Mr. JAMES KENDRY (West Peterborough).

Mr. Speaker, before we go into supply, I wish to refer to a matter which reflects on my veracity as a member of this House. I find published in the Daily Evening Review of Peterborough, a telegram from one McGregor, of the town of Peterborough, which I would ask permission to read to the House :

Auburn woollen mills have been continually running night and day during these last four years; they have employed twice as many hands and have twice as much goods of ever so much better quality than they did before. They have improved their machinery out of their earnings at least $50,000. They have been for three years too busy to close down for the taking of stock, and this is the particular period when they change from summer to winter goods, as they have to take their stock and are extensively repairing their machinery, they have laid off a few hands temporarily for that period, as stock cannot be taken and machinery repaired Whilst the mill is running at its full capacity. They are regularly paying dividends.

This telegram is supposed to have been sent by a gentleman prominently connected with the labour organization of Peterborough. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have received the following communication from Mr. J. E. Hag-gart, secretary of Union No. 672 :

The carpenters' union, No. 672, at its first regular meeting since this occurrence, desires to place the following facts on record, making clear its position in regard to this matter.

That Mr. McGregor had no authority to speak for this union.

That there is no such organization in Peter-boro' as the ' associated union ' or ' associated labourmen.'

That we fail to see in what way the cause or interests of labour were to be advanced by the statement made in the telegram, or the use that was made of it, and we, therefore, regret that the name of Peterboro's * labour union ' should have been made use of without authority, and in a connection that is more liable to cause friction and dissension among the unions and their members, and place them in a false position before the citizens of the town as regards our industrial interests.

And in doing this, the union take the occasion to express its endorsation of all reasonable efforts that have been made and are being put forth to develop Peterboro' as an industrial centre.

And hopes and trusts that all the factories we now have and which may come here in the future will enjoy prosperity and be allowed to remain under conditions that will ensure profitable operation for the capital invested and fair wages for all employed therein.

And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the local member at Ottawa, and be read in the House of Commons.

And also sent to the local press, so as to place this union's position and the facts before the parliament of Canada and the Peterboro' public.

J. E. HAGGART, Secretary of Union No. 672.

I may say that this is a personal matter, In reference to which I made certain statements in this House. A telegram was supposed to have been sent by a gentleman who had no authority to send it; and, as it reflects on my honour as a member of the House, I wish to put myself straight with regard to the matter. The gentleman who sent the telegram had no authority to do so -if any telegram was sent. Of course, it is a question whether any such telegram was 'sent or not. But, I wish to make reference to the matter as a personal matter to myself, and I hope this will be understood.

Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver).

I suppose I am entitled to say a word on this matter

Mr. KENDRY.

No.

Certainly.

Mr. James Kendry, M.P.

Sir,

At the last regular meeting of Union 67 the following resolution was adopted :-

Whereas, a telegram was read by Mr. Ralp' Smith, M.P., in the House of Commons at Ot tawa, making reference to and purporting t give information in regard to one of Peterboro' industries, namely, the Auburn woollen mills, i: the name of the labour unions of the town, bein' signed by R. P. McGregor, chairman of the asso ciated unions of labourmen of Peterboro'

Mr. KENDRY.

I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the matter in the telegram is not true. I have denied it in the House before, and I deny it now. I say emphatically that that statement is not true.

Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).

Mr. Speaker I am very glad that the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Kendry) has brought this matter up. But. I desire to sav that the information that he has conveyed

to the House has nothing at all to do with the subject under discussion, and it certainly does not convey any information with regard to that subject. Now, Mr. McGregor, the gentleman who gave me the information that I gave to this House, was the president of the associated labour meeting that was held at Peterborough, and I was there to address the labour men.

Mr. KENDRY.

Chairman of the meeting.

Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).

Yes. I sent to him asking for this information ; he sent me the information, and I read that information to the House from the openfaced telegram which came from Mr. McGregor, as chairman of the labour meeting at Peterborough. Now, the hon. member for West Peterborough reads a resolution which has been passed by a local union in Peterborough. But, does he confute a single word in the telegram ? Not a single word. This union, which, owing to certain influences, were anxious to come to the rescue of the hon. member, does not contradict a single word of the telegram read in this House. The House does not need any information as to what position Mr. McGregor holds in the labour unions of Peterborough. What hon. members want to know is, whether the information contained in the telegram which was read on the floor of this House is true or false. If it is false, why does not the labour union of Peterborough contradict the telegram ? I have a copy of the Peterborough papers here. I have been waiting for three or four days for the hon. gentleman to do what he has done, for I have seen across the floor that he was preparing for this. Now. until he can produce facts, through the influence of this labour union, to contradict the facts in the telegam, he conveys no information to the House.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).

I rise to a point of order. Does not the rule oblige the hon. member (Mr. Smith, Vancouver) to accept the statement of the hon. member for West Peterborough, that the information which was conveyed in the telegram read in this House was false V The hon. gentleman has made that statement emphatically. Is not the hon. gentleman from Vancouver bound to accept it 7

Mr. SPEAKER.

I was not here when the discussion referred to took place, and I do not know whether the telegram relates to a matter personal to the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Kendry) or not.

Mr. SPROULE.

It does.

Mr. SPEAKER.

The rule is. that when a statement is made by an hon. member of this House relating to a matter which has occurred to himself, all the members of the House must accept his statement. I am

Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).

not familiar enough with the facts to know whether the telegram in question relates to a matter personal to the hon. member for Peterborough or not.

Mr. SPROULE.

It does, because the hon. member (Mr. Kendry) is manager of the concern.

Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).

I am not discussing the point of the truthfulness of the hon. gentleman's statement in contradistinction to the statement conveyed in the telegram. I am discussing the point that the hon. gentleman has risen on to a question of privilege to discuss, a matter that does not concern this House-the position that Mr. McGregor holds with regard to the labour unions of Peterborough. If the resolution the hon. gentleman has read contradicted the statement in the telegram, I would be willing to accept the statement of the resolution. But, there is not a word to show untruthfulness in the telegram to be found in the resolution that the hon. gentleman has read. As I have said, a certain local union has attempted to come to his rescue, but they have not saved him, because they have not contradicted the statement in the telegram which I read in the House. I do not dispute the hon. gentleman's word as a member of this House ; but, when he renews a discussion on the question of the truthfulness of a statement made, the evidence he produces ought to be enough to convince hon. members that the statement is incorrect. And, if he does not do that, I do not see what his address has to do with the subject under discussion. Now, Mr. McGregor has discussed this matter in the public press of Peterborough. I have had the papers here for some days, waiting for this matter to be brought up. In these papers Mr. McGregor, over his own signature, reproduces and takes the full responsibility for this telegram, and for having sent it, and certifies to the country that the statements he made in the telegram are absolutely correct. Yet, the hon. member for West Peterborough questions the reality of the telegram. If he says frankly and openly on the floor of this House that what was stated in the telegram was not a fact, I am obliged, under the rules, to accept the statement, and will do it with good grace. But, when he brings up the question of the position that my informant hold's in relation to the labour unions of Peterborough, I have a right to complain that he has done that, and has not contradicted the facts of the telegram.

Mr. SPROULE.

I understand that there are two features in this matter. The first is a statement of facts as contained in a telegram, which had reference to a subject with which the hon. member for West Peterborough was familiar, because it is the shutting down of the Auburn mills, of

which he is the manager. He denied the correctness of the statement in that telegram, and the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) ought to have accepted that denial. The next feature is, whether Mr. McGregor was speaking as the representative of the associated labour unions of Peterborough. It now appears that there is no associated labour union in Peterborough ; therefore, Mr. McGregor could not speak a's the chairman or president or secretary of the associated labour union. The hon. member for Peterborough has shown that as well. Now, I have here the telegram that was read.

Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).

I think the demand made by the hon. member (Mr. Kendry) is fair, and I will read it again.

This was the telegram sent by Mr. McGregor :

The Auburn woollen mills have been continually running night and day during the last four years.

The hon. member for Peterborough had said that they were shut down for a long time, but in flat contradiction of his statement-

Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).

Will the hon. gentleman permit me ? I did not understand that the hon. member for Peterborough made any such denial.