am here as an independent, elected by the labour people of Winnipeg. 1 come here as an independent labour man. I am not here jas a result of soliciting votes at the expense of any or either of the parties, as I have no party affiliations or leanings whatever. I do not believe in the system of party government as it has been developed in this country, and I have nothing Whatever to do with it. I am here, as far as party is concerned, with hopes and without fears. The hon. member for Elgin has had more experience than I have had in this House. He may know some of the difficulties that a new member and a young man like myself experiences, but my record is here and on that record it is beyond him to criticise me. I have always acted, spoken and voted in this House strictly as an independent labour man, and I deny the hon. gentleman the right, on my record, to contradict that statement. I think he only-wanted an opportunity, by claiming that he had been attacked unfairly in this publication, to attack me on this ground. I have noticed that whenever an hon. gentleman gets up in this House who is not a straight hidebound party man, the hou. member for East Elgin attempts to criticise him and to cast a slur on his independence. He is entitled to any regard he has for his own party, or for the opposite party. I say there is a legitimate and proper field for independence. and there is a field in this House, as far as I can see it. As far as the Labour Bureau is concerned, I want to say, and I say it frankly, that, Tip to the present time,
I have seen very little indication of party influence or tactics there. If the bureau of labour is going to be worked for party [DOT]purposes, I am going to oppose it right through. But, at all events, whatever maybe the other failings of the labour men in this House, theyr voted for the establishment of the Labour Bureau, and for the passage of the fair-wage clause. I believe this is one of those things that we should look after, that we should collect these statistics and look into these labour matters the same as we do into matters connected with any other department of government.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: As the Department of Labour is a new department, established only a few months ago, I desire to


379S
[Stage Direction]
give to tlie House some information concerning it, so tlmt lion, gentlemen may know something of its organization and the work which the department has already accomplished. I am sure this information will be of great interest. The Act establishing the Department of Labour was not assented to until the 18th of July last, and on the 15th of September the first number of the Labour Gazette, which is the journal of the department, appeared.
Since that date copies of the Labour Gazette have appeared regularly each month, and a perusal of them will show the extensive work which the new department has already undertaken and performed. The numbers of the Labour Gazette show that the department has undertaken in a systematic way the gathering of information of first importance to employers and employed, on industrial and labour conditions in this country.
Of the special classes of work thus undertaken the following among others may be mentioned
1.	A compendium of labour legislation in the Dominion.
2.	An account of the present extent and development, together with existing conditions, of the different industries of the country.
3.	Statistical tables of the rates of wages and hours of employment in the various trades.
4.	Legal decisions of the various courts in the provinces on matters of concern to labour.
In some of the Labour Bureaus in the United States and in other countries each of these conditions has been dealt with but only in special reports prepared by the bureaus or departments, but the method adopted by the Canadian department in dividing the work into separate articles appearing each month, seems a more useful method and more likely to secure the information thus presented being brought within reach of those persons to whom it is of primary concern. There has never been in Canada before a descriptive and statistical work of this nature undertaken, and in a country covering so wide an area, and with conditions so varying, it is impossible to overrate its importance. Exact knowledge of industrial conditions is most essen tial for any right legislation and such information can only be obtained by some special agency which has opportunity and facilities for collecting it over a considerable period of time. [DOT]
In addition to its historical worth the information so obtained is of very great practical value in acquainting manufacturers as well as workingmen with the condi tion of the labour market and industrial conditions generally in all parts of the Dominion, and, in this connection, the work of the department, in publishing reports every month from special correspondents in
every city of the Dominion, cannot be overestimated. The Labour Gazette has averaged a little over fifty pages each issue and the eight numbers already published would, if bound, give a volume of 456 pages of original material in reference to industrial conditions in Canada. This is one part of the work which the new department has already achieved.
The department lias also achieved important results in connection with the work of conciliation and the settlement of industrial disputes. Four very important disputes have been summarily ended almost immediately after the friendly offices of the department were requested. The strike of the mill operatives in YaUeyfleld, of the coremakers in Oshawa and the tool workers in Dundas are here referred to, and the recent strike at the mills of the Laurentide Pulp Company, Grand Mere, Quebec. Full particulars regarding each will be found in the current numbers of the Gazette. But important as has been the work of conciliation there is no doubt but that the plau adopted by the department in publishing i monthly record of all trade disputes in the Dominion, has aided materially in preventing certain strikes in the first place and in bringing to a close some which had already commenced. The mere fact that an official record is given monthly on this head, and that both parties to a dispute are communicated with by a branch of the government for a statement of their case for publication, has, without question, a good moral effect in preserving industrial peace.
The tables of strikes and lock-outs which appear monthly in the Gazette are of themselves very typical of the importance of the work which the department is doing. These tables classify all of the strikes and lockouts according to the localities in which they occur, the causes, results, duration, numbers affected, &c., and these monthly tables are intended as a basis of an annual report on the subject of trade disputes. Where legislation, for example, such as that of compulsory arbitration, is being considered, exact information as to the nature of the strikes and lock-outs which have occurred, their number, causes, &c„ will be invaluable.
The department has also aided materially in the effective enforcement of the Alien Labour law. There have been but one or two eases of aliens having been deported before the department undertook, by its special officers, to see to the enforcement of this branch of labour legislation. As a result of these efforts no less than fifty-four complaints have been made the subject of special investigation during the months from August to March inclusive, and over 60 persons were deported, or returned to the States, as a result of the action of the department, and there is every reason to believe that a knowledge of the fact that the law was being rigorously enforced has de-
[Stage Direction]
3S00
terred many persons from running the risk of violation of its provisions.
Tlie department lias also, through its fair-wages officers seen to the effective carrying out of the resolution adopted in the House of Commons last year to the effect that in all government contracts clauses should' be inserted which would secure the payment of fair wages and the performance of the work under fair conditions wherever it was being performed under contracts for the government, or by private parties aided by grants from the government. A very large number of fair-wage schedules have been prepared in connection with the contracts of the Public Works Department and of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the Post Office Department and others, and these have been published from month to month in the Labour Gazette so that the public as well as the contractors might be aware of the conditions under which the work was to be performed. Cases where the contractor was not paying the stipulated rate have been brought to the notice of the department and it has caused the sanm to be made the subject of special investigation, and reports thereon have been furnished to the department of the government whose contracts were alleged to have been violated in this particular.
The department has also undertaken the work of collecting statistical and other public information from all possible sources In the Dominion, from which it is intended to form a library and archives having to do with the industrial conditions, of the country and for labour in particular. Supplementary to this is the work of collecting reports and other information from the bureaus of foreign countries in regard to labour. In addition to the work of collecting statistics and disseminating information, which is the chief work of the department, the importance to the working classes of having a readier means of making known then-needs and desires to the government is not to be overlooked.
The Gazette, amongst other statistical material which appears from month to month, gives an account of the numbers employed iu different industries and trades, opportunities for employment, current rates of wages, prices of commodities, etc., all of which is of immediate concern to the working classes and employers, and also to the general industrial condition of the country. The information is not only of present value but of great historical worth and is also helpful in bringing before persons in other lines the industrial development of this country. Thus far the lumbering industry, the coal industry, iron industry, copper and nickel industry and fishing industry have been the subject of special investigation.
The department has begun a comprehen-[DOT]sfve review of the rates of wages and hours of employment obtaining in different trades Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).
in the Dominion. Information from all parts of Canada has been gathered for the different classes of labour employed in the trades dealt with, showing thq rates which are given and the variations between different localities. Thus far the printing trade, the cigar-making trade, and the metal trades have been dealt with. The building trades and others will follow and be published in subsequent numbers of the Gazette.
The department has undertaken a comprehensive review of labour legislation in all parts of the Dominion, dealing with the subject historically and giving a careful classification and compilation of the various Acts at the present time affecting labour. The work when finished will be a complete compendium of labour legislation in Canada and may be used as a work of reference by all persons who desire to have an exact-knowledge of legislation on any point which concerns labour. The information so gathered has also the advantage of presenting a comparative statement of the differences and similarities existing between the legislation of the different provinces. Thus far the legislation in regard to factories, workshops and mines has been fully dealt with.
The department publishes each month a record of all the most important legal decisions in all the provinces of the Dominion which affect in any way either employers or employed.
From month to month a review is given of the most important reports made by public departments in this and other countries on matters affecting labour, and in this manner the public is kept informed of the latest statistical information in the different parts of their own country, and in other lands.
The department publishes each month a record of the most important trade disputes in the Dominion. These are carefully classified and compiled and tables indicating the causes and results of these disputes, their duration and the numbers affected by them are given. This information, as already stated, is of extreme value in furnishing a basis for legislation in regard to the matters of strikes and lockouts.
The plan adopted by the department is : whenever a strike or lock-out occurs in any part of the Dominion, to immediately communicate with both parties to the dispute asking for a, statement of their case for publication in the Gazette. It is believed that in addition to the value of the information so supplied, the knowledge that the department is thus publishing this information and the fact that it so promptly communicates with both parties, has a great moral effect in inducing employers and workmen to come to an immediate settlement of their difficulties.
The department has correspondents in practically all of the cities of the Dominion, and these furnish monthly returns on the

[Stage Direction]
general state of the labour market and conditions of industry and labour in tlieir locality. These appearing every month in the Labour Gazette, give a clear conception of the labour market in this country and enable workmen, as well as employers, to ascertain exact information as to the conditions of the labour market in all parts with which they are immediately concerned. This information, in addition to its present value, will be of extreme worth as time goes on in tracing the industrial growth and development of this country.
I have already alluded to the very considerable results achieved by the department in the work of conciliation during the short time it has been in existence. In the case of three important industrial disputes in which appeals were made to the department from one of the parties for its friendly intervention under the Conciliation Act, a settlement has been effected which has ended the dispute. Each of these cases has been very important, and but for the intervention of the department much suffering and loss would doubtless have followed on the continuance of the existing difficulties.
The'first case was that of the strike of mill operatives at Valleyfield, Que., which took place because of the militia having been sent to that town. Within twenty-four hours after the arrival of the representative of the government, an agreement had taken effect whereby the operatives returned to work and the troops were withdrawn.
The second case was that of the coremakes in the Malleable Iron Works in Osliawa. An appeal was mado to the department by the mayor of the town on behalf of the workingmen, and the immediate intervention of the department resulted in an agreement being effected within twenty-four hours after the arrival of the representative of the government, whereby the grievances which the strikers complained of were adjusted and employment was resumed in the company's works as before. But for this immediate settlement, large numbers might have been thrown out of employment and great suffering experienced during the .winter season.
The third case was that of a long standing dispute between the Bertram Tool Works in Dundas and certain of their employees. This dispute had been in continuance from October of last year, and the intervention of the department was asked in January. A similar result followed on the intervention of the department. A satisfactory agreement between the two parties was effected and the dispute declared to be at an end.
Another case occurred within the past week-that of the strike of the employees of the Laurentide Pulp Mills at Grand M8re, in the province of Quebec. The premier received a telegram from a representative of the workingmen there, some 800 of whom had gone out on strike ; and at their
request I at once telegraphed to the manager of the company and also to the representative of the workingmen, informing them that a representative of the department would be sent down. That was done, with the result that within less than twenty-four hours an amicable arrangement was made, as I am informed, to the great satisfaction of both the men and the company, and all the men returned to work.
These are the only cases in which appeals have been made to the department for intervention under the Act, save in two cases which are at the present time pending, and the result in each case goes to show the effectiveness of voluntary conciliation as a means of adjusting industrial difficulties.
An important work of the department has been to gather all public information in regard to matters affecting labour in this country. This is the first time that any attempt has been made to have these documents collected and filed in such a manner that they may be of service to persons desiring exact information upon conditions either affecting the past or the present. Records of trade unions, friendly societies, &c., are being collected, classified and filed in the department and the basis has already been laid for national archives on matters pertaining to labour. The department has also gathered from other countries statistical reports and general public information in regard to industrial conditions and methods prevailing elsewhere, which collection will be of extreme value to persons desiring to consult original sources for comparative purposes. This library and archive work is of itself of the greatest importance to the Dominion.
I think I have been able in this review, with the time at my disposal, to cover pretty well the work of the department during the short time it has been in existence.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many men are you employing in this department ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Regarding the organization of the department, it will be well to give the hon. gentleman, not the number employed in the past, which has been varied from time to time, but what is proposed for the next year, for which these estimates are submitted. The deputy minister and editor of the Labour Gazette, Mr. W. L. Mackenize King, at a salary of $2,250 ; the associate editor, H. A. Harper, at $1,500 ; stenographer, G. G. V. Ardouin, $1,500. I may say that that salary is given to him on account of extra services lie has to perform in the way of translation, he having a good knowledge of both English and French. Staff clerk, F. Plant, $1,000 ; stenographer and clerk, F. W. Giddons, $800 ; accountant, W. J. Johnston, $500. Of course, a first-class accountant could not be had for anything like that salary ; but it was thought that the amount of work not

being very great, a competent officer in one of tlie other departments might do the work for this allowance. The Gazette is published in both English and French, and there is a translator, C. P. B. Beroard, who is paid $500. Assistant stenographer, H. Andrews, $400. Messenger, A. Lapointe, $420. Fair-wage officers, D. J. O'Donoghue and Y. Dubreuil, $1,500 each. We are taking an estimate for a circulation clerk, but no appointment has yet been made.
The Alien Labour Act officer and clerk is E. Williams. Representations have been made to me by some labour representatives as well as by members of the House, that the salary Mr. Williams is at present receiving is not sufficient, and it is under the consideration of the department what would be a reasonable salary to allow him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What salary is he at present receiving ;


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 1 am informed at the rate of $850 per year, for the time he has been in the department. Then, there are thirty-five correspondents, at $100 each, in the different centres throughout the Dominion, and one legal correspondent, at $200.
Mr. LaRIYIERE. What is the -circulation ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I will get the information for the hon. gentleman, but, according to the estimates, the department count on a circulation of 30,000 per month.
Mr. LaRIYIERE. It is surprising that this publication is not distributed among the members. I have yet to see a copy of the Labour Gazette. Every member should be supplied with a copy, and should also receive the back numbers. If that publication is so important as represented-and I believe it is important-I do not see why each member should not get the whole file.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am glad the hon. gentleman has brought this to my attention. It must be through an oversight that members have not been supplied with one or two copies, and I shall make it my business to see that this matter is attended to.
Mr. LaRIYIERE. And those members who apply for files should be supplied with them.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: My hon. friend is quite right. Many members say they have received it, but they made application for it. Like my hon. friend. I have never received a copy.


Uriah Wilson: On what terms is the Gazette sent out to the public generally ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Twenty cents a year, or three cents a copy.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


William Humphrey Bennett: How much of the $50,000 is spent in salaries ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


William Humphrey Bennett: Where does the balance go ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Principally in the publication. Some $3,500 are required for the correspondents throughout the Dominion ; $5,000 for travelling and unforeseen expenses. In the case of conciliation and arbitration in industrial disputes, travelling expenses have to be paid ; there are also the travelling expenses of the fair wages officers, and it is estimated this amount will be required. The printing will cost about $14,000. It is printed by the King's Printer. And about $4,000 are required for sundry printing.


Mr. CLARKE.: How many yearly subscribers are there ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: During the past: three months there was a circulation of 4.000 paid subscribers, and about 7,000 sent to the different libraries, and copies were sent free of charge to the different libraries, boards of trade, secretaries of trade unions and to newspapers and trade journals in exchange for their publications, which would bring the average monthly circulation to over 7,000. Sample copies have also been distributed principally among the workmen of the different localities and the employers of labour.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the paper distributed free to the labour organizations ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: One copy to each secretary.


Mr. WALLACE.: Who are the correspondents ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: They are as follows :
Appleton, John, Winnipeg, Man.
Barcley, George, Vancouver, B.C.
Burke, James T., Stratford, Ont.
Callander, Alex., Guelph, Ont.
Coates, W. H., St. John, N.B.
Fitzpatrick, ,T. S., Montreal, Que.
Hargreaves, George, New Westminster, B.C. Jobin, P. J., Quebec, Que.
Kelly, William, Kingston, Ont.
Logie, Harry, Sherbrooke, Que.
Landers, Samuel, Hamilton, Ont.
Laferriere, Rodolphe, Hull, Que.
Leggatt, A. F., Ottawa, Ont.
Little, Edward, Quebec, Que.
Macdiarmid, Walter S., Belleville, Ont. McNiven, James, Victoria, B.C.
Mitchell, David, Windsor, Ont.
Phair, James, Halifax, N.S.
Roberts, Albert, St. Thomas, Ont.
Samson. Nap., St. Hyacinths, Que.
Spencer, Arthur, Nanaimo, B.C.
Snell, John R., Chatham, Ont.
Thompson, Phillips, Toronto, Ont.
Wanless, Thos. A., Calgary, N.W.T.
Watt, J. C., Brantford, Ont.
Woonton, Alex., London, Ont.


Arthur W. Puttee: I have listened with much pleasure to the report of the acting Minister of Labour. I think that, on the whole, it is a fair and reasonable one. This, of course, is only a beginning, and there is greater scope for usefulness, although it seems that the organization is now as complete as it need be for a long time to come. But. the extent of its work could be increased very considerably. The Labour Gazette is a very valuable publication. Of course, it is not perfect ; but, it has made a very fair start, and can become very useful. There is a sufficient corps of correspondents, at the salary mentioned, to justify us in expecting the Labour Gazette to be very carefully edited. Most extreme care should be taken that nothing but reliable information shall appear in it.
When you left the Chair at six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I was speaking of the remarks of the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) in reference to my position, as he tells us he sees it in this House. I do not think it is necessary to refer further to that matter, except to say that I accept his statement when he tells us he does his best in the interest of labour. But he certainly has a handicap that does not affect me. As I understand his position, it makes no difference what the question that comes up may be, his attitude towards it is already settled. As for me. I appreciate the difficulties of that situation. I have not that to contend with myself. And I think, if the hon. gentleman will leave me out. I will endeavour to do my best as an independent. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Smith) was also referred to, and, as he is not able to be in his place this evening,
I think it would not be out of place for me to explain how he comes to be a member of this House. For some years he was a labour member in the British Columbia legislature, representing a constituency where the coal miner vote predominates. During the last few years the Trades Congress of this country resolved, after mature deliberation, that it would start upon a course of independent political action. At its last session in this city it asked its president, Mr. Ralph Smith, whether he would resign his seat in the British Columbia house and take his chances of election to the Dominion parliament, representing the labour interests of the country. He expressed his willingness to accede to that request. That is how he came to accept the nomination and, by a majority of votes in his district, has become its member. At a previous meeting of the Trades Congress, when he was elected as its president-and I think it is only fair to say that whatever position he has taken he has always been perfectly frank-he told- them that in British Columbia parties, as we know them in other parts of the country, were unknown. He was here as a labour representative, but in politics he had always acted with the
Liberal party ; and he told the congress : If you think it right to elect such a man as I am to he your president, I am at your service. That is how he became president of the Trades Congress, and afterwards became, at the solicitation of the members of that congress, a member of this House. For myself, I do not aspire in any way to be what is called a labour leader-or a labour follower. It is no part of my belief to have either leaders or followers. I believe that Ilia labour people should make up their minds what they want, and should insist that the men whom they elect shall carry out tlie work or stand to one side.
The acting minister has referred to the organization of the Labour Bureau. That bureau was brought into existence hy a clause of the Conciliation Bill that passed this House last year. And. after that there was passed what is called the ' current wage clause ' or ' the fair-wage clause,' and this being put into operation by the Labour Department, has become the most important Part of that department's business. The resolution passed by this House was as follows :
That it be resolved, that all government contracts should contain such conditions as will prevent abuses which may arise from the subletting of such contracts, and that every effort should be made to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district where the work is carried out, and that this House cordially concurs in such policy and deems it the duty of the government to take immediate steps to give effect thereto. It is hereby declared that the work to which the foregoing policy should apply includes not only work undertaken by the government itself, but also all works aided by grant of Dominion public funds.
Notv, in discussing this resolution, the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) told us that when that was passed by this House it would become operative in every department under this government. And. later on, when it was passed, I think it was on the last day of the last session, answering a question that had been put earlier in the session, he to some length went on to explain that it would apply not only to -all work done by the government, but to all work that was in any way assisted by the government, and especially would it apply to railway construction when the railways had accepted public subsidy. Now. that becomes by far the larger part of the work of the Labour Department, and I claim- and that was the point of my remarks this afternoon-that the Department of Labour should not stand at one side and merely do the clerical work, but that it is its business to see to it that the fair-wage clause is made part of every contract covered by this resolution. The Minister of Railway's and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) only last week, told us that in his department' it was not customary to include this clause, and I very

380S
much doubt whether it is being inserted- though the acting minister can perhaps tell us-in the conditions that go with the subsidizing of railways. It should be, and it was distinctly promised us that it would be. Now, as an earnest of good faith and assurance that this resolution would be carried out, before this parliament was prorogued last year, there was a fair-wage officer appointed. And, by the way, fault has been found with that appointment, because the appointee was Mr. O'Donoghue. The hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) has complained that Mr. O'Donoghue was a politician and also a Liberal. It seems to me that either party, when it has an appointment to make, generally appoints a man of its own stripe. I think my hon. friend from East Elgin would have been much surprised if a Conservative had been appointed as fair-wage officer. But that is not the question ; the question is whether the officer who has been appointed is thoroughly competent to do the work. It is possible, of course, that many labourmen not of political stripe, would not altogether endorse his appointment. But you can not find any one who has known him for years past in the labour movement who would not say that the appointment of Mr. O'Donoghue is a first-class appointment, if you want the work properly done. That is all I claim, and all I am interested in. When a contract is to be let, before it is published, the fair-wage officer is supposed to ascertain what are the current rates of wages in the district where the work is to be carried on. He reports that to the department, and that becomes a schedule and is made a part of the contract. But it is not uncommon, in specifications for public works, that there is some deviation, and some one has to investigate and determine what is the right thing in these cases.
But I should think that where there are complaints about a violation of the fair-wage clause in a contract, the proper people to refer that to is the Department of Labour who, through this fair-wage officer, shall investigate these cases, shall determine them, and shall report to the department through whom the cheques have to go to pay the conti'actor. and that the contractor shall be told that if he has anything to pay he must pay it forthwith, and that if he refuses to do so, the department will pay the balance and deduct the amount from the contract price. I ' think that should be done altogether in the Labour Department. I mention this because we have had reason to think that this course is not being followed. It seems to me that the course that is being followed is open to grave danger, and I fear if it goes on in the way it has started that, either under this government or a succeeding government, and in some contracts, say in contracts with the friends of that government, it will be practically understood that the determination of


Arthur W. Puttee: claims will be a very slow process ; while on the other hand and in other cases the contractor will be held strictly to the mark. Now, that matter should be properly started at the beginning ; it should be put in such form that the procedure shall go on mechanically, that the determination of these claims shall not take months but shall be done in a few days, so that the whole thing may be settled speedily ; if not,' then the value of the clause is almost completely lost, and those who are particularly interested will lose all faith in it. What is more, if the fair-wage clause is inserted in a contract, and if the contractor in tendering knows the figures, and then the department refuses to enforce them, the only result of that current wage is really to enrich the contractor more than he would have been if the current wage clause had not been there. I think that should be looked after and should be stopped.
Once again I wish to refer to the papers I asked for some weeks ago ; and I will ask the Acting Minister of Labour whether he will see that they are laid on the Table and up to date. They are in reference to the St. Andrews Locks contract, and they are important, because this is an important case. Early last year, tenders had been called for and were in before this resolution by the Postmaster General had been brought before the House, and directly it was put on the Order paper, it was resolved to send back those tenders and call for a new tender, inserting in the new tender this clause calling for a current wage, so that the contractors had a chance to figure over again, and they figured on the wage schedule that was put in. Now, directly work was done under that contract there were complaints that the schedule was not being observed. I know there are cases of honest dispute, there is lots of room for being either right or wrong. But there was a delay of nearly six months, and we cannot get the cases determined and cannot get the papers. I would ask the Acting Minister of Labour, before the vote goes through, to promise to lay those papers on the Table right up to date.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I certainly thought that the papers mentioned by the hon. gentleman had been brought down, but I must have been under a mistake. There is no objection to bringing them down, and 1 will speak to the minister and see that they are prepared as quickly as possible.


Robert Laird Borden: With respect to the subject mentioned by my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. LaRiviSre) awhile ago, the distribution of this Gazette, I may say that the first occasion I ever saw a copy of the Labour Gazette was during the last election campaign, when a prominent gentleman holding a position, I believe, in one of the labour organizations in Halifax, pointed out page 15 of the Labour Gazette of September, 1900, and showed me how

this government liad passed a law, as he understood It, to compel the insertion of the fair wages clause in all contracts. Now, I venture to say that it would be better for the editor of this Gazette, whoever he may be, to endeavour to give a little more accurate account of discussions in the House of Commons, if such discussions are to be dealt with in this Labour Gazette. The discussion which took place in the House of Commons with regard to that is well known. The Postmaster General brought in a resolution, but the passage of that resolution imposed no obligation on the government, it was passed by only one branch of the legislature but not by the two branches. It was in the form of a resolution, and not in the form of a Bill. Yet the labour men throughout the country thoroughly uu-derstood from the way in which this was presented to them on page 15, that that fair-wage contract was a matter of law, a matter of legal obligation on the government, and I found a good deal of difficulty in convincing people with whom I talked on the subject in Halifax that such was not the case, simply because it was not accurately stated on this page. The facts of the case are well known. In the discussiou which took place in the House of Commons, Sir Charles Tupper, the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Nicholas Flood Davin and others urged that the government should bring this in, not as a resolution, but in the form of a Bill, which would be obligatory upon the government and would compel obedience to it. I am not disposed to find undue fault with the way in which this has been dealt with in the Labour Gazette, and what I say is more by way of caution for the future ; because, if this Labour Gazette and this Labour Department are to be of any use in this country, it is perfectly apparent to every person that they must be kept free from any tinge of partisanship. I would venture to suggest to the Acting Postmaster General that if he is employing as correspondents of this paper active political partisans, he is not doing his duty with regard to such matters ; because the reports of gentlemen taking an active part in politics are more or less liable to be influenced by their political opinions. The gentleman who edits this Gazette will not know to what extent these reports are influenced by those political opinions, and I think that so far as it may be necessary to select correspondents, it is extremely desirable that persons should be selected whose opinions are not likely to be unduly biassed by any political views they may happen to entertain.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I can hardly agree with the hon. gentleman that anything on page 15 of the September issue would mislead any person into supposing that the resolution referred to was a law, or anything else than what it really was.


Robert Laird Borden: Permit me to point it out. I venture to say that the gentleman with whom I discussed this matter in Halifax, so far as natural ability is concerned, is the peer of almost any man in this House, and I venture to say that had he had the opportunities of education that others in this House have enjoyed, he might have taken a very prominent position in this country, because he is one of the most able and intelligent men with whom I ever conversed, and he was thoroughly convinced from reading this that such was the case. At the bottom of column one on this page, it is stated in so many words :
The passing of the resolution placed an obligation upon the government, not only in respect to the advertised contracts, but bound it in regard to all future contracts.
Well, does my hon. friend pretend to tell me that any labouring man in this country, or any other intelligent man, reading that, would not understand it exactly in the way in which this gentleman did understand it ? I think my hon. friend could not have observed these words, or he would not have made the statement that he did make. I venture to think that there are few labouring men in this country who could bring a more acute mind, so far as natural abilities are concerned, to bear upon the consideration of these words than the man with whom I conversed, and it was only with the utmost possible difficulty, after a long argument and after getting a copy of ' Hansard ' and showing him the debate in the House of Commons, that I was able to satisfy him as to what was the position which the parties had taken, and what was the result of the resolution which the House had passed.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It may be possible that the gentleman who read this might be under a misapprehension. At the same time, I think my hon. friend will admit that so far as this article is concerned, it is a mere statement of fact, and that if there is anything in it that would be misleading, it is not intentional.


Robert Laird Borden: I said to my hon. friend that I was not desirous of finding undue fault. What I said was more by way of caution for the future than by way of criticism.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I was coming to that. As to the opinion, that the passing of the clause would impose an obligation upon the government and upon parliament, I think the gentleman who read it would be quite right in coming to that conclusion. When that resolution was passed, I think that the government and parliament should regard it as an obligation to be carried out.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. A moral obligation.



3S12


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes, a moral obligation which, to my mind, is more important very often than a good many legal obligations. I agree with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden), that the slightest digression in the publishing of the Labour Gazette to give it a political complexion, or that it should be used for party purposes, would be a most regrettable thing. If the department is to be of any use in the publication of the Labour Gazette, it can only be so by maintaining that publication as a purely independent paper, and giving statistical information and facts, and not opinions. I may say to my hon. friend, that the instructions of the department to the correspondents are, that they are not to give opinions and that opinions will not be accepted. Their correspondence must be altogether limited to a statement of facts. I think they have carried out that instruction to the fullest extent. The editor might, iu publishing an article, not be familiar with the local conditions, and pass something that would have a loeal effect politically, no matter how conscientious and desirous he might be in regard to anything of that kind. If the instructions are carried out that opinions are not to be given, but that correspondents must confine themselves to statements of fact, there would be no room for complaint. These statements are open to correction if they are not correct. Certainly no correspondent would be kept in connection with the department who would be found to be unreliable. So far as the department is concerned, I think these instructions will be enforced to the letter, because, I agree with the hon. gentleman, that the only way to make the Gazette useful to the country, to the employers and the employed, is by making it a paper thoroughly reliable, giving only facts and statistics in accordance with the plan originally laid down.


Arthur W. Puttee: I hope the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) is not trying to excuse the hon. Minister of Labour for not carrying out the provisions of this resolution, as it is only a resolution and not an Act of parliament. When it was passed last year it was passed in that form, I believe, because a resolution in almost exactly similar terms was passed through the British House of Commons in 1801, and has, for nine or ten years, been thoroughly well operative.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Puttee) knows. I suppose, why it was done in that way in the British House of Commons ? If he does not, perhaps it would be worth his while to inquire.


Arthur W. Puttee: I was explaining what was done in the Canadian House of Commons.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Since the suggestion was made by the hon. member for Mr. LaRIVIERE.
Provencher (Mr. LaRiviSre), I have ascertained that members will be furnished with numbers from the beginning up to the present time, that their names will be on the list, and that they will be furnished with copies of the Gazette. I am authorized to state that there will not be any opinions found in the Gazette as has been stated. I hope that will be satisfactory to hon. members.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. If sufficient back numbers do not exist, perhaps, they might be supplied to those of the members who would apply for them.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am informed that we have a sufficient number to supply the members of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the information given that we will receive this paper, will be very satisfactory to hon. members of the House. For my own part, I have not seen it before this evening, but it is a singular coincidence that the first number which I find is the number for October, 1900, and I am quite prepared to admit that it would be difficult to publish a paper in any shape without giving some information, perhaps, of a political character. I find, here, on page 53, a report of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, in which it is stated :
There were features in this connection which make the sixteenth session an historic one. At former meetings the delegates have been welcomed by the civic authorities of the cities where the congress was being held, but at no previous session have the premier of the Dominion and so many members of parliament been present to extend addresses of welcome and to express their views on matters of concern to labour. Moreover, thid was the first time that any labour body in Canada has been addressed by a minister of the Crown, the head of a department of the government created especially in the interests of labour Itself.
In tbe succeeding pages, strange to say, I find tbe name of the bon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) mentioned very frequently, and In tbe most commendatory tones.


Arthur W. Puttee: Mentioned by tbe editor of tbe Gazette ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is in tbe report of tbe meeting of tbe Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. I am very glad to see that my bon. friend lias deserved all these encomiums.


Arthur W. Puttee: Does my name appear in the report of the Trades Congress or the Manitoba executive, or does it appear in comments by tbe editor ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will tell my hon. friend if he will be patient. It is in the president's address, who, by tbe way, was our present colleague, the bon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith). Tbe president, in his address, mentioned tbe election of tbe hon. gentle-

man for the city of Winnipeg as a labour representative, saying :
The election of Mr. Puttee for the city of Winnipeg, as a labour representative, was a delightful achievement, and has already resulted in good to the labour cause.
Your committee beg to congratulate the citizens of Winnipeg on the choice of their member of parliament. Mr. Puttee was one of the most active and energetic members

Notably among the results of Mr. Puttee's presence in parliament we might briefly note the following.
It is a little long, and I will not read it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is from the report of the Manitoba executive ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes. In another part there are two more references, one to my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) and another to my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Smith).


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Will my hon. friend give the page. We want to know whether it is a comment, or a report of a meeting. The distinction we desire to draw is that if there is a comment by the editor it is a departure from the acknowledged rule.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I cannot say whether the paragraph on page 63 on parliamentary representation is a report or not.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I hope you are not going to read the whole of it, because it will be a waste of time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know that, but my conclusion will be a very practical one. Then there is a report of' a banquet at 1201
page 57, which is certainly not included to do any harm to the present government. I draw the attention of the minister to this, I have a constituency which is agricultural to a certain extent, but in which there are large manufactories and labour organizations, and a great many workingmen whose condition, to any one who sees them as frequently as I do, is most interesting. Although not a labouring man as I would be proud to be, I have had occasion to deliver many addresses to labouring men. Let me aslt the minister if I could obtain an insertion in that Labour Gazette of an address of that character.


Mr. FRASER.: Would it be useful information ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It would be useful information and not only that, it might be extremely useful to myself.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If my hon. friend were president of a labour union he might get it inserted.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I belong to a labour organization and it is one of the greatest prides of my life.


William Humphrey Bennett: When the Postmaster General announced last year that this Labour Department would be established it was predicted that it had a two-fold object. First, to distribute patronage amongst some of the faithful and second to have a political effect. Now, a fair proportion of this $50,000 has been dispensed amongst the faithful. The $14,000 in salaries for the permanent staff and the $0,200 for correspondents will supply the needy to the political friends of the government. There are travelling expenses $5,000 and printing $14,000, leaving a balance of $4,000, which before the end of the year will secure some forty or fifty additional correspondents at $100 each. Now as this is a moral and highly temperate government since the Minister of Agriculture is in the cabinet as a temperance man, it is rather .peculiar to find in this official organ a class of information that will not tend to make young men engage in the hard paths of life, but which will rather have the effect of causing them to look to the easy paths which leads to the making of wealth. Whether it is that the correspondent resorts to such places to get this information or not, I find that the correspondent from Vancouver announces :
The bartenders report work well. The average wages earned are from $40 to $65 a month, with board.
It is not in the interests of useful labour that the government of Canada should spend $50,000 to publish news which might tend to take young men out of the workshops and the farms to the easier occupation of tending bar in Victoria for $65 a month and board.
Which I do not for a moment question. Then, further on, in the executive committee's report, is the following :


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is not what the Labour Gazette says, but it is the record of the meeting of Trades Congress. That is from the executive committee's report.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Well, the hon. gentleman ought to see that when it is attempted to give an account of the meeting of the Trades and Labour Congress, if they were to* give a correct and truthful record of the proceedings, they could not keep out the address of the president, or the report of the executive committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, I was merely noting the coincidence of these praises.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: My hon. friend has given the impression that it was the Labour Gazette that said these things.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not wish to give that impression. There is also in the executive report of Manitoba :


Edward Gawler Prior: Is it Victoria or
Vancouver ?


William Humphrey Bennett: It is Victoria, B.C. Were this the only case it might be thought that a black sheep had strayed into the fold who resorted to the saloons and hotels to collect news, but I find that the correspondent in the highly moral town of London, Ont., seems to be very anxious about the bartenders and he reports :
The local bartenders are taking steps to ofganize the bartenders of St. Thomas. They report their organization in a prosperous condition.
I suppose this is a fair sample copy of the Labour Gazette, and if I were to peruse it through I would probably find that other correspondents are paid $100 a year for frequenting saloons and hotels to find out how the bartenders are getting along. When the Postmaster General introduced this wages resolution as applied to government contracts it was pointed out that his anxiety in this respect was mere clap-trap. He brought down a resolution to protect the rights of workingmen on government contracts, and when we asked him to crystallize it into legislation so that it might be of some real benefit to the workingmen of Canada, the Postmaster General opposed that proposition. He knew that friends of the government would be contractors, and he knew if this were made the law of the land it might bear hard on the contractors, and for that reason the government decided that the labouring classes should not have the benefit of legislation that would do them any real good. However, the labouring men of Canada were to be satisfied with the announcement that the government would publish a labour gazette that would be a panacea for all their ills. I am sure that when the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) learns the news published in the Labour Gazette he will insist in the future that there will be no more references to the thriving trade of the barkeepers-I beg their 'pardon, the wine clerks -of this country. The workingmen of Canada want something that will be of benefit to them. They want to see the Alien Labour law carried out and not made a laughing stock of. On a recent occasion I stated that along the north shore of the Georgian Bay, American saw-mill owners were importing men from the United States to compete with our Canadian people and my hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) immediately said that my statement was not true. I had been assured that such was the case, and I shall now quote from the American Lumberman in support of my statement. In its issue of last month it says :
Some Michigan lumbermen are kicking against the action of the Ontario authorities in deport-Mr. BENNETT.
ing labourers sent there. Mechanics are not to be had over there, and some Michigan firms erecting mills have been obliged, in order to finish their plants for this season's run, to send mechanics over there. The authorities have deported several employed by the Michigan Land and Lumber Company, of which S. 0. Fisher is president, and he says unless relief is granted some of the new plants will not be finished in time to' begin the spring sawing, as there is no skilled labour to be obtained on that side. The Ontario authorities have been petitioned for relief, and it is hoped it will be promptly granted.
In the face of that statement, surely the government are not going to contend that they are endeavouring to enforce the Alien Labour Act ; because it is stated in this American publication that these men have been sent from the other side, and if so, it follows that they were hired there. Coming to this Labour Gazette, what do you see ? Apart from that interesting item regarding the bartenders, I find other items which show the absurdity of employing men all over the country, all, I presume, friends of the government, for this purpose. I find that Mr. Phillips Thompson, a well-known friend of hon. gentlemen opposite in the province of Ontario, is one of these correspondents. Every one of these men, who receive $100 a year each, is, I venture to say, an active political agent of hon. gentlemen opposite. And what kind of items are they sending in ? Here is one :
Outdoor work will in all probability be brisk as soon as the weather can be depended on.
What is the use of paying a man in Brandon, Man., $100 a year to send such items down here ? The editor in chief himself in Otawa could make that report. Froni Victoria it is reported :
House painters are kept pretty well employed, and during next month they will have all the work they can attend to.
Aud all the way through, these correspondents send reports of this kind, that as soou as the weather opens up, building operations will start. Every one knows that, as, well as these men who are paid $100 a year. Seriously, I have no objection to having this Labour Department in this country. I think it is a good thing to have some organization to intervene between employers and workingmen in order to bring about an amicable settlement of their disputes ; but when it comes to hiring from one end of the Dominion to the other a lot of party hacks to send such silly items as these, the height of absurdity is reached. It proves that this is nothing but a means of dispensing political patronage among party friends.


Mr. CHARLTON.: I wish to refer to one statement made by my hon. friend from East Sirncoe (Mr. Bennett), as he connected my name with it; that is. the statement with reference to the character of the enforcement of the provisions of the Alien Labour law by the government. The only

3S18
criticism with regard to that matter which 1 have heard from parties who are conversant with the facts, has been that the government have erred on the side of severity ; and the fact that under the operations of the Labour Department 56 men have been deported from Canada within the last, few, months is in my opinion a proof that the provisions of the Act have been stringently enforced. Since the debate took place in this House on this question some days ago, I have ascertained that the deportation of aliens from Canada has been many fold greater than the deportation of Canadian aliens from the United States, and that the law is more stringently enforced in this country than it is in the United States. I have the statement of Mr. DeBarry, the immigration agent of the United States at Buffalo, that the operations of the Canadian law are of a wholesale character, while the operations of the United States law are of a retail character in comparison. With regard to the cases on the north shore of the Georgian Bay referred to by my hon. friend, the complaints received were investigated on the ground by Mr. Williams, of the Labour Bureau ; and Mr. Williams certainly exercised discretion and at the same time firmness in the discharge of his duties. A considerable number of men were sent from the employment of the Michigan Land Company and the Eddy Lumber Company, who were engaged in the erection of sawmills. These deportations were considered by these firms to be cases of hardship, and I believe in reality they were such ; but it was impossible for Mr. Williams to act otherwise than he did in the matter. The position occupied by these firms is substantially this. They were erecting extensive saw-mills at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, in a sparsely settled country where labour could not be obtained. One of these firms sent an agent to Ottawa to employ men, and he remained here a couple of weeks and succeeded in securing five. These firms, who are transferring theiir manufacturing operations from the United States to Canada, and who have been engaged in business for years, have of course in their employ as skilled labourers, filers of band saws, sawyers, &c., men whose capacities and qualifications they know thoroughly well. A mistake made in the employment of one of these skilled labourers might involve the loss of thousands of dollars ; it might imperil the operations of the whole concern ; and these men asked to be allowed to bring to this country, for the purpose of settling them 'here, a class of skilled labourers whom they employed in the United States, and who were capable of discharging the duties they required of them properly and efficiently. I hold that the deportation of men of that kind is a mistake. We are asking for immigration ; we are paying agents to traverse Europe for the purpose of securing
immigration ; and in my belief it is not in our interest to repel a class of immigrants coming from the United States who are of superior intelligence to the class which we try to secure at a considerable cost from Europe. This cry about the enforcement of the Alien Labour law is something which I have no sympathy with whatever ; and 1 affirm, from knowledge of the fact, that the enforcement of the law in the United States is more liberal and less stringent than the enforcement of the law here. If the American authorities were to put into force the regulations which my hon. friend from East Simcoe asks that we should enforce, to-morrow morning 500 men would! be prevented from crossing from Windsor to Detroit to engage in their daily avocations ; 100 would be stopped at Sarnia, and 100 at Fort Erie, and thousands of Canadians on the border would be prevented from passing forward and back to the employment which they obtain across the border to their own financial advantage. For these reasons I have no sympathy with the position taken by my hon. friend from East Simcoe and by other hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House with reference to this matter. So far as the enforcement of this law is concerned, X hold that no well-founded criticism can be applied to the operations of the Labour Bureau in Canada. The law has been enforced with a sufficient degree of efficiency-with a greater degree, in my belief, than is in the public interest. I have very little more to say with reference to this matter except that I do not believe it is in the interests of Canada to impede the expenditure of money in this country and to throw obstacles in the way of men who wish to invest large sums in industrial enteiprises. I am sorry to see a disposition manifested to embarrass the government in this mtftter, and I fear this disposition can only proceed from a desire to throw discredit upon the government by appealing to prejudices with regard to alien labour.
The hon. gentleman from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) indulged in some facetious remarks with reference to some item about bartenders and so forth. I suppose that the Labour Gazette, or any other publication which deals with the interests of labour, if closely scrutinized, will be found to contain some little items which, considered apart from the rest, may look a little ridiculous, but we must remember that this Gazette was only inaugurated a short time ago and must necessarily contain some imperfections at the outset, which no doubt will be gradually removed. But, I think that the intention is a good one and the operations of this publication will grow more and more beneficial in the public interest from month to month as it proceeds.	*


Mr. IIEYD.: I think that the criticisms of our friends opposite show that they have
3S19

seen the journal only for the first time tonight, and that, from a hasty perusal of one or two articles, they condemn the action of the government in issuing this paper.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Whose fault is it that we have not seen it before ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Since the first number was issued, I have been a constant reader of it, and our hon. friends had the same opportunity of writing to have a copy sent them. I have read it with a great deal of interest because I believe that the news it contains is absolutely true. One of the great difficulties I have experienced in connection with labour journals, is that the news they give is not always accurate, but generally biassed, and sometimes they have other interests to subserve besides those of labour. The only way in which this journal can be made useful is to make it absolutely nonpolitical ; and from the first number I have read to the last, X have never seen an article or reference of a political nature, or in any way calculated to advance the interests of a particular party. Just as soon as this journal is used to aid in the advancement of either political party, its usefulness will disappear, and I do trust that our hon. friends opposite, before they condemn or even asperse it, will peruse one number after another and judge the publication on its general merits. There is no fairness in taking any one report, such as that from Vancouver, as a specimen of the whole, and even that particular item may be interesting to a great number of men who earn their livelihood in the way indicated. But the articles I have read struck me as being the very reverse of what they have been described here to-night, when it was said that each correspondent is a political heeler. Such statements are calculated to mislead and are certainly not based on an impartial reading of the different numbers. I understood that these correspondents were selected because they had the confidence of the labouring people amongst whom they reside, and I can say that the correspondent of Brantford is certainly one who is held in high esteem by the labouring community of that city. I look forward with considerable confidence to this journal being of great use to the people. I know that it is being read by hundreds of the labouring classes in Brantford among both political parties and have yet to hear any one speak of the publication in the adverse manner in which it has been criticised to-day.
Mr. SPROUIjE. No doubt the hon. minister has mapped out a most important work, if only it is performed in the proper spirit. If so, it can be very useful to the labour element, but it can also be made equally useful to an unscrupulous political party, if they desire to prostitute it for their own advantage. I am not going to condemn the Labour Gazette, because I have not gone


Charles Bernhard Heyd: through it sufficiently to justify auy specially adverse criticism. But what strikes me about it is that the minister has employed on the staff a number of men who are noted as extremely zealous political partisans. X find first on the staff the editor at $2,250, then an assistant editor at $1,500; and another editor at $1,000. Then there is the agent for enforcing the Alien Labour I^aw at $850, a translator at $500, a stenographer at $400, and two other parties at $1,500 each. Besides these there are thirty-five correspondents. While these correspondents may do valuable work, there are some men among them who are active politicians, and among the names given I was struck with that of Philips Thompson, of Toronto. There is no man who has been any time in public life who does not know this gentleman by reputation, who does not know that he is generally regarded as a partisan in many respects, with whom the interests of his party seem to be one of the first considerations of his life, and it is pretty hard to divorce from that knowledge the opinion that he will be in some way or other useful to his party in this capacity, although only employed as a correspondent. Then take the correspondent at Regina, who, I am told, is a strong political partisan, who was one of the enumerators before the last election, and who hid himself two days to prevent his opponents getting names on the lists, thus resembling the returning officer at Nipissing, who hid himself in order to prevent a fair election being held.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not find that there is a correspondent in Regina, and I have looked carefully over the list.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was just about to say that if those are a sample of the 35, we have just grounds for looking on them with a good deal of suspicion, for while they may be most valuable in promoting the interests of labour, they are equally apt to give their time to promoting the interests of their party. Take the principal man connected with this publication, Mr. D. J. O'Donoghue. He is known throughout Ontario as a very-active politician. Mr. O'Donoghue, so far as we know anything about him, has been always engaged in promoting the interests of his party. He has always, or for many years, been a government employee, as also,
I am told, has Mr. Phillips Thompson, one of the correspondents of the Labour Gazette. Now, if these men who are employees of the government become correspondents of this Labour Gazette, it is not to be wondered at that we entertain a fear that they may be more zealous in promoting the interests of their party than in promoting the interests of honest labour. So. I think we have a right to look upon it with a good deal of suspicion. From what the hon. minister told us, I made out as well as I could the wage list of the employees of this department. And though the department is still

in an embryonic state, though it is scarcely organized, I find that the wages will be at least $18,250-and I do not think I got them all. Practically it will be about $20,000. What may we expect after this department has been four or five years in existence ?
I think we may look for a very much larger wage list than there is now. In saying this,
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not condemn the aim of this Labour Bureau, for I think it may be very valuable and useful if properly conducted. But, if it is conducted on political lines-and what we know of other cases justifies us in the suspicion that it may be-it will be rather a source of evil to labour in a short time than a source of good. I understood the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to say that the resolution passed in this House he regarded not exactly as a command but as-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: An obligation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I understood him correctly, he regarded it as an obligation which must be carried out. But if this resolution of the House is an obligation upon the government, why is that not the case when the House expresses, by resolution, the opinion that no work involving an expenditure over $5,000 should be carried on except by tender and contract ? It seems that these expressions of opinion on the part of the House in some cases may be regarded as an obligation and in some cases altogether disregarded. While it expresses the opinion of the House and ought to be regarded as an instruction to the government, I do not understand that it is an imperative obligation which must be carried out, but it is left to their judgment whether it shall be carried out or not. I was told, with regard to this Gazette-though I never saw it before and have not had an opportunity to examine it- that it kept prominently before the public the names of politicians who favoured hon. gentlemen opposite, while it very conveniently refrained from saying anything about members of parliament on this side. I only give that on information furnished to me, information which may not be accurate. If it is the case, I say it is very improper, it is unfair and unjust. Take the case of my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram)- no man in this House took a more active interest in connection with the resolution (moved last session to get it into shape which would make it valuable to labour. I 'have no doubt that he spoke five or ten times for once that any other private member of the House spoke. But little reference is made to that in the Gazette, I am informed, while other members, such as Mr. Arch. Campbell, ex-member of this House, who had no interest in labour, and the hon. member from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) and others are referred to in a laudatory way very prominently and repeatedly.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: As my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is speaking with regard
to a matter of fact, I would ask him if he will find in the Gazette any such references as those of which he speaks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I prefaced what I said by saying that this is information which has 'been given to me but which may not be correct, but it is capable of verification, and had I the time I would go into the facts. But this Labour Gazette has just been handed to me and I have had no time to look over it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman will be glad to know that the information given him is incorrect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I shall be glad to know it, because I do not wish to do injustice to the editor of the Gazette, or to impugn the motives of the parties who wish to carry it on in the interests of labour. But I would as unsparingly condemn them if I found an unfair political bias that might inure to their benefit and to the disadvantage of their opponents. We have not been informed how the editors of this Labour Gazette are to gather these statistics. It seems to me it will be a difficult task. I presume that the statistics will be gathered partly through the correspondents in the different provinces and partly from the information in the Department of Agriculture. We should be informed ns to how they will be gathered, because the source from which they are taken may be reliable or it may be the reverse, it is important that they should be taken from the most reliable source available. Before sitting down I would remind the minister that he should remember, that this department has spread out very rapidly in its short existence. Like other departments it is likely to grow as years go on ; and, if he does not take special pains to exercise both wisdom and economy in the development of this branch, it is likely to become a branch more valuable as a place for shelving defeated politicians or pressing political supporters than as a means of doing good to the labourers of the country.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There are two points in which I agree with the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). The first is that the task to be performed by the officers of this department in gathering reliable statistics and information, will be a very heavy one. The hon. gentleman has asked how this information is to be obtained. I may tell him that it will be obtained by application to every reliable source-contractors, employers of labour, labour unions, provincial- organizations and to every other source of information to which the statistician may look with confidence. Another point in which I agree with my hon. friend is that in submitting to this House the appointments for the Labour Department and the work that is being done by the department, it is right that there should be close criticism and that suggestions for improvements made by hon. members

on either side of the House should not be taken as adverse to the organization of a department devoted to the labouring interests of this country. However, in saying that, I wish to say that it is only just to the department and to those most interested, the employers of labour and their employees, that criticism should be fair. Now the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has referred to the Labour Gazette, basing his statements upon information given to him. I am pleased to be able to inform him and this committee that he can look over the Labour Gazette from the first number to the last and he will not find the slightest foundation for the statement. It was hardly fair criticism, I may say, when the information is so easily obtainable, to take hearsay evidence. As to the appointment of correspondents. I may say that probably a man who has not taken an interest in political questions in some way, who has not taken an interest in the affairs of the country and in matters connected with labour organizations, would be very little use as a correspondent.
I have this to submit to the House, that whether it is Phillips Thompson-and, by the way, I would like to interject the remark here that though I have been connected with the Liberal party for some years, it is news to me that some of these men have been such active and prominent members of the Liberal party. I never had the privilege of meeting them or of knowing them at all in that capacity. However, I may not have moved in the right sphere to have met them as Liberals in the province of Ontario. But, my proposition is. that a correspondent must be judged by his work, and not by his political leanings, not by his religion or his nationality ; he must be judged by the actual value of the correspondence sent in and published by the Labour Gazette. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) makes an evident attempt to ridicule the department, and by his flippant remarks to throw discredit upon the organization and upon the Gazette, and has used language which, I think, unparliamentary in describing all these correspondents as merely political hacks. AH I can say is, that there are some 10.000 copies of this Gazette being issued to prominent manufacturers and employers of labour ; every library in the country, I understand, is also furnished with one or more copies, and I will leave it to the workingmen. and others who read the Gazette, to judge as to whether there is any foundation for the statements that the hon. gentleman has made. I say that criticism of the correspondents should be founded upon the information furnished by them, and not upon the political party they may belong to. Now, the hon. gentleman wound up, as he said, seriously ; I am pleased to know that in his closing remarks he said he wished to speak seriously. He said that what the


Robert Franklin Sutherland: labouring classes of this country wanted was some useful legislation. He ridiculed the publication of the Gazette. Well. I have already explained, and I reiterate, that we believe the publication of the Gazette is probably the most important and useful work that lias been done or will be done by the department. He said that the enforcement of the Alien Labour law was the kind of work they expected the department to do. I think the hon. gentleman was not in the House when I submitted the record of the department in that respect. In the few months it has been in existence, we have received fifty-four complaints. Those were personal complaints from fifteen or twenty different localities in this country. The result has been a total of sixty-five persons deported. As I said in my opening remarks, I believe that the very knowledge rimv this Act is being vigorously enforced has had the result of diminishing, to a great extent, the complaints that were formerly made in this direction. My hon. friend must admit that that is a very good record, showing that the officers of the department have been honest, faithful and effective in the discharge of their duty. Some of the complaints were unfounded. I will read one or two of the many letters the department has received that have been sent in by parties whom no one will call political hacks. One comes from a gentleman whom my hon. friend would hardly call a political hack, in which be praises the Deputy Minister of Labour with regard to the Labour Gazette.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not say that the Deputy "Minister of Labour was a political hack. I said the correspondents who were paid $100 a year were in many instances such, and I do not take back a word of that.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am sorry to know that an hon. member, occupying the position he does in this House, would make a statement when he knew that it was not well founded, and that he will not take back. What I did say was, that the members of this House must judge of the correspondents by their letters in the Gazette.


James Clancy: And not by their antecedents ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: No. I will say to my hon. friend that I believe that even if his friend sitting beside him were appointed to the position of correspondent in this paper, we would have perfect confidence in the reports he would send in from the city he represents in the interest of labour. I want to say that these men, so far as I know, have been appointed on the recommendation of the labour organizations, who must be supposed to have confidence in them. I do not think it follows that because a man has been an active politician or a member of this House, he is unfit to do any work in connection with the Gazette.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman say there is no case in which an appointment has been made except upon recommendation of a labour organization ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: No, I would not.


James Clancy: I thought not. The hon. gentleman ought to be careful not to say so.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is not necessary to be careful, because I did not make such a remark.
Mr. CLANCY'. The hon. gentleman stated particularly, a moment ago, that they were appointed by the labour organizations.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman misunderstood me. ' Hansard ' will show what I said. Now, I will read this letter.
Toronto, Oct. 3, 1900. W. L. Mackenzie King, Esq.,
Editor of the Labour Gazette,
Ottawa.
Sir,-Replying to your circular letter asking names and addresses of persons to whom the September number of the Labour Gazette might be sent, I would suggest that a certain number of copies of each edition be sent to the offices of the several trade organizations of this city, also to the secretary of the board of trade and to the leading manufacturers and employers of labour throughout this city.
I would also suggest that copies sufficient be sent to the secretary of the Toronto public library to have one or more placed in the central library and in each of the branch libraries.
I am, sir, yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) E. F. CLARKE.
Now, I am not going to enter into a dispute with the hon. gentleman as to whether these men are political hacks, or as to whether the information contained in the Gazette is of the character he described ; but, I will leave it to the large number of people who have an opportunity of studying this Gazette to judge as to whether it is, as I have represented, a most useful publication. i will trouble the committee with reading another letter with regard to the work of the department, because when the hon. gentleman said that the work the country desired this department to perform was with regard to alien labour, he forgot to realize the importance of the work that was being done under the Conciliation Act, as well as other matters to which I referred some time ago. I will read this letter from a firm well known In this country :
Dundas, Ont., Jan. 29, 1901. Hon. ffm, . Mulock, M.P.
Department of Labour, Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-We have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your courteous favour of the 26th Inst., and in reply we desire to express our pleasure in meeting your deputy, Mr. King, and also to say that there is no doubt but that owing to his good judgment the slight difficulty which
existed between a few of our employees and ourselves was adjusted to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.
We would ask you to kindly accept our very best thanks for your interest on our behalf.
We remain, yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) JOHN BERTRAM & SONS.
I think John Bertram & Sons are well known to be not supporters of the Liberal party, but active and prominent politicians, and I think this expression of their views with regard to the good work done on that particular occasion will be accepted as an honest expression. As to the good work done under that Act, and the expenditure we are now asking for, I am willing that every item should be fairly criticised, and I desire to have the opinions of hon. gentlemen as to the best course to take with regard to this department. They shall receive every consideration, no matter from what source they come. But, I will point out to this committee, that even in that one particular instance where this difficulty had existed for something like four months, if I remember correctly, the reconciliation, by the visit of a member of this department, under the Conciliation Act, saved to the country, perhaps, much more than the whole appropriation that we are asking for. Certainly, I think we may safely appeal to the committee and say, that In the good work done already we have saved far more to the country in actual money, in settlements under the Conciliation Act, than the whole expenditure of the department. I agree with the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that every effort must be made by the minister and the officials of the department to keep party politics out of it, and that we are in a position to succeed to a very great extent in connection with the Labour Gazette, I think, shows, that that is the intention of the government that their instructions have been followed to the letter, and I trust it will be continued in such a way as to give satisfaction to all concerned.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I would like to ask the hon. member by what authority all these expenditures have been made. " Did parliament vote any money last year ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: You are referring to the expenditure for the current year ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: For the current year.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: We are on the estimate for the coming year. But, as to that question, I will give the information when the estimates comes up for the current year if that would satisfy the hon. gentleman. There was an estimate made, but I am not familiar with the figures now.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, parliament voted no money.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Perhaps it would be more satisfactory to the horn gentleman if we left that until the estimates for the current year come up when l will be able to give him more information.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We will take it up now. We are now at item 254 ; $50,000 for the Department of Labour, are we not ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Now, you are asking us to vote $50,000 for next year. I am asking the hon. acting minister by what authority they have been expending the money that he told us they have been expending this year on this great staff of officials.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There was a vote of $10,000 last year.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Why is it not put in here ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It should be inserted opposite these figures. There is a blank opposite these figures. That is an error.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is an error ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The omission of the comparative statement is an error.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: There was $10,000 voted last year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is my recollection. I think that is correct. I have sent for the book.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We have no record of It here. It appears to me that the utmost care should be taken and has not been taken to prevent this from becoming largely a political machine. Look over the Gazette. I have one in my hand, the October number, where they give as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has said, an account of the meeting on the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada held in the city of Ottawa from the ISth to the 22nd of September. In it the reporter of the Labour Gazette, the innocent and unsophisticated gentleman who wrote out this report, tells us that:
At no previous session have the proceedings extended over so long a time, or the number of delegates in attendance been so large. The meetings being held in the capital of the Dominion doubtless helps to account for the fact that the representatives of labour and the representatives of the nation were brought more closely into contact with each other than on any previous occasion.
He might have added that eighteen days after the meeting the parliament of Canada was dissolved, that the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. Postmaster General Mr. WALLACE.
(Hon. Mr. Mulock) were then making their preparations to rope in the electorate and that this condescending attendance at the meeting of the Trades and Labour Congress was to assist them in their Dominion elections which were right on, which they knew were on, but which the people of Canada were not informed about. Everything points to the fact that everything was utilized by the hon. ministers to advance their political fortunes. The Labour Gazette was used as a vehicle for conveying information throughout the country. It says that there never was a time wheu so many ministers or so many members of parliament were present. Who were the members of parliament ? They were the right hon. leader of the government, the hon. Postmaster General and Mr. N. A. Belcourt, M.P., of the city of Ottawa. These were the three gentlemen representing the nation who were present on this occasion. Our good friend the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) was the president of that association. He claims to be a very ardent labour representative, but his votes and speeches in this House show that he is an equally, if not more ardent member of the Liberal party.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The two go together.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: They do not go together when it comes to the voters marking their ballots.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, yes, they do.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: They do not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They do.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The city of Toronto


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Are there no labourers outside of the cities ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Wait a moment-has the largest number of the labour element of any city in the province of Ontario and the second largest in any part of Canada. The city of Toronto, by an overwhelming majority of the workingmen of that city, declared against the hon. gentlemen.
Mr. McCarthy. They defeated the labour candidates in Toronto.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The labour candidates? Mr. McCarthy. Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: They were like the hon. member for North Slmcoe (Mr. McCarthy) ; they were professing to be something they were not. [DOT]


Mr. MCCARTHY.: The hon. member was in North Simcoe himself.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Not only the city of Toronto, but the whole province of On-

tario, by an overwhelming majority, declared against the hon. gentleman and we are all workingmen in Ontario. The whole of the reports in this Labour Gazette, after a cursory examination, appear to me to indicate that it is pretty much of a campaign document. This is the October number, issued immediately before the election, and it is devoted to advancing the interests of the Liberal party. You cannot find a line in it that has anything to say for the members of the loyal opposition, but you can find plenty in it eulogizing the government of Canada. Another thing that we may fairly make objection to, and which has been referred to is the fact that we have, here, among all the members of parliament who have only seen this publication to-night, one copy for each of the eight months during which it has been issued. We have only one cojjy to pass around when the government are asking for a vote of $50,000 for this journal and for the work that revolves around it. I say that we are entitled to have better information than that before this vote passes. Fifty thousand dollars is only a small sum if great good is accomplished by its expenditure, but $50,000 is too much money for creating amongst the employers and labouring men of this country partisan political strife.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am informed that every member of this House was sent a circular asking him to send in the names of persons to whom he would wish a copy of the Gazette sent, just as was the member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) who answered the letter. I was surprised to know that the Gazette was not regularly sent to members of the House. I am in the same position as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace), but it is our own fault. We received that circular and not only could we have had a copy for ourselves but sample copies would have been sent to any one we named.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I have no recollection of having received that circular. I repudiate the hon. gentleman's assertion that he is in the same position as I am in this matter. He is responsible, for it is he who should have had copies sent to members of parliament. This is the only publication of parliament that has not been sent to the representatives of the people, and so we are asked to vote $50,000 without having had an opportunity of considering the work that has been done. I may say that the appointment of men like D. ,T. O'Donoghue will not give satisfaction to the people of Toronto. Hei has been a political partisan of most pronounced type. He cannot get out of the rut; he is too old now, X suppose. There are plenty of men of their own poll tical stripe whose selection by the government would have given confidence to the people that fairness would have been exercised, but I do not think that can be said
of Mr. O'Donoghue by those who know him best where he has lived longest. The salaries that are paid and all the expenses con nected with it have been on an extravagant scale for the initiation of a new departure. The minister shakes his head, and thinks, I suppose, that it is a most modest equipment and that the salaries are low. I do not think so. I believe there could have been and should have been more efficient work done for much less expenditure.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: If we devote our attention to the discussion of this question with a view of really helping the organization of the Labour Department, this is an important question and good will result. I am not suiprised at the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) finding fault with the report of the Labour Congress but we cannot help that. The articles in the Gazette is simply a report from the Labour Congress themselves as to what took place.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No. It is like a newspaper report that ia given.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It is a statement of what actually occurred.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: With comments.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: There are no comments, as I understand.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It is simply a statement of what occurred just as is a report of what takes place in this House. I know nothing about Mr. O'Donoghue, but I am informed on the best authority that the labour organizations of the city of Toronto unanimously approved of him, and that the central labour organization of the whole Dominion also approved. This is the very best guar antee of the character of Mr. O'Donoghue.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Where is the evidence of that ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I make that statement on reliable information and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) declares it is not correct I will withdraw it.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) is correct.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Is the hon. member for West York satisfied now ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) did not know.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It was my fear that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) would not accept my statement which made me quake until the member for Elgin (Mr. Ingram) came to my assistance. I made the statement on what I considered good authority, and now I have the best authority. Now, in view of the fact that the labour organizations Who are most interested in this bureau, and who know more about Mr. COMMONS
O'Donoghue tlian anybody else, have resolved that this gentleman should be appointed, I ask the hon, gentleman (Mr. Wallace) if it is fair to the labour organizations and to Mr. O'Donoghue for him to state in this House that Mr. O'Donoghue is not satisfactory to the labouring men of the city of Toronto. It just sho-ws how ready some people are to asperse a man's character when they have nothing but party ends in view. Labour is neither Liberal nor Tory. There are men in the labour organizations who belong to both parties, but perhaps if the workingmen knew the history of the labour question in this country there would be fewer of them in the ranks of the Tory party. In 1886 the late government appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the relations of labour and capital and all subjects connected therewith, and when do you think that commission made its report ? Why, not until three years afterwards. So anxious were they to ascertain all the facts, so anxious were they that labour and capital should be brought together, and so anxious were they that the report should be characterized by wisdom that it took three long years to prepare it, and I am bound to say that that report contains information which would lead thoughtful men to think that there was a labour question in this country which should be attended to.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are you quite sure the report was not made until three years after 1886 ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The commission was appointed in 1S86 and the report was given in on the 22nd of February, 18S9, between two and three years afterwards. This is what that labour commission said :
Your committee are firmly persuaded that the interests of the working people will be promoted if all matters relating to them be placed under the administration of one of the ministers of the Crown, so that a labour bureau be established, statistics collected, information disseminated-
Just the very thing that is being done.
-and the working people find readier means of making known their needs and desires to the government.
And on page 121 are set forth detailed reasons why this Bureau of Labour Statistics should be created. It is there again stated :
The testimony of all the witnesses was to the effect that a bureau of labour statistics for the Dominion is generally needed.
It is further stated :
to provide for the Collection and Publishing of Labour Statistics. I have that Act now before me. It provides for a branch of the Department of Agriculture known as the Bureau of Labour Statistics, and hon. gentlemen will find it as chapter 15 of 53 Victoria. It provides :
The Governor in Council may from time to time appoint an officer who shall be called the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Statistics, and who shall hold office during pleasure.
The duties of the commissioner shall be to collect, classify and arrange and present in quarterly bulletins and yearly reports to parliament statistics relating to all kinds of labour in Canada.
It shall be the duty of the commissioner to collect from Dominion, provincial and municipal officers, and from all officers of any public institutions

And so on-all this information. The head of this Bureau of Labour Statistics was to be the Minister of Agriculture, who was to be called the Commissioner of Labour Statistics. The sum of $10,000, the same sum as before, was appropriated from the consolidated fund for the purpose of running that bureau. There is a schedule annexed to the Act, for the classification of statistics, showing exactly .what should be done. Now, here comes a curious little episode. I remember running an election in 1891-and in the jjrovince of Nova Scotia we have a large numbei of workingmen, both in our mines and in industrial pursuits. In fact, what makes Nova Scotia the greatest province of the Dominion is that we all have to work there, and those who work know best how to enjoy life and make the most of it. In Nova Scotia we passed legislation of this kind two or three years before the Dominion. That legislation we found very effective. But what I want to draw particular attention to is that in the election of 1891, from one end of the province to the other, the cry was : Look at what the government are doing for labour ; they have formed a bureau ; they have voted money for it ; they are going to gather statistics ; this is the first government that ever thought of labour, and you will vote for it. And I am bound to say that in 1S91 they did get a large proportion of the labour vote in the province of Nova Scotia. But what happened ? Although that Act was passed in 1890, not one step was taken during the whole time the party opposite were in power, and they went out of power in 1896 without ever having done anything to have labour statistics collected. But the Labour Bureau is now in operation.
Where all the witnesses who were indicated on this point gave identically the same reply, it would he useless to point out any particular testimony as showing the need of a Dominion bureau.
That was the report of this commission in February, 1889. The report was laid before parliament in the session of 1890, and the government of that day passed an Act


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We are in the twentieth century now.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Yes, and you will have much to forget in the past, so far as the action of your political friends in regard to labour is concerned. The Act constituting this Labour Bureau was passed last year, and it went immediately into opera-


Duncan Cameron Fraser: tion ; that is just the difference. It can not be expected that everything is going to be perfected in the first few months of its 'operation ; but I am bound to state that the Gazette is a very respectable journal for the purposes for which it was created. One benefit that will be derived from this Bureau of Labour and the statistics that are being collected, will be of immense advantage to the Dominion of Canada. If 1 read the signs of the times aright, I think our neighbours to the south of us are fast coming to a clash ; and one of the things which we in Canada should learn above all others, is that labour and capital ought to understand each other, that the interests of both are reciprocal, that capital ought to help labour as labour ought to help capital ; and much can be done by inculcating beforehand the proper principles relating to labour and capital by which those who work and those who invest money will understand each other. That is one of the difficulties occurring in the nation to the south just now. So chronic is the state of things in the United States that at any time the very smallest amount of powder may cause a great explosion. Labour there feels that it is down-trodden, that it has not its proper position, and the capital that is invested is being gathered into large combinations. The fight is going to be between labour on the one hand and that of accumulation of capital on the other. Now, if you have in Canada an educative process going on year after year, by which those who invest money and those who labour can be brought together to discuss matters, you will have a better understanding ; and when you have labour feeling that it is fairly used, and that it is receiving not only at the hands of the capital which employs it, but at the hands of the government, such consideration ns it ought to have, you will have a condition of things that will make peaceful industry in this country. That was one of the reasons why I rejoiced last year at the establishment of this bureau. I am not concerned whether a man was a strong politician before he took office or not. There are strong politicians who are still, I am bound to say, honest men. I do not see that the fact that a man was a strong Tory or a strong Liberal before he took office, should disqualify him from making truthful reports of the condition of things in the district in which he lives. Must it be laid down as a rule that a man who is a jelly fish, who has had no political views at all, Is the only man to be employed to send reports ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Let me explain that the objection made to Mr. O'Donoghue is not the objection which the hon. gentleman is stating. He is putting up a straw man and knocking it down. The objection was this, that Mr. O'Donoghue had been a government official for many years, and that during the whole time he has been also a political partisan, and of course he will continue to be.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I shall have to ask my hon. friend to settle that question with the hon. member for East Simcoe, who called him a political hack.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is what we say, although he has been in the employ of the Ontario government for the last dozen years or so.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: There again, a man is necessarily a political hack, because he was in the employ of a local government.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: And a political partisan during the whole of that time.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Supposing he was, he is a political hack, because he was employed by a local government.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, because he was a political partisan and working in the interests of a political party while he was taking the money of the whole people of Canada.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I would remind the hon. gentleman that he is just as likely to be as wrong in that statement as he was in the statement that Mr. O'Donoghue was not recommended by the workingmen of Canada. He said that the workingmen were all in favour of the present opposition, and yet, these are the men who recommended this political hack to be employed in this work.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Oh, no.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Was not Mr. O'Donoghue recommended by the labouring men in the city of Toronto ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: He -was not recommended by the Labour Congress of the Dominion, but in the president's address to the members of the Labour Congress of Canada, he approved of Mr. O'Donoghue's nomination, but it was not the workingmen of Canada who approved of it.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I am informed that he was approved by the labour organizations of the city of Toronto.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Give us the information.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: If the hon. gentleman is going to put -me under a catechetical examination, I must decline to be catechised.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: If the hon. gentleman will say that he knows it of his own personal knowledge, I shall not dispute his statement.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I am informed, on as good authority as the hon. gentleman, and it will be for the hon. gentleman to disprove my statement. Is it objected that Mr. O'Donoghue is not a good official and that his j work is not good work ?

3S36


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is the charge made.


Andrew B. Ingram: I make that statement.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: If the hon. gentleman says so, that is some evidence, bult it is not conclusive, because if it were reported to him that Mr. O'Donoghue had ever in any way opposed him In politics, he would, no doubt, feel that this man was his enemy. I can quite understand his feeling in that regard.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is entirely too innocent.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The question of my innocence being admitted, I can proceed to discuss this matter apart from personal considerations. The governemnt is to be commended on its policy in publishing this labour journal. From time to time that Labour Gazette has been productive of much good. The workingmen with whom I have come in contact have expressed themselves as vastly pleased with it. But, I have one objection to raise, and that is, that it has only one agent in Nova Scotia, and he is in the city of Halifax. I would inform the hon. minister that in Sydney and Pictou there .are more men employed in mines and manufactures than in Halifax, and there is no agent in either of these places. No doubt the gentleman employed at Halifax is an excellent man, who sends from time to time to the Gazette a good deal of information about these other places. Hon. gentlemen opposite have admitted that this is a step in the right direction, and no doubt improvements will be made, and it seems to me that this House, as a whole, should give this scheme its generous support. Talk of its costing $50,000. Why, one strike would cost the people a great deal more. A strike of a week in any large establishment will cost, both in time lost to the labourers employed and the loss to the establishment itself, far more than we are expending on this publication, labour has a place in this country which we must recognize more and more. The fact that we have been doing all we could to promote the investment of capital and thus advance the interests of capital, is one of the best reasons why we should give labour every advantage we can. and there is no better way of doing this than by disseminating all necessary information which will be of value to the workingmen, and thus help in securing to them the position they ought to hold in the country. We should take every means to give them an education that will enable them to make their influence felt, not only in political circles, but in the wider social sphere, and thus promote their interests in every respect.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: I am not sure whether it would be advisable to carry this discussion any further, but as I have been a labourer since I was twelve years Mr. FRASER.
old, and have always been a producer of wealth, I think I ought to say a word on this labour question. This government is the first in Canada which has had the courage to inaugurate a department for the purpose of looking after the interests of our workingmen. It seems that previous governments were asked to do the same thing before, but failed to respond to the demand, and it remained for this government to embark on this new undertaking. But, until I arrived at Ottawa. I laboured under the misfortune of being ignorant that there was any such publication as the Labour Gazette, and I do not know that I would have discovered its existence had I not been present at one of the committees, where I learned all about it, and I was pleased to learn that something was being done in the interests of labour by this government. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Fraser) comes from the province of Nova Scotia, which has produced many things that merit our commendation, and in this case it has produced certainly a great man, because I believe he is the largest man in the House. That hon. gentleman has told us that labour and capital are growing further apart every day. Anything that will bring about a reconciliation and settle matters in dispute between labour and capital will do a grand work for this country. I think I remember reading some years ago that the Prime Minister on one occasion took upon himself to interfere, and went to a gang of railway labourers and settled some question of dispute between them and their employer. If I am mistaken, I am willing to be corrected ; but if the right hon. gentleman did that, he accomplished a great thing. This Labour Gazette which is published monthly and sent out to a large number of people-it has not been sent to you Tory members as yet, but you will get it as you have criticised it so severely-I believe is calculated to do a great deal of good. At any rate, it will show the labouring man where labour is in demand. They will see, for instance, that in St. Thomas there is a large armoury going up and $50,000 being expended, and so we may look for an influx of labouring men. But, best of all, the gentleman who presides over this department will have an oppor tunity of settling labour disputes. I understand that he was successful in settling the Valleyfield dispute. If that gentleman or any other can settle these labour difficulties, he will do a great deal of good, for when a strike takes place the men who have been at work must seek labour across the line or elsewhere, and the town where they lived sees them no more.
Now, I wish to say one word with regard to the Alien Labour question. I believe that the Prime Minister has a Bill before the House, which may have passed before now. But when I heard hon. gentlemen discussing that question a few evenings ago, I

felt as if X would like to speak upon it. We learned the other day that we are spending half a million of money every year in bringing immigrants into this country. We have been going to all parts of Europe to look for them. We have been told that our agents have found in Southern Europe a people without a name, and some of these they are going to bring to Canada. And yet this Alien Labour law is to keep out of the country many good citizens such as we are bringing from Europe, the most intelligent and advanced men, mechanics and skilled labourers, whom we ought to encourage to come to this country. The greatest country the world has ever seen has risen to the height she has because she has made her home an asylum for the distressed and oppressed of all the nations of the world. And we would do well to take an example from her, and let every man of industry come here. That is what we want in this country, and not to bar people out by an Alien I.abour law. I feel that I would like to launch out on this subject. Why, we can hardly get men or women to assist us on our farms ; we are obliged to do the labour ourselves because we cannot find men to hire. And yet you want to pass a law to keep men from coming to us from the country to the south of us. I am told that this is a retaliatory law. We all know what retaliation means. Hon. members when they were young, no doubt, rend Bacon's Essays-if not, they ought to have done so. Bacon says that the man who seeks revenge is only keeping his own wounds green. And that is what we are doing by retaliating upon our neighbours. Let us set them a good example ; let us invite them to come here. I am satisfied that our workingmen have brains enough and ability enough to compete with all comers. Let us keep people here when they come ; but to do that we must keep them cheaply. Men must be able to live here more cheaply than in any other place in the world, and then you will get them to come. Before sitting down, I have only to repeat that I hope the Labour Department will be kept up. But you must not have political hacks sending information to this Labour Gazette. I do not say that that is the case now, but If it is the case a change should be made. There are men in every section, men upon whom you can rely, men who are not political hacks, who will send you that information gratis. The Bureau of Industries was started in Ontario some years ago. I have been one of the correspondents of that bureau since its inception, and I never got a red cent for anything that I ever did.


William Humphrey Bennett: Put in your bill.


Jabel Robinson: No, I shall not put in a bill. There need be no trouble about getting this information. In every town and city there are labour organizations-and I want to tell hon. members that
some of the ablest and the most intelligent men belong to these labour bodies in the towns and cities. I can tell hon. gentlemeu that when it comes to discussing political questions, they are not in it with some of the members of these labour organizations. These gentlemen would be quite willing to send you the information without charge, if you will furnish them with paper and postage. I do not think it is necessary to pay $100 a year to some fellow beeausq he is one of your party men. Select the best man in a locality and ask him if he will be kind enough to report the condition of labour there, and you can get the information. My advice to hon. gentlemen opposite is to keep on publishing this Labour Gazette, but in their own interests let them make it unpartisan, because the men on this side will be in power some day, and the government will have reason to be sorry if they set them a bad example.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am glad to hear the remarks of my hon. colleague from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson). Knowing his past history, I know that he has always taken an active interest in labour questions. Reference has been made to the fact that only a limited supply of the Labour Gazette has been sent out. My experience has been this. I received a circular asking me to forward a number of names to the department to whom the Gazette would be sent. I myself have subscribed for one copy of the Gazette, and therefore as a subscriber I am fn a position to say something about it. The Deputy Minister of Labour has been mentioned here to-night. I remember that when the Act came into force I drew the minister's attention to the necessity of the appointment of a non-partisan deputy who would have charge of this department, saying it was necessary that he should be free from party politics. I am inclined to think that the Deputy Minister of Labour, so far as he is personally concerned, is eager to publish this Gazette from a non-partisan standpoint. But I fully recognize the great difficulties that he is under in publishing this Gazette as a non-partisan publication, surrounded as he is with persons who have always been most active partisans. I desire to warn the deputy minister to be very careful as to the advice that he receives from those men who are associated with him in that department. For one, I may mention Mr. D. J. O'Donoghue, who has been one of the most active partisans for a number of years in the Dominion of Canada.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Will the hon. gentleman tell us the position that Mr. O'Donoghue occupied at the time that he was appointed to the position he now holds ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I will explain that fully. The acting minister said there was nothing in the Gazette of a partisan character. Now that statement includes any matter that Is within the covers of the Labour Gazette ;

and here again let me warn the deputy minister that he will have to be very wary if he would not allow anything of a partisan character to be published in the Gazette, because I know something of the tactics of D. J. O'Donoghue. I have been a member of the Dominion Labour Congress for some yejars in the past, and I know that the House of Commons is not a patch to the partisans who compose the Trade and Labour Congress of Canada. We consider ourselves strong partisans in this House, whether as Conservatives or as Reformers ; but I can say that I never saw more partisan conduct in my life in the House of Commons than I have seen in the Trade and Labour Congress of Canada. What are the tactics of Mr. O'Donoghue, what have been his tactics in the past ? When he was employed by the Ontario government he was associated with 'the labour organizations in the city of Toronto. Now it is a well known fact that the labouring men in Toronto, as everywhere else, have to devote pretty much all their time to making a living for themselves and families, and they have very little time to pull the wires and to manipulate the labour organizations in the city in favour of any particular party. These men largely are honest in their desire to advocate measures which they believe to be in the interest of the workingmen of Canada, and they attend these meetings. But on the other hand they are not the class of men who manipulate these organizations and who do certain things that are noticed in the Trade and Labour Councils in the city of Toronto. Mr. O'Donoghue, who was an official of the Ontario government, had ample time at his disposal, he had opportunities of perusing the statistics of the Industrial Bureau of the Ontario government, and he was largely advised by the Ontario ministers as to what he should do when he proceeded to manipulate the labour vote of the province of Ontario. In company with him for a number of years was Mr. A. F. Jury, who is now immigration agent in Liverpool, Eng. Both of these gentlemen, years ago, when the Conservative party were in power, never missed an opportunity of condemning that government for assisting immigration to this country, and they never missed an opportunity of promoting the interests of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario and in the Dominion of Canada. Now I want to call the attention of the Deputy Minister of Labour to a statement in the address of the President of the Trade and Labour Congress of Canada, worked in here for an obvious political purpose and nothing else. Here is the quotation :
Early in the session the Bill to amend the Trades Marks and Designs Acts was again introduced, this time by Mr. A. Campbell, M.P. for Kent, but owing to the length of debates on several questions, the Bill did not get past Its first reading. However, it would not have passed the Senate.


Andrew B. Ingram: What right had he to assume that the Senate would not pass it ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Will the hon. member please answer that question I asked him a lflomeut ago, and tell us the position Mr. O'Donoghue held in the labour council at the time he was appointed ?


Andrew B. Ingram: If the hon. gentleman will possess his soul in patience I will tell him before I take my seat. Is it not a fact-and if I am incorrect in the statement I make, let that statement be corrected to-morrow and I will withdraw it-it is a fact that these very labour men were told to go to Mr. Jackson, and did go to Mr. Jackson, who knew all about that question, and he would explain to them the exact position they were in, and the reasons why this government could not grant the legislation that they were asking for ? There is a certain gentleman occupying a position in another place within this building, who offered to take them to the law clerk of that institution in another part of this building, and that law clerk would explain to them the exact position the government was in with respect to giving legislation such as they asked for ? Did they go and take the opportunity of finding this out ? No, that did not suit their purpose. What did they want ? They wanted to go to that other place in this building, believing as they did, after canvassing to some extent, that the legislation they were asking for would be thrown out, and then they would have another opportunity of having a slap at that institution, for political purposes only. This is another reason why, 1 say, these gentlemen are not advocating what they believe to be in the interest of labour, but are advocating what they believe to be in the interest of a political party. Now I wish to refer to another gentleman, Mr. A. F. Jury. I was a member of the Trade and Labour Congress of Canada at the time when Alf. Jury thought it was' his duty to come to my constituency and stump the constituency against me. It was an act of brotherly love-men in the labour congress together-it was simply an act of brotherly love. But having the confidence of the people I represent I was again elected, notwithstanding the opposition of Mr. Jury. Now these gentlemen found fault with the Conservative party because they brought labourers to this country. What class of people did they want to come to this country ? They wanted the farming class. And what do I find in the immigration report which is presented by this government. In the report for 1899, I find that Mr. Jury condemns the bringing into Canada of respectable tenant farmers from Great Britain.


Jabel Robinson: Is that so ? ,


Andrew B. Ingram: 
Charles Bernhard Heyd: No, what position he held in the labour organization.


Andrew B. Ingram: I believe he was employed in the Statistical Department of the Ontario government for years, and while in that department he never lost an opportunity to make a Grit vote if he could make one.
Mr. HE1 D. That is not an answer.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not understand what the hon. gentleman means.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I understand that Mr. O Donoghue was for nineteen years the secretary of the parliamentary committee of the Tracies and Labour Council of Toronto.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not think the hon gentleman s facts are correct, if he gives them as correct. I do not think Mr O Donoghne has been all that time in that position, but, he has manipulated the! Trades and Labour Council of Toronto!
121 1
pretty fairly for a number of years back. The reason why he did it was because he got strong support from the Ontario government. He manipulated others who were willing to be manipulated and by their manipulation they were able to run the show pretty nearly as they liked. When I say that, however, I want hon. gentlemen to understand, that, because he could manipulate a few men in Toronto, he does not manipulate the workingmen of Toronto, or the Dominion of Canada and this government will find it out. I would like to know if he thinks, or if any hon. gentleman thinks, that the Conservative workingmen of this country are so blind that they cannot see through this gentleman or through his manoeuvres and through all ms wire-pulling during these years. They have become pretty nearly tired of them. Let me say, and I say it truthfully and frankly, that Mr. O'Donoghue told me-and I rather admired him for his straightforwardness-that he was going to manipulate m the interest of his party. That being true, and I do not think the hon. gentleman will deny it, I would give him credit tor it if he would, in a manly way and above-board, fight straight out from the shoulder, but, to play the independent workingman racket for the purpose of trying to manipulate the Tory element amongst the workingmen, will not down with many Conservative workingmen in this country. Fault was found with the late Dominion government when they established their commission for the purpose of investigating the labour question m this country because they did not introduce legislation in 1890, or a few years afterwards One of the reasons given in 1SJ0 was that they were about to take a census in 1891, and the taking of that census was believed to be the taking of ^.ock	industrial concerns of Canada.
They felt, m view of that census that it would not be necessary to establish a Labour Bureau, believing that that would serve the purpose. I am free to admit, because this is a question that should be discussed apart from party politics, that the government did not advance labour interests as much as I would like to have seen them advanced. But, I remember quite well that many hon. members of this House, between 1S91 and 1896, were not very much in favour of labour legislation, and in particular, the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), who gets up here to-night and professes to be an exponent of labour, condemned an Alien Labour law in this country. I can remember when he denounced that measure and it is only within this session of parliament that he has denounced it. The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the labouring men are eager for an Alien Labour law to be put on the statute-book equivalent in its terms to the Alien Labour



law in the United States, not because they are in favour of legislation of that kind, but because they are forced to adopt sucli legislation. Why ? Because the people of the United States have an Alien Labour law on their statute-book and they are enforcing it to the detriment of the workingmen of Canada. That is the reason why they are in favour of an Alien Labour law for this country. Reference has been made to the thirty-five correspondents of the Labour Gazette. Speaking of the correspondent in my own city, X have no fault to find with him. I believe he is trying to carry out labour principles on an independent line. He is a Liberal, but at the same time, I believe he is an honourable fellow and will give an honest report according to his best judgment, but I would not undertake to say that the same rule applies to the thirty-five correspondents who have been called upon to send in reports to the Labour Gazette.


An hon. MEMBER.: Thirty-five correspondents.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, thirty-five correspondents, receiving $100 each. In respect to the Valleyfield dispute, I do not wish to bring that matter up again, but it has been brought up incidentally in this discussion. I have heard that the Deputy Minister of Labour acted the part of a partisan on that occasion. I have no desire to accuse that gentleman, but, judging from what I have read in the Labour Gazette and judging from all the other circumstances connected with this matter,
1 cannot make myself believe that that gentleman is guilty, though I have heard that such a statement has been made by prominent individuals who live in the district. I have no desire to be unfair, and jf We discuss a question of this kind at all, I have no desire to say anything that will injure the interests of labour so fai as this department is concerned. I wish to see it carried on independently ot political parties with no partisan conduct mixed up in the work of the department at all I believe, so far as the hon. minister is concerned, that he is trying to conduct it on that principle. X am sorry that the Conciliation Act does not go further than it does. I am sorry that the department meets with a great many difficulties, but I hope in time that these difficulties will be overcome and, that, whatever differences we may have on either side of the House, all our differences will be outside of this question of labour, and that the question of labour shall be free from any such partisanship as has been connected with the name of Mr. 0i Donogliue to whose conduct I have referred. I nope that If any such partisanship is manifested by those employed in the department the deputy will call them down. If rumour speaks correctly, I rather think that Mr. Mr. INGRAM.
O'Donoghue does not entertain the highest regard for the Deputy Minister of labour.
I want to say again, in closing, that I regret very much that Mr. O'Donoghue was brought here for the purpose of taking part in the work of the Labour Bureau. The labouring men of Canada have no confidence in him. The out and out partisan element of the Liberal party may have some confidence in him, but, certainly, the Conservative workingmen of Canada have no confidence in him and they have had no confidence in him for years. There are labouring men in Ottawa in whom the workingmen of this country have confidence, workingmen -who are in favour of steering clear of party lines and doing their duty independent of either party. That is the class of men that the workingmen of Canada want and the only class of men that the workingmen of Canada would be satisfied with.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. acting minister if he could give us the circulation of the paper in the different provinces ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have not that information now, but I will be pleased to have a memo, prepared and bring it down. Do you mean of the paid circulation ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The circulation in the different provinces generally. What amount has been derived from circulation ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 
Mr MONK.: I would like to know who recommended the two correspondents in the city of Montreal ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am informed that they have been recommended by the labour organizations there and that the mayor (Mr. Prefontaine) wrote a letter in their favour.


Jabel Robinson: It has come out in the discussion that one of the immigration agents in Britain has used his influence by his language to keep tenant farmers from emigrating to this country. Why, that is a class of people above all others that we require in Canada. Next to agricultural labourers our farmers are the best immigrants. They bring to us capital, intelligence and experience. We should not keep any man in our employment in Britain who would not endeavour to encourage that class to come here, and he had better be instructed by the government to change his tactics or come home.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have looked through the correspondence from the city of Montreal, and I do not think that correspondence does great honour to such a large manufacturing centre. I would suggest to the minister that he had better pay larger salaries for

proper news or else find correspondents, as was suggested by my bon. friend (Mr. Robinson), who would be prepared to do the work for nothing. These correspondents are supposed to have earned half their pay by this time, and I do not think the correspondence they have sent would justify the payment even of that amount. There is another point. The town of Lachine and the town of C6te St. Paul are as large manufacturing centres as some places where correspondents have been named. If the labour organizations of each of these towns recommend a suitable correspondent will the minister appoint him ; or perhaps I could recommend one myself ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The policy adopted is to appoint correspondents in places of 10,000 population or over. Of course this is merely an experiment. Yet the remarks made by the hon. gentleman with regard to the correspondent will receive every consideration. These correspondents are asked to furnish a great many statistics in regard to rates of wages, prices of commodities and other matters affecting various trades and industries, and the collecting of these perhaps takes up more of their time than the mere writing of the news.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Three instances were named by the minister in which the department interfered to settle disputes. Can the minister state whether in these instances the labouring men were satisfied or not ? My information is that they were not satisfied.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I understand that action was taken in four instances, and that in each an agreement was signed by both parties to the dispute, signifying that they were satisfied. Of course, in a dispute which may be serious, it may be that some are not fully satisfied afterwards, but when an agreement is signed and executed, we have to assume that they were pretty well satisfied with the arrangement made.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would the minister lay on the Table of the House the arrangements to which he has just referred as being entered into by by the representatives of both sides to the dispute.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am informed that in some cases part of the agreement was that it was confidential and not for publication. I presume my hon. friend would not ask that such an agreement would be brought down.
Mi-. MONK. That alters the situation, but I would ask the minister to let us know whether the claims of the wage-earners were satisfied on these four occasions.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Certainly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like also to have the report of the investigations made by this 1214
department as to the manner in which government contracts were carried out.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I will be pleased to furnish the information that I have in my possession, with the exception that I have referred to.


Mr. BLAIN.: How many of these thirty-five correspondents are in the province of Ontario ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Eleven.


Richard Blain: How many of these eleven were appointed after having been approved of by the labour organizations in their districts ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I understand generally that in every case a resolution of endorsation was passed by the active labour organization of the place, but I have no definite information.


Richard Blain: In every case ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I understood so. In my opinion it would be unfortunate to have a correspondent who did not possess the confidence of at least a majority of the workingmen in his district. It would also be unfortunate if he were not a man fairly reliable as men go. Their instructions have been so definite and clear that it would be the duty of the department to make a change at any time it is thought they are not acting in accordance with instructions. I would ask hon. gentlemen to judge them by their correspondence alone.


Richard Blain: As there is considerable complaint from the members of the House


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I may say that Mr. O'Donoghue, the gentleman referred to to-night has no connection direct or indirect with the Labour Gazette.


Richard Blain: I suppose that in future correspondents will be appointed on the recommendations of the labour organizations in the towns or cities where the appointments are made ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would not like to answer that in the affirmative, for this reason, that the minister is responsible to parliament for the acts of the employees of that department; and while he will always be pleased to have the endorsement and recommendation of any properly constituted labour organization, yet, as the hon member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), who has been long connected with labour organizations, has told us, a good deal of wire pulling goes on in them, and it might be desirable to have recommendations as to character and ability from others outside of the organizations.


Andrew B. Ingram: I may say that in St. Thomas the labour organization recommended one man, and the candidate refused to recommend him. That was the case of Mr. Robinson.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was the nomination of Mr. Fitzpatrick as correspondent in Montreal recommended by the trades and labour organization ?
Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND I think so, but I am not sure. I will look into the matter, and let my hon. friend know. I understood that he was a prominent member.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was the appointment of Mr. Thompson, of Toronto, recommended by the labour organization ?
Hon. Mr. SUTHERLd ND. I am informed that his appointment Y as endorsed by the labour organization.
Customs, N.S., $118,470.	.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the reason for the Increases ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There are proposed increases at several of the ports In the province-Amherst, Arichat, Halifax, Lockeport, North Sydney, Pictou, Port Hawkesbury, Sydney Town, and Yarmouth. At one or two ports there will be decreases.
. Customs, Ontario, $322,925.


William Humphrey Bennett: Last fall, immediately prior to the elections, Midland was constituted a port of entry ; the fact will be in the recollection of the minister ; but so far there has been no person appointed at that port as an assistant to the collector. May I ask the minister if it is the intention to appoint an assistant ? I may call his attention to the fact that at Collingwood and at Orillia there is an assistant. The trade at Midland is considerable, by reason of the large ore and grain trade there.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman is right. We thought that Midland had assumed the importance, and was likely to assume greater importance, that warranted us in changing it from an out-port to a port of entry. This entails an extra expenditure of 8100 for contingencies. The officer receives the same salary as before. I think representations have been made for increased help ; and, though I do not promise it, I shall consider it, and it may be necessary to make provision for it. I think the collector is doing the work satisfactorily at present; but there is a possibility that the trade of the town may so increase that before the department can consult parliament again, we may have to grant some assistance out of the general vote for the province.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would call attention to the fact that a large quantity of grain passes through Midland in bond, and in pursuance of a rule of the department, I think it is necessary to have all the cars carrying that grain sealed. That work has to be supervised by the official there, and if he has to go to the dock to attend to it, his Mr. INGRAM.
office has tp be closed. While I do not expect that a political friend of my own will receive the appointment if it is made, still I take for granted that it will be made, from the fact that some sixty have beeu promised the position ; and the appointment should soon be made, or there will be great disappointment.
The MINIS'! citt OF CUSTOMS. If sixty have been promised, there will no doubt be some disappointment ; but the hon. gentleman will take my word when I say that I have not promised anybody. The amount of grain passing through Midland is an additional reason why what the hon. gentleman suggests may have to be conceded, although I have not taken a specific vote for that purpose. Part of the increased expenditure of the Customs Department is due to the transportation question. Where we have new railroads crossing the frontier, and an increased volume of grain passing through in bond, it requires the attention of the officers of the Customs Department, for which no credit appears by way of revenue.
Province of British Columbia-Customs, $100,190.


Edward Gawler Prior: What is the reason of the decrease in this case ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Some statistical officers were brought to Ottawa, and some increase should be necessary to other officers, but, on the whole, there is a saving. Parliament sanctioned last year the practice of having the statistics prepared here instead of at the different ports.
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and travelling expenses of other officers on inspection and preventive service.
Board of Customs-To meet expenditure in connection therewith, including $800 salary of Commissioner of Customs as chairman of the board, $116,500.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: This is a misuse of parliament and the government. Parliament ought to always insist on having the details of the expenditure. Instead of the wholesome provision that prevails in other departments, and has prevailed In this up to last year, the minister wants to combine all in a lump sum, so that he may devote the money to any purpose he may choose. If not used in one department of customs he may use it in another. That is wrong. Parliament votes money after careful estimates by the minister of what he requires for each branch. In this case he has not followed that practice. He is increasing the estimate by leaps and bounds. In the last four years, when the Conservatives were in power, the average expenses wTere about $909,000, and he is asking to-day $1,121,000, or about $220,000 more. He will tell us that the collection of money has been very much greater, but that does not involve any increased labour on the staff. If a ton of iron or an article of manufacture


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The criticism of the hon. gentleman with reference to this item is, first, as to an increase in amount due to the salaries of officers appointed to compile statistical returns of imports and exports. That will be between $40,000 and $45,000. In the second place the hon. gentleman criticises the vote because of the grouping of several items under this head. That has been the vote for years past. This one item is a new item.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: How many years past ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think ever since long before the hon. gentleman took over the department.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Not at all.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Perhaps, when the hon. gentleman was in office years ago the duties on sugar may have been abandoned for a time. But when there was a duty on sugar, before his time, I think he will find that that item was included with the other.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, the hon. minister last year or the year before, said it was much simpler and easier-and I think he called attention to it himself-that he proposed to group them together. Objection was made from this side of the House. And now we have the evil, as I believe it to be, increased by adding the statistical branch that has no connection with the other items.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: As to the statistical branch, we thought it better instead of making officers of that bi'anch members of the inside civil service, to be paid out of the inside civil service vote, to take a vote for them under the Board of Customs. If they came under the inside civil service vote, they would come in for yearly advances if it was deemed proper that they should have them. They would claim that under the law, as the hon. gentleman himself has insisted that it is, they should be paid this increase of $50 for every year. Of course, they are not under that rule, and it was thought that the statistical department pertains particularly to the outside work, and therefore it was fairly chargeable to, and could be paid perhaps to better advantage out of the Board of Customs. That is the only reason that the account has swollen.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Does the minister say that the other members of the inside service are entitled to that $50,000 ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I isaid the hon. gentleman claimed that they were entitled to it year by year.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: He is mistaken.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think the hon. gentleman, in unison with his friends opposite, took the ground that what they termed the statutory increases should be given to all the officers.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What does the minister himself say 1


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The minister himself says that he thinks the best way to defray the salary of the statistical branch is to pay them out of the Board of Customs vote, instead of making them members of the inside civil service. That is not to say that these officers shall never, if merit and services demand it, receive the increase, but they will not be in the same Mr. WALLACE.
category, and I think the hon. gentleman will see the wisdom of that. Though it has been running for some time, we have not yet ascertained the best we can do with that department. I am in hopes that we will be able still further to reduce the number of officers somewhat, but not many. I think we have nearly got down to the lowest number that we can do with. But, the hon. gentleman will understand that starting in an entirely new line of business, some of the men being new to their work, we had necessarily at first to take on some more officers than we required, and therefore we used some special officers that are paid out of this Board of Customs vote, without putting them permanently on our statistical branch. We used officers paid out of this vote that are engaged in special work, we used them for some weeks or isome months, and as they could be spared, as the staff of the department became more expert, we were able to allow these men to go back to their other duties, which, meanwhile, had been resting. The hon. gentleman will find that that vote was always so in the province of Ontario. What I asked was that I might get in full this vote for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia. But, the late Minister of Finance (Mr. Foster) objected to that, and wished that it be confined to provinces. I think for years the excise department got that vote without provinces at all. The reason is obvious. When that vote is for Ontario, you can only expend and pay your officers in Ontario, and making as close a calculation as you can In the Customs Department, contingencies arise in which, if you are confined to a particular port, you would not be able to carry on the business.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Would not the minister be acting fairer to the House to tell us that while the excise department got their money voted in a lump sum, it was because there were constant changes made, that the excise officers were being constantly removed from one place to another, and, therefore, the salary had to follow wherever the officer went ? The minister should have stated that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not know why. I have stated what is the fact now, and the reason is afforded by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) just now, who asked with reference to the port of Maitland, an Ontario port, whether I would not have to appoint another officer there. I said I had not taken provision for a special officer there, but I said, at the same time, that my own opinion is that probably before I can meet parliament again I may have to appoint another officer there. Then, if I have not taken provision for him I could not appoint him. If it was by
3853 APEIL 25, 1901 3851	
the port, I could not do that at all ; but, If I have a vote for the province of Ontario, I am able to make a saving at some of the other numerous ports throughout Ontario of enough out of the general vote to enable me to put on this special officer. That case occurs in a great many places. The hon. member for Simcoe has mentioned Midland, and if they go on increasing, there must be more. There is the Canada Atlantic bringing In grain at Depot Harbour. Well, that comes in a period between parliaments. Here were vast quantities of grain passing through from where there was no revenue to be derived, it would not show any receipts, and we had to send two officers there, because this grain was passing through in bond, it was a through transportation route, and so we had to send men there. They build an elevator at Coteau, there is no revenue from that, but, nevertheless, it is in the transportation interests, and 1 am bound to make an expenditure, even though my revenue does not show it. I have not taken a rote for that, but you cannot interfere with transportation interests, and so you have to send an official there. I give this as an illustration that it is impossible for a minister to figure down the expenditure of the customs, with hundreds of officers all over, some liable to sickness, deaths taking place, and changes of that kind. Now, we are confined to provinces, and if the provinces had been grouped together, as they were in the excise, it would have given me a little more latitude than X now have, confined to the provinces. But I have not asked for that, since objection was taken to it. With reference to the increasing expenditure, I think the hon. gentleman did well to call attention to the fact that the expenditure has increased, and if the criticism were not based upon what is not the fact, that we have increased the expenditure unduly, or out of proportion to the work done, or the receipts, then, I would feel the criticism as well deserved. The expenditure has increased during the past year, no doubt, but X will point out the causes of it, and when I have done so, the committee will agree that the increased expenditure in the Customs Department, instead of being a matter for regret, ought to be a matter for rejoicing on the part of the members of the committee as showing, in the clearest manner, the great development that has taken place in the trade and commerce of the Dominion. The department is to be judged, of course, as to whether, in the increased expenditure, there have been results which justify that expenditure ; and ' X think that the hon. gentleman-whom I recognize as able to criticise this subject intelligently, because he himself administered it for some years, when he was in possession of all his youthful vigour-will	say that if I can institute a fair comparison between the last years of his administration and the year 1899-1900, he will not object to the comparison. Therefore, I will tell the House what the comparison is as between 1894-95, the last full year under the hon. gentleman, and the last full year of expenditure under this government which was 1899-1900. The customs revenue in 1894-5 was $17,890,516.94, in 1899-1900 it was $28,889,110.13, or there has been an increase of revenue of $10,998,593.19, or 61-4 per cent an increase in the revenue as between the last full year of the hon. gentleman's administration and 18991900. Now, the expenditure in 1S94-5 was $917,632.39, in 1899-1900 it was $1,071,222.17, an increase of $153,589.78, or 16-7 per cent increase in the expenditure as against 61-4 per cent increase in the revenue. Sometimes percentages are not fair tests, but I think it will be admitted that this is a fair test which I have given. The percentage of the expense of collection of customs revenue in 1894-5 was 5T3 per cent, and in 1899-1900 it was 3-71 per cent. Then, taking the percentage cost of the whole cost of the collection of the revenue, I will ask the attention to this of my hon. friend opposite. The percentage expense of collection of customs revenue for the whole Dominion in 1894-5 was 5T3 per cent. That is it cost a little over 5 cents on every dollar to collect the revenue, while in 1899-1900 it was only 3-71 per cent. If you apply the percentage cost of the collection of revenue in 1894-5 to the revenue for 1899-1900 it would mean an expenditure of $1,482,011.34, or an increase over the actual expenditure of $410,789.17. In other words, if the percentage cost of the collection of the customs revenue of this country last year had been at the same rate of percentage that it was in the last year of my hon. friend's administration we would have expended $410,789.17 more than we actually did spend. Mr. CLANCY. Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that that is a fair comparison ? The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS. I think it is a very excellent comparison. Mr. BENNETT. What is the comparison as to the values of the imports ? The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS. The values of the imports were very large. Mr. BENNETT. The point I was making was that the enhanced value of the imports, would, of course, increase the amount of the customs revenue. The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS. Oh, certainly, there must be an enhanced amount of imports or I could not have an enhanced revenue at reduced rates of taxation. Mr. BENNETT. The hon. minister does not understand me. Assuming that an article entered four years ago was of a value

of $50, the customs duties being exactly the same, and that same article was increased to a value of $75 would there not be the same labour entailed by the customs officer ? Is that not fair ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is fair, but of course you cannot give a definite answer to that. Prices vary, but there is this test and I invite the committee to a consideration of the case mentioned bv the hon. member from West York (Mr. Wallace) who took the point that in taking an entry by the customs officer a customs officer could take an entry of $500 in the same length of time that he could take an entry of $100. There is force in that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That seems to be correct. I do not see why it would cost any more to collect $20,000,000 than to collect $28,000,000. Why should it cost more ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Because there is more work.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There are not more clerks in the bank of Montreal than there are in some of the smallar banks, the city and district savings bank, although in the Bank of Montreal they handle a great deal more money.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The argument of the hon. gentleman is that you may have an increased revenue but that you would have an enhanced value of the goods coming in which would give you a larger revenue on the same volume of goods. That may be and it may be otherwise, because, while some goods have advanced in value others may have gone down. While we are talking of the expenditure we should take into consideration the services that are rendered by the officers of this government.
I am told that the increase in the expenditure is not justified. There are good reasons for saying that I think it is. Let us see what the work is that these officers have done. Our hon. friends opposite take exception to this vote, but, when I give the committee a comparative statement of the work done in the offices, when I give the number of entries passed through the customs-house, great and small, I assume the test will be an absolute one in reference to the work that is done, because it takes as long to make an entry for $10 as it does to make an entry for $500. If you have a large percentage of increase in the entries that are made, then you have an absolute test.
Mr. CLANCY'. That would be so if the officers had been working up to their full capacity, if the whole force had been engaged in making entries.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That would be to suggest that under the management of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) he had drones in the department. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) surely will not insinuate that. In 1804-5 the number of cus-


William Humphrey Bennett: toms entries inwards in Ontario was 205,603, in 1899-1900 there were 270,517, or an increase of 64,914, or over 31 per cent of an increase in the entries that these officers had to make. Then, let us take the customs entries outward. In 1894-5 the number of outward entries was 42,004, in 1899-1900 it was 82,100, an increase of 40,090 or over 95 per cent. That is work that has to be done by the officers and you can leave aside the question of revenue altogether because this deals right with the point on which the vote is asked. The number of railway reports in Ontario inwards in 1894-5 was 240,487 and in 1S99-1900 it was 300,300, an increase of 69,819 or over 29 per cent. Then the number of railway reports outward in 1894-5 was 29,392, and in 1899-1900 it was 78,620, an increase of 49,228 or over 167 per cent increase. Now, there Is your increase in your reports inwards, your reports outwards, your entries inwards and outwards, and against all that your increase in the expenditure in the province of Ontario represents only an advance of 6\03 per cent, while you have had in your entries inwards, an increase of 31 per cent; in your entries outwards an increase of 95 per cent; in your railway reports inwards an increase of 29 per cent and in your railway reports outwards an increase of 167 per cent. That is a better test than your revenue as to the work done. When you see such an increased amount of work done by your clerks with such a very slight increase in the staff, you can see easily where the saving has been effected. If to last year's revenue were applied the same percentage of cost of collection as in 1894-5, we would have expended $410,000 more than we actually did expend. It means not only that your clerks taking your entries have had to do more, but it means that many more imports came into the country, that an increased number of packages had to go to the examining warehouses for your appraisers to open and examine, that all the officers connected with your customs had to do more, that your contingent expenses for cartage increased, and that every branch of your service is taxed to cope with the increased volume of work, I am rather thankful to my hon. friend for having given me the opportunity to institute this comparison. But there is more than that. In that increase of expenditure of $153,000 since 1894-5. there is included $30,501 for the l'ukon ; $7,746 for the preventive service; $3,598 for the secret service, and these are expenditures which had not to be incurred in 1894-5 at all. For the prevention of smuggling by revenue cruisers there is an increase of $11,000. I believe that has added wonderfully to the revenue of this country, but the credit goes to the Department of Inland Revenue, because as we have stopped the illicit introduction of spirits the increased revenue goes to the Inland Revenue on more Cana-

dian manufactured spirits sold. If you take these extra services out of the increased expenditures the House will be struck with the marvellous amount of work done by our officers. I say marvellous, because I think our officers are deserving of very great credit for the way they have carried on the work with such little additional help considering the enormous volume of the increase. As to the preventive service, when I took charge of the department I had letters begging me that more rigorous steps should be taken against the illicit introduction of liquor. Prom all parts of the Lower St. Lawrence complaints came that the people were being demoralized by this illicit traffic. I found one steamer, the Constance, and it was impossible for her to patrol the Baie de Chaleur coast, the Cape Breton coast, and the gulf, and I had to get another vessel. I engaged a gentleman who I thought was capable for that position, to organize the preventive service, and I am bound to say he is a most efficient officer. I suppose we can never entirely stop this traffic, but I think I can claim that we have almost entirely suppressed it on the St. Lawrence and Cape Breton coasts where it had assumed such disastrous dimensions that I had letters and letters from clergymen and others asking me to take action. I have the testimony of those who know that a very great deal of good has been accomplished. That, of course, is an expenditure from which I can show no revenue. Then as regards the railway reports, in and out, I can show no revenue either, because, as in the case of Depot Harbour, men have to be placed to attend to the transhipping of grain passing in bond from which we derive no revenue, but we have to pay these officers their salaries. New railways are coming across the border and continually demands are being made upon me to give facilities to the transportation service, from which we derive no direct benefit at all. I have ventured to make this statement because when gentlemen opposite simply put their fingers on the increased expenditure without considering it in the light of the increased business done, they might perhaps think that as great prudence as should be exercised had not been exercised in the department. I put it to any fair-minded man in the House, in view of the enormously increased business and the comparatively small increase of expenditure: I put it to him if he does not believe that there has been an efficient and economic working of the department on the part of the different officers who are concerned.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How is that $44,000 increase divided up ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is almost wholly in connection with the statistical branch. When we organized the
statistical branch we had to work under a disadvantage. Last year we had to get out the usual trade and navigation returns under which our usual staff that compiled these returns had to continue that work at the various ports. They had to compile under the old system the last quarter's work at the various ports, before they could come to Ottawa to engage in the work here. Last year I got a special vote of $15,000 to pay some extra men to do the work of opening the books here, preparatory to the men finishing their last year's work at their ports, which required two or three weeks. I do not ask the $15,000 this year because it is included in the $44,000, but the statistical branch will cost in the neighbourhood of $44,000. As I have said, I am asking the House to trust me with a little latitude in that respect, because when the officers become thoroughly efficient I may perhaps be able to get along with fewer hands, though I have not much hope in that respect.
I could give the names of the officers to the hon. gentleman, for I .recognize that the committee has a perfect right to have the details. We have in that statistical dedepartment altogether between sixty and sixty-five officers, including the ten or eleven whom we had before in the inside service, who got out those statistical returns. I am glad to say that my predecessor, who is taking the part of a friendly critic tonight, approves of the bringing of this statistical work to Ottawa. I find that it was talked of before I took office, but my predecessors seemed to be afraid to ask parliament for the amount it would involve, and they never carried it out. But it seemed to me to be of such importance that I thought I could safely ask parliament to grant $40,000 or $50,000 more to attain that object. Hon. gentlemen know the position in which the trade and navigation returns have been for years. My hon. friend found fault because I had not got the returns down 'this year earlier than I did. We were working under the disadvantage of inaugurating a new system, yet I find, on comparison, that the returns were on the Table this year as early or earlier than in previous years. We know how formerly the returns which were brought down to the end of June of a certain year were not laid on the Table by myself or by my predecessors until January or February of the following year, so that they were stale and unprofitable for the business community or anybody else. The result was that if I was asked in this House for a return up to a certain date, I would have to ask for time to write to the different ports to get the information. What we are working for now is that at the end of the second month there shall be a | ful report of the previous month's trade ' and commerce of the whole Dominion, in as full detail as is found in the trade and navigation return. The business men of

this country value it, the members of this House value it, and I am sure there will be no difficulty in the House granting me this vote for that purpose. If I could serve any good purpose, I could give the names of the officers and their salaries, and I will give them cheerfully if the hon. gentleman desires them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not require the names. The hon. minister has taken up a very long time in establishing a comparison between what occurred in 1894-5 and the state of the department to-day. I was curious to find out exactly and with some detail how the item of $44,000 was divided up. But I will take the hon. gentleman's word for it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I do not think we have ever listened to a more unfair or dishonest statement than the minister has made to the House to-night.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is parliamentary, and it is true.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I understood the hon. gentleman to say dishonest. That is not parliamentary.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Quite parliamentary, and I will endeavour to prove it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Use a kinder word.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I will make it kinder ; I do not wish to say anything harsh. We asked for information about the expenditure of $44,000 additional for this special service, and the minister gets up and beclouds all his statements, and gives not a particle of information as to why he should have spent the additional thousands he spent last year, and why he should spend the additional thousands he proposes to spend during the coming year. The same work is to be done. He has transferred his staff to Ottawa to do it here ; but he has not increased their salaries. On the contrary, he has told us that he has put them outside the pale of the inside service, because they might demand the $50 statutory increase which we on this side of the House say should be given, but he says should not be given except in some special cases. The work is the same as before, and yet he is taking $44,000 more to do it. He says that we on this side of the House were in favour of it, that we were proposing to do it, but that we were afraid to ask parliament for the increased expenditure necessary. It never came up as a very important matter for consideration ; but I do not see why there should be any increase, seeing that the officers do not receive any more pay. He tells us that he wants the money voted in a lump sum, because he may want to appoint an assistant at Midland, and he wants to have sufficient funds


Mr. PATERSON.: so that he can take that out of the appropriation for the province on Ontario. The Minister of Customs should have some knowledge of his department. He claims that he is the only one, apparently, who has any knowledge of it; but he has to go to the hon. member for East Simcoe to get the information that an additional man to perform the work of bonding is required at the port of Midland. Did he not know that himself ? Were not his inspectors, increased as they are now, able to report as to the needs of the different ports of the Dominion ? He seems to lament that he is the only one who has ever understood the work of the Customs Department. We all know that a large portion of the customs service consists in the appointment of preventive officers, that another large portion is the appointing of officers to perform such duties as the bonding of goods through the country, which are not productive of revenue ; and then he tells a harrowing tale about the smuggling down on the lower St. Lawrence, and how he stopped it. It was all stopped before he was in the department.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, no.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes. We had an effective service. We engaged Captain May with his steamer, and I received the thanks of many of the priests, who were most ardent helpers of the Customs Department, for having stamped out the smuggling that was going on and the ruining of their parishoners. So that the minister, when he gets up and says that he has been doing all these things, implying that nothing was done before he came in, is making misleading statements and statements which are not accurate, to use a mild term. He says we have increased expenditure, but look at the increase in business. In 1895 there were $17,000,000 collected, and in 1897 $28,000,000. an increase of 01 per cent in the collections and only 10 per cent in the expenses. But why did he not quote the figures he is asking us to vote to-night and say there was $212,000 increase between those two years instead of $157,000. And the year of all years which he chose to make a comparison with is one in which there was the greatest depression. But the staff was there, and we could not dismiss any of the permanent staff, because while there was a great depression, and while we were reducing the expenditure year by year, the fact that the depression would be only temporary, and when there would be an increase in business the staff would be more fully employed. In times of depression the staff are not worked to their full capacity, but that is no reason for making reductions in the staff. Since these gentlemen have come in they are expending $220,000 more than we did. Take the statistical branch, they are only furnishing us with the same information with which we have been furnished all along, and yet the

business is not as promptly done, because we were weeks in parliament before we could get the Trade and Navigation Returns, which should have been in our hands before parliament met at all. The trade returns are made up to the 1st July, 1900, and we only got the report eight months after that date.


Hon. Mr. ROSS.: The increase in the collection of revenue must be always followed by an increase of labour. If you have 20.000 to 30,000 entries more, look at the calculations that have to be made. There is no item in those entries but has to be carefully gone over before it can be entered in the statistics. If there is an increase in the importations, a larger quantity of goods must go to the appraisers' department to be examined. There must be men to watch the im-. ports landed, and while the St. Lawrence may be protected to some extent, that only turns the attention of smugglers to the coast of Cape Breton. And the liquor that used to be smuggled up the St. Lawrence they succeeded, in some instances, in landing in Cape Breton. So that that work has been prevented by the steamer that has been engaged in that service out of the port of Sydney. I am sure that the hon. gentleman must know that the increase of revenue must mean an increase in labour, and that the statistical branch must increase in proportion to the others. My complaint with regard to the Minister of Customs is that he does not apply for sufficient money for the services of his department. I wanted, in one or two instances, to have ports of entry opened in my own constituency, and the reply that I got was that the minister had no money. That is a very convenient reply, but I do not see the reason why he should not have money when this government and this House is willing to give him the amount necessary for the service. There is such a thing as being too economical. The great question is to have the service as efficient as possible. From my own experience in the customs, while serving under the late government, I am led to believe that there are no drones in that service, that the men are all busy and that sometimes the importers have to wait an undue length of time before they can get their entries passed, because the staff is not sufficiently large to do the work within a reasonable time.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is a good answer to the hon. minister.
Customs-Amounts to be paid to Department of Justice to_ be disbursed by it and accounted for to it for secret preventive service, $5,000.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Will the hon. minister give us some explanation about that secret service money ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, I am not able. This sum, as the hon. gentleman knows


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I know all about it.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS-is voted and paid to the Department of Justice. If the hon. gentleman knows all about it he knows that information was not to be given to parliament but by a secret audit, as was arranged and understood.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I know the conditions under which parliament voted it-we do not need to be informed of that. But I wish to know something further, and it is no use for the minister to tell us that he will not give us the information-he must giv e us the information. In the first place, has the money been expended this year and last year ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am told by the accountant that the amount expended is $3,598.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is that for the present fiscal year or for the last ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS, For the last fiscal year ; we have not got this year completed.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: How much was expended this year ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is expended under the Department of Justice, and we cannot tell.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I merely ask if he can tell what has been expended this year ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Well, that is sufficient, without being offensive about it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I misunderstood the hon. gentleman.
Services in the Yukon Territory-Customs- To meet expenditure, $31,000.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This is the same amount as last year.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is that to be added to the $1,121,000 ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes. Just the same as last year.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Why not put the expenditure together and have it properly done ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It does appear all together in the expenditure. This is included in the figures I gave for 1900. But, the Yukon items are voted separately.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why is not this voted under the ordinary head of customs ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It has been thought convenient, as the Yukon services attracted a good deal of attention in the House, that we should group them together, so that the House might understand What the expense of the Yukon was. But, it was provided in each case that the
38C3


James Clancy: It was not dealt with quite in that way in regard to the post office.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, except for one year.
Excise, $48^,599.37.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I really think we ought not to go into this to-night. We were supposed to adjourn at midnight.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).: There are only a few increases, which I will explain in a moment.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But, we do not intend to sit up the rest of the night.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is an increase of over $0,000 in the first item under this head.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I will explain that in a moment.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We will not keep you to-morrow.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will not be convenient for the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue to be here to-morrow. Unless there are some items which hon. gentlemen wish to have kept over, we might go through with these Items.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the minister wants to go away, it is a great pity, at such a late hour, to take up such an important vote. Perhaps we could pass the items in which there is no increase and reserve one. Perhaps my hon. friend would not object to leaving the first item ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: My explanation of it will be very short.
Excise-Salaries of officers and inspectors of excise, and to provide for increases depending upon the result of excise examination, $321,899.37.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: My explanation will be very short. This is an increase of salaries on account of new appointments and increases due to promotions and examinations.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Shall we close this chapter of excise ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I have only culling of timber, in which there is no change.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Let us take the item under excise in which the minister says there is a short explanation.


Mr. FIELDING.: 


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The increase on this vote amounts to $9,850.87. The item includes regular increases, $3,898.12 ; increases not provided for in 1900-1901, $800 ; increases due to changes in classification of divisions, $795 ; increases due to promotion examinations, $1,313.75 ; to provide for new appointments to replace officers superannuated or who have died, $8,400 ; increases due to promotion, $570 ; new appointments, $6,850.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would the minister explain this item of $6,850 for new appointments ?
The MINISTER OF INLAND RE >
v,XUE. I will read the list :
W. Rudkins, Class A, Peterborough	 $ 800
W. Sloan, Class, A, Brantford	 1,100
H. T. Noonan, Perth	 600
Jas. Bennett, Class B, Ottawa	 900
L. T. Waddingham, Class B, Port	Arthur..	50
J. B. White, Class B, Prescott	 500
D. J. Kearney, Class 3, Montreal	 600
A. L. Graham, Class 3, Toronto	 600
R. H. Falconer, Class 3, Toronto	 600
J. 0. Bousquet, Class 3, Victoriaville..	600
A. Lambert, probationary class, Montreal. 500


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are these increases in the ordinary service ? I understood they were necessitated by a new provision of the law.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: They are new appointments to replace men who have been superannuated or who have died.


James Clancy: Where is Mr. Noonan appointed for ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Perth. He is appointed to fill a vacancy.


James Clancy: How did that vacancy occur ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Mr. Earle was superannuated.


James Clancy: How old was the officer who was superannuated at Perth '!


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: He was about 50 years of age, and became insane. Mr. Waddingham was appointed for Port Arthur and Mr. White for Prescott.


James Clancy: Why were these appointments made ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Mr. Waddingham has a nominal salary of $50, and is appointed to help trade at that place. On account of increased work at Prescott the officer gets $500. That is a new appointment.
Salaries of officers, inspectors and assistant inspectors of weights and measures, $50,150,


James Clancy: What steps has the minister taken with regard to enforcing an Act which was passed some three years ago relative to what is known as grain tester ?
3S65

It was increased in size from one-sixteenth of a bushel to a bushel. It is a matter, 1 was going to say, of almost scandalous notoriety that not a single one of his officers has enforced that law in the province of Ontario so far as I know. The hon. gentleman must give the committee some pledge in regard to that before he can expect this item to go through. This law has been on the statute-book for three years and it has not become the law of the land.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I understand that the law is still as it was. making a bushel the lowest measure for determining weight. There has been no change in it for two years, and I think no action has been taken. The grain tester is illegal and is not used in trade.


James Clancy: I can tell the hon. gentleman that it is used. I did not ask whether it was still the law or whether any change had been made. I asked the hon. gentleman whether he would have it enforced. The hon. gentleman is now asking for money to pay the officers whose duty it is to enforce that Act. il would like to ask the hon. gentleman to state whether he proposes to enforce that Act, or whether it is to remain a dead letter as it has in the past.
Act. It is hoped that the fees for inspection will make good the deficiency. The expenditure last year was $7,168.93. We may perhaps be recouped the whole of this amount.


James Clancy: I understand that these officers were paid by fees, but that by reason of the crop being short as much was not collected in fees last year as in former years.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We have to make up the difference.


James Clancy: The point I am endeavouring to get at is this : It has been thought better, I believe, in the past, to have these officers receive fees rather than salaries. The hon. gentleman projioses to pay by way of fees and make up the loss so that it practically makes it a salary. In other words, when there is a short crop do these persons get as much money as when there is an average large crop ? This is a departure from what was the undertaking when these officers were appointed, because, they are paid by fees rather than by salaries and when the fees have gone down it is proposed to bring them up to the standard of the former year. Is that what the hon. gentleman proposes ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REBENUE.: I understand that the only way open for ks is to punish those who' may use these testers illegally.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: All these inspectors and other officers in Manitoba and the North-west Territories are paid by salaries.


James Clancy: Quite so.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: They are used to determine the weight but they are not used for purposes of sale.


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman prepared to say that he will give instructions to his officers to strictly enforce that Act ?


James Clancy: How much did they get formerly ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The chief inspector, Mr. Horn, receives $4,000 a year and the other inspector, Mr. Gibbs about $3,000, and deputy inspectors, whose salaries range from $1,200 to $1,500.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


James Clancy: That is in fees ? The others were receiving fees ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman will undertake that ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.
Inspection of Staples-Purchase and distribution of standards of grains, flour, and other expenditure under the Act, including salary of raw hide inspector, $15,000.	*


James Clancy: There is a big increase in this item.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The committee will remember that at the last session of parliament an Act was passed by which inspectors were appointed in Manitoba, but on account of the short crop the fees which these gentlemen will collect from that inspection is not expected to be sufficient to pay the expenses. This $15,000 is to meet the expenditure under the


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Fees are collected but the amount may be insufficient to pay the expenses.


James Clancy: But, they were not all receiving salaries. I do not understand that the officers, other than the chief inspector, were on salary. Now, it is proposed, because there was a shrinkage in the collection of the ordinary fees, to vote a sum sufficient to make up that loss, in other words, to place them on the footing of receiving salaries while that is not the intention of the law at all.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I understand that up to the 1st of September, a year ago, the chief officers were paid by fees which they collected and kept for themselves. The department pays the expenses in connection with the boards of examiners and survey boards, but, since the

1st of September, 1809, tliis has been changed to the extent that these officers are paid by fixed salaries, the fees collected being paid into *what is called the Grain Inspection Fund. This was changed a year ago, and it is on account of the short crop that we are now asking a sum of money to pay these salaries and expenses.


James Clancy: Do I understand that in 1899 they ceased to receive fees, that the fees were put in a fund which was applied to their salaries and expenses and that by reason of the falling oil in fees we have to pass this vote to make it up.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: We anticipate a loss for next year, but we do not know exactly what it is.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think we will take supply; the hon. Minister of Agriculture first and probably the Railway and Public Works estimates will follow.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It would facilitate matters a great deal if we knew precisely. Some members are more familiar with certain matters than are others, and when we come here prepared to take up estimates that are not gone on with, it leads to confusion and loss of time.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I agree in that. The intention is that the Minister of Railways will have priority following the Minister of Agriculture, but the Minister of Railways has not been very well of late, and that is the reason I put in the qualification.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.05 a.m. Friday.

[Stage Direction]
Fbiday, April 26, 1901.