Mr. FLINT.

I would suggest that the amendment should include employees on all the public works of Canada, in that shape I would vote for it.

Mr. MONK.

I did not think that was necessary, because I had confidence that the Minister of Public Works would do justice to his own employees.

Mr. J. B. MORIN (Dorchester).

/ I wish to say a word in regard to the salary of the public employees. I have read the list of the employees of the government and have noticed the salaries they are getting, and I do not know whether I am mistaken or whether they are mistaken themselves, but I have failed to hear of any case where they found fault for receiving too much. At the same time I have heard a great many complain that they were not receiving enough. This much I do know, that the salaries of public employees are not equitably divided. I know men who are working in the city of Ottawa here for $1.50 or $1.60 a day, strong, able and healthy men. I know other men who are getting $1,800 a year, $2,000, $2,600 and $2,800. I have felt disposed to ask some of those men whether, if they were dismissed from the public service, they would be- compelled to beg their living, because some of them are hardly able to walk. If you look up their ages in the Civil Service List you will find that some of them are 73 years old. Some of these men get $2,800 a year for working four or five hours a day. That I know to be a fact. I quite agree with what has been said with respect to the wages of men employed on the government railways. A man working on the railway does the hardest kind of work ; he is exposed to heat and cold, to snow and rain. And yet these men are only paid $1.15, $1.20 or $1.25 a day. In many cases they have to beg their way into the service on the railway, and unless they have friends of influence they cannot even get appointed. Now, why should some men work ten and twelve hours a day for $1.15 or $1.25, while other men who can hardly walk get $2,800 a year ? But feeble as they are, they manage to get to their offices, because they have been coming for the last forty years. For my part I desire to see employees of the government treated more equally.

Mr. GALLERY.

I have been informed that in some departments there are ladies employed getting $1,500 and $2,000 a year. It seems to me very strange that they should be getting such high salaries, when poor labouring men are only getting from one dollar to one dollar and twenty-five cents a day. In the city of Montreal, for instance men employed in scraping the streets get $1.50 a daji. Men who are employed on the canals in all sorts of weather, rain or shine, are deserving at least of $1.50 a day; if not they should not be there at all. I would

remind the House that these men who work in the eanals are only employed seven months in the year, so that hon. gentlemen 'will see that the wages on which they have to support their families for the whole year is very small indeed. I hope the minister will increase the wages of the canal employees at once.

FARQUHARSON (West Queen's, P.E.I.) This is a question in which I take a good deal of interest. A good many men employed on the government railway in Prince Edward Island are not, in my opinion, sufficiently paid. It is a big question, however. The civil service list is au immense list to rearrange and readjust as it should be, and in my opinion it would be a big contract to undertake. The hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat and the previous speaker as well, in my opinion, touched a chord with which I sympathise deeply and that is that while some are getting too much others are getting too little. The remedy is x>erhaps far to seek. From what I have observed since I came to Ottawa and from what I had previously known, I would have thought that there would be many offices where there were too many men employed. I am satisfied that as a rule a great many men are receiving high salaries who do not do very much for them. But we must not complain too much. We find the world over that the men who work the least are paid the most. While that is the rule, I think the discrepancy is too great in this country as it is in any other country. Why should one man sit behind a counter in an office and get $2,000 or $3,000 a year while another man gets $300 or $400 a year under almost similar conditions ? I do not think that is right. I am perhaps too democratic in this respect, but my sympathies run in that direction. Let there be a commission appointed to investigate and make such a rearrangement as will give every man what he deserves, I sympathise with the poor man. He gets too little return for his labour. He has to pay out all he earns to support his family, with nothing for the future, and this is the man whose family is often large. I think we should look into this question, and endeavour to do what is fair to the men employed in this government.

I have been very nearly six years in the Department of Public Works, I am paying salaries that seem to be high, and I am paying salaries that are not always high. Now, I am free to say that perhaps we do not pay enough to our employees. It is a peculiar statement, but any business man who handles large business will agree with me that you cannot pay too much to a good employee. If you give $2,000 or $3,000 to a man who has only moderate ability and give $10,000. or $15,000 to a man who has superior ability, the 117

man whom you pay $10,000, or $15,000 will be cheaper than the man to whom you pay $2,000 or $3,000. Look at the large corporations, look at the great railway corporations; I venture to say that in the Canadian Pacific Railway offices in Montreal there are about ten employees who get over $20,000 a year each. These are very large salaries; still, the men who are at the head of the Canadian Pacific Railway and at the head of the Grand Trunk Railway are meu who earn them. They would not pay these high salaries unless they were earned. I believe it would pay this country better if we would make up our minds to get the best possible labour that money can secure. I do not hesitate to say that here. I have increased the salaries in my department. I feel that I am employing a number of men, who, if they were outside of the Public Works, if they had not started life in the public service, would ibe able to earn $10,000 and perhaps $15,000 in a large city. Take Montreal or Toronto; it is easy to see architects in Montreal who earn $10,000 or $15,000, and engineers who earn $10,000 or $15,000 a year. These men are in the public service to-day and they are very able employees indeed. We cannot all earn the same salaries as we cannot all of us be members of parliament. It is out of the question to believe that every person can earn the same salary. Our hon. friends who have stated that employees are not paid enough who get $1.50 a day must not forget one thing; I believe I am not wrong in saying that the ordinary labouring man in Montreal or Toronto does not earu, averaging the year, more than $400. The man who gets into the public service is, as a rule, sure of being employed every day of the year and I can assure my hon. friends that ministers of the Crown have no trouble at all in finding people at the rate of salaries paid now. I have no trouble whatever. The trouble is that I cannot employ all the men who are anxious to sacrifice themselves *on the altar of their country at these low salaries. They are employed every day. Railway employees, I fully grant, have perhaps harder labour, but all the same, they are very glad to work at such employment. I am receiving letters every day in the week by dozens and hundreds from people who are anxious to go into the public service even on a railway and at the low salaries that are paid now. At the same time I grant that some of the salaries are not high enough, but I take this opportunity of saying that if we have good employees we should not hesitate to pay them. We are not paying enough to-day to some of our high officials.

ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) The reason the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is troubled with too many applications is because he is generous to his workmen. He pays them according to their value and therefore he gets the best class of people to work for him. My idea is

that you will only get labour out of a man according to the wages you pay him, and that if you increase the wages of a man you will get more work than you would get out of a man you employed at a low rate of wages. I think also that if the wages of the men on the Intercolonial Railway were raised to a proper amount you might perhaps reduce the number of men that would be employed, and you would find that four men properly paid would do the work that six men are employed now to do. I think that people should be paid according to their value and that it would also be desirable that none should be employed on public works except men who are qualified to do the best work at a fair rate of wages.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

I would like to say, in regard to the observations of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). that while it is quite true that you may be able to get men at small wages; still, you must bear in mind that there are men in the country who, being under the necessity of supporting their families, will accept a wage which they think inadequate, and therefore, it is not perhaps quite fair to put it in the light in which the bon. Minister of Public Works is inclined to put it. I do not know that the resolution is very happily worded. It says :

That considering ilie general prosperity of Canada the minimum wage to be paid trackmen and other labourers on the government system of railways should be at least $1.50 per day.

I would certainly think that whether Canada was prosperous or not the labouring man was entitled to have a fair living wage. There is no doubt that the cost of living has advanced very largely during the past five or six years. That is a circumstance which ought fairly be taken into consideration in dealing with the wages of workmen not only on the Intercolonial Railway, but in all the departments of the public service, including the Post Office Department and Public Works Department. It is true that the men who work on the Intercolonial Railway, the trackmen particularly, have a very responsible position indeed, and lead a very arduous life. That is a consideration which demands the attention of the House, or rather the attention of the Department of Railways and Canals in dealing with so important a subject. It seems a little strange that my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) did not have something of this kind in his mind when he was so ready in the past to vote for transactions such as the acquisition of the Drummond County Railway and the bargain that was made with the Grand Trunk Railway. We know that a very large price-very much more than the cost of that railway-was paid for it, and that a bargain which I think was not very much in the interest Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).

of the country was made with the Grand Trunk Railway. Now, we have a deficit on the Intercolonial Railway; possibly to some extent as the result of that. The deficit on that railway it is true may not be due wholly to these . circumstances, and it is without doubt due to the fact that the Intercolonial Railway is not administered on the same business principles which characterize the administration of railways owned by great corporations in this country and in the United States. If supplies for the Intercolonial Railway were purchased in the same way as they are made by other railway corporations there would be no deficit on the Intercolonial Railway, and these labourers might be paid the wage which is demanded by this resolution without a single dollar of additional burden on the taxpayers of this country- It would, therefore, be well for my hon. friend, from Cumberland and for other gentleman like him who profess to be so solicitous on this subject, to take matters of that kind into consideration so that we may not have this very large deficit on the Intercolonial Railway to be put forward-as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Logan) states it is-by the Minister of Railways as a ground for refusing to these men tlie wage which hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House think is fairly their due. Another consideration which might well attract the attention of the House, is the absence from this debate of the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) as well as the absence of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Mulock). Where is the Minister of Labour to-night, who is so solicitous about fixing a fair wage in contracts made with the government of this country ? Why has not my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) employed the services of the Minister of Labour to induce the Minister of Railways to do justice to these labourers ?

Mr. LOGAN.

I know that the leader of the opposition would not make these remarks if he knew that the Minister of Labour has been quite ill and has been confined to his house for the past week.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I regret very much the illness of the minister, which I was not aware of, but my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) had ample opportunity this session to bring up this matter when the Minister of Labour was able to be present and in the House.

Mr. LOGAN.

1 never had an opportunity of bringing it up when the Minister of Labour was in the House. I never had an opportunity until this time.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

That seems to indicate that the Minister of Labour has not been in the House very often during this session, because this motion has been standing on the Order Paper for the last five or six weeks. Whether or not that be the case, why has not the hon. gentleman

sought the intervention of the Minister of Labour in this connection. That hon. minister prides himself very much it is said; takes very much credit to himself, I know, for the fact that he has established a fair rate of wages in respect to contracts which are granted by the government. Why have not the services of that hon. gentleman been employed with the Minister of Railways ? This government takes so much pains with contracts of this kind, that it publishes its announcements in respect to them in the * Labour Gazette,' yet it is not able to deal effectively, according to my hon. friend from Cumberland, with a subject which has so much importance for a great many people in this country as that which he has brought to the attention of the House to-night. The principle of the resolution which my hon. friend {Mr. Logan) has moved is a commendable one. I do not know myself as to the exact figure, but I do believe that having regard to the increased cost of living-in this country, it is only right and prqper that the wages of these men should be taken into consideration and such an increase made as the existing conditions demand.

Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).

I have a few observations to offer on the resolution introduced by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan). Let me say that it meets with my entire approval. In my constituency there are quite a number of men who are employed on the Intercolonial Railway, and my colleague (Mr. Kendall) and I have brought this matter to the attention of the Railway Department with a view of having their wages increased. The freight handlers and the trackmen particularly are in my judgment receiving insufficient pay. I endorse all that has been said to that effect. Let me say in reply to the leader of the opposition, that while the state of affairs at present on the Intercolonial Railway is not satisfactory to myself or to many hon. members of this House, yet the existing state of affairs on the Intercolonial Railway is very much better than that which prevailed when the Conservatives were managing that railway. I remember very well that when the Intercolonial Railway was being constructed in Cape Breton under the late government, the men were very glad to get 95 cents per day, and the then government never made any effort to secure for them an increase in that miserable rate of pay. While the pay these men receive at the present time is not sufficient to enable them to live as they ought to live, yet we have the consolation to know that it is better than the pay they received when the late government was in power. I shall not discuss to-night with the leader of the opposition the question of the deficits on the Intercolonial Railway. He need not be reminded; the House need not be reminded, and the country need not be reminded, that we had more deficits on the Intercolonial 1171

Railway previous to 1896 than since that time. We, have had fewer deficits since 1896 than we had before, notwithstanding the fact that wages on the Intercolonial Railway are now much, higher than they were before. I rose simply for the purpose of giving my approval to the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Logan), which I hope the government will entertain.

My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has alluded to the fact that the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Postmaster General are not present on this occasion. It is very much to be regretted, I agree with him ; but my bon. friend will agree with me also that members of parliament are sometimes absent from parliament for other duties, or for other reasons, good or bad. If the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Postmaster General are not here, they cannot be accused of being absent from any neglect of their duties. They have not been1 dining or banqueting at other cities. It so happens that they are absent for very cogent reasons which we all deplore. It is well known that the Minister of Railways and Canals has not been in good health this session, and the Postmaster General is laid up with a severe attack which I am sorry to say may prevent his attendance at the House for some time to come. But I hope to relieve the apprehension of the leader of the opposition in regard to this matter. The Postmaster General did not expect that the subject of the wages paid to the packers and sorters would come up for discussion to-day, for the reason that he has a Bill on the Order paper on that very subject to which the amendment of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) would be more germane than it is to this motion. As to the salaries of the men who are the subject of the present motion, the trackmen on the Intercolonial Railway, I am happy to say to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and happy also to inform my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) who has moved the motion, that this very question is at this moment engaging the attention of the government. Less than ten days ago a delegation of the Association of Trackmen on the Intercolonial Railway had an interview with the government in which they asked not for such a substantial increase in their wages as the motion proposes, but that the government would hear them and discuss with them the question of an increase in their wages. They made a very fair suggestion, but upon it being represented to. them that at this time the minister was too busy to give the matter the attention which it deserved, but that he would discuss it with them after the session, they have agreed to defer it until then, when an interview will take place between them and the Department of Railways and Canals

on the subject. Under such circumstances, I think my hon. friend will agrge with me that his motion might very well be withdrawn, because he will be glad to know, I am sure, that the step which has been taken is satisfactory to the trackmen themselves. With regard to the salaries paid to the men employed on the Intercolonial Railway, I am sure that my hon. friend the mover of this motion and all those who have supported it will admit that the present government have not done badly at all with their employees. All the salaries have been increased since 1896. Even the trackmen, who form the subject of this motion, received an increase two or three years ago. They receive now $1.20 a day. It is not a very large wage, I admit, and there seems to be a general consensus of opinion that it should be Increased. The discussion that has taken place here will no doubt serve a good purpose when the time comgs for the discussion of the matter between the men and the Minister of Railways and Canals. The minister will be very muct assisted by the discussion that has taken place to-day and the general expression of opinion that has been conveyed from all sides of the House that the men who give their time and services to the country ought to receive adequate compensation. My hon. friend whq has moved this motion has sought to make a comparison between the salaries paid on) the Canadian Pacific Railway and those paid on the Intercolonial Railway. He has; stated, and stated truly, that the wages paid on the Canadian Pacific Railway are somewhat higher than the present wages paid on the Intercolonial Railway. I do not know, however, that this is an argument, and I do not chose to discuss the subject on that basis at all. It is very difficult if not impossible, to lay down a uniform rate of wages to be paid to trackmen. It must depend very largely on the locality. There are sections of the country where $1.20 represents much more than it does in cities like Montreal and Ottawa. The men understand that themselves, and are prepared to discuss this view with the government in the conference that is to take place between them, and the administration a few days hence. I hope therefore upon the assurance I have given that the matter will be considered and adjusted, that my hon. friend from Cumberland will agree to withdraw his motion, and I hope my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier will do the same with his amendment.

Mr. LOGAN.

As the Premier states that he is at the present time in negotiation with the Trackmen's Association, of course I do not desire to do anything that is going to injure the chances of the men to have this matter thoroughly discussed, and their wages increased all along the line if possible. I trust the negotiations which are going on at the present time between the Trackmen's Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Association and the government will lead to the conclusion that the Intercolonial Railway trackmen should be paid the rate of wages which I have suggested in this motion. The rate of $1.50 a day is not proposed as a hard and fast wage to be paid all over the system of railways ; but it is proposed as the minimum wage to be paid to workingmen. I base my case on the simple ground that any man who is fit to be a trackman of the Intercolonial Railway or fit to be a handler of freight, or to be entrusted with hundreds of thousands of dollars of the property of Canada, who Is not worth $1.50 a day, should not be on the Intercolonial Railway or any other railway in Canada. My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island has said that there are men who are worth one dollar per day while others are worth $1.50, but the question I am discussing now is the fixing of a minimum rate, and I am afraid that my hon. friend does not quite understand the responsibilities of the trackmen upon great systems of railways. Before a man can be a trackman, he must , in the first place, go on the road as a sort of apprentice.

I wish they were paid $5 instead.

Mr. LOGAN.

As I have already stated, I brought this matter, during four or five years, before the railway department and before the general manager, and as a last resort, I have brought it up in this House. A man has to be an apprentice for several months, and then, if found competent by the trackmaster, he is given a permanent position on the Intercolonial Railway and takes all the responsibility of the work. He has to keep that road in good condition, and is liable to be called out at any time, at any hour of the night or day, even on Sundays. He must be there on all occasions to protect the track and has to work nine and ten and sometimes twelve hours a day. The greater the storms in winter and the hotter the sun in summer, the harder he has to work, and yet we only pay him the miserable sum of $1.20 per day. The hon. leader of the opposition has tried to draw a red herring across the track by seeking to cast reflections on the Minister of Labour and the work of the Labour Department. But that hon. gentleman dare not stand up here and move that the Labour Bureau, established by the Postmaster General be abolished. He knows just as well as I do, that the establishment of that department was a step in the right direction. He knows well that the Minister of Labour has done more for the labouring men of Canada than all the Cabinet Ministers of the Conservative administration were able to do from 1867 down to the advent of the present government. He is perfectly well aware that in the old days, when government work was done down in Nova Scotia, navvies and dagoes were brought In to work for a pittance of

from 60 to 75 cents per day, and our own labouring men had to walk the streets or accept the miserable wages in competition with foreigners. But to-day these workingmen have to be paid the current wages of the locality, and consequently the workingmen men of Canada are given the preference, and these workingmen appreciate what has been done for them by this government. Instead of hon. gentlemen carping and complaining, it seems to me that they ought to support the Minister of Railways in doing more for labouring men than was done for them in the past, by increasing their wages and enabling them to have more home comforts than they formerly enjoyed. I regret that the minister is not here, but I know that his ill health prevents him from attending our evening sessions, but I trust that the negotiations betwen the trackmen and the Minister of Railways and the First Minister and other members of the government will result in an increase of 'their wages. The hon. Minister of Public Works deserves great credit for the manner iri which he treats the labouring men who are working under him. I have no fault to find with him, and I believe that when the trackmen's case is placed before the Minister of Railways by the Trackmen's A sJ sociation, and he is fully seized of the labours and responsibilities of these men, both of which are increased in these days by the faster and heavier trains employed, he will, with that sense of fairness he had shown the other employees on the Intercolonial, increase their wages by fixing a minimum of at least $1.50 per day.

If I can have the consent of the seconder of my motion, I would be disposed td accept the assurances of the First Minister that the case of these men, whose claims I am urging, will receive very consideration.

Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).

If the mover of this resolution will get no more satisfaction out of it for the class of men whose claims he is advocating than the letter carriers obtained out of the promise of the First Minister in their case, I am afraid! that he will find that he has taken up the time of this House in vain. A year ago, when I had the pleasure of attending a deputation of the letter carriers who waited on the government, we were told by the ministers then present that their grievances would be considered and justice done to them, but from that day to this nothing has been accomplished, and I am very much afraid that the same result will follow this resolution which the First Minister has asked to be withdrawn.

Mr. MONK.

I regret very much that it is impossible for me to withdraw the amendment. I think that this is the right time to take the sense of the House upon this important question. I quite agree with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) that the pay of $1.50 a day is quite inadequate, and even if he were disposed to withdraw his resolution, I certainly do not feel warranted in withdrawing the amendment. Whatever doubt there may exist, as the hon. member for Prince Edward Island has said, as to whether some men may be really worth more than $1 aj day or not, there can be no doubt that the men employed on the Lachine canal are worth more than that sum, and as'regards the employees of the post office in the cities of Montreal and Toronto, and in every city where there is a street delivery, the wages paid the letter carriers are a subject of scandal throughout the country. If I were to consent to the withdrawal of the amendment, which brings those two classes under the consideration of the House, I would be doing something which it would be very difficult to explain. We are not enacting a law, we are merely expressing an opinion, and if the government are going to consider the question of wages on the Intercolonial Railway, and if the Postmaster General has a Bill dealing with the question of the letter carriers, stampers, and sorters in Montreal and Toronto, it is well that the House should be now given the opportunity of expressing its views as to the course of conduct which we think ought to guide the government in the consideration of these questions.

I entirely dissent from the view expressed by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that this is the proper moment in which to deal with the question. The resolution and the amendment before the House present two classes of workingmen as deserving of special consideration-those employed on the government railways and those employed in the post office. The First Minister has called attention to the fact that the claims of both these classes are engaging the attention of the government, and that one of them is to be dealt with by a Bill which will be laid before the House by the Postmaster General. Therefore the House will still have ample opportunity of dealing with the claims of the letter carriers in a most effective way when the Bill is submitted to us. There is therefore no need for the House to pass an opinion with regard to the wages of the post office officials. As to the other class, the First Minister has said that an arrangement has been made for a conference to be held at the close of the session between the representatives of these men and the Minister of Railways. My sympathies go out entirely to the workingmen, after the statements that hare been made to-night. I do not say that it would be wise to lay down a universal rule. The resolution does not confine itself to the trackmen, but goes further and says that all other labourers shall receive not less than $1.50 a day.

That is open to some discussion. As a general rule, I would say that ablebodied men doing any intelligent work in Canada should be able to earn $1.50 a day. But let us not conceal from ourselves the fact that many workingmen receive less in private life. I know that there are among our government officials persons who are earning less money, and nobody seems particularly concerned about them. Some are messengers, whose work requires that they shall be very intelligent men, do not receive $1.50 a day. When you consider that the labourer who receives $1.50 a day only works for a portion of his time, you see that he is not so well paid on the whole as others who may get a less rate per day, but who have the advantage of steady employment, as is the case with the men employed in the government service. 1 ami resisting this motion, not for any lack of sympathy for the men concerned, because my sympathies go out entirely to them. I have no doubt that the discussion this evening will have the useful purpose of assisting the ministers concerned in fixing a rate of wages which will be more satisfactory than that of the past. But I believe it is not wise that the House should commit itself in this hasty way in these matters, when they are engaging the attention of the ministers who have the management of these particular branches of the public service. I think we would be unwise to proceed to a division on this motion. I move that the debate be now adjourned.