May 12, 1908

OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FOURTH SESSION-TENTH PARLIAMENT 7-8 EDWARD VII., 1907-8 VOL. LXXXVI

COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE TWELFTH DAY OF MAY TO THE TENTH ' DAY OF JUNE, INCLUSIVE.


Col. 9191, 5th line from top, delete " MR. R. L. BORDEN " and " SIR FREDERICK BORDEN." insert Douse of Commons Debates


FOURTH SESSION-TENTH PARLIAMENT


Tuesday, May 12, 1908.


QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. J. J. HUGHES.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, to a question of privilege. In the Halifax ' Herald' I find a report of an interview between an alleged prominent labour leader of the Railway Employees Organization and myself, which is entirely inaccurate. The interview is given as follows, under large headlines:-

It is a well-known fact that an interview was held recently between J. J. Hughes, L'b-eral member of parliament for Kings, Prince Edward Island, and a prominent labour leader of the railway employees' organization, when the former unhesitatingly expressed himself as utterly opposed to any sort of labour organizations and would not give his support to measures emanating from them if brought up in the House of Commons on their behalf.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink

PROBUS.


Tennyson says: That a lie which is half a truth is ever the (blackest of lies, That a lie which is all a lie may be met and fought with outright. But a lie which is part a truth is a harder matter to fight. This is exactly tlie case in regard to this interview. On my way from Ottawa to Prince Edward Island at Easter I met a man who claimed to be a labour leader and an organizer of railway employees. He' told me that he belonged to the United States, and that he was going to Prince Edward Island to organize a union of the government railway employees to demand shorter hours of labour, and asked me whether I would support such legislation if it were introduced in parliament. I told him I would uot promise in advance to support any legislation. I said that I doubted whether the hours of labour of railway employees were excessive, and one of my reasons for so doubting was that for every vacancy that occurred in the government railway service there were from one to a dozen applications; that I did 204 not think so many young and middle-aged men would be so anxious to enter the service if the hours of labour were unduly long or the wages unduly low ; that I did not think the hours of labour of the railway employees were any longer, if as long, as those of the farmer, the fisherman, the store-keeper, the clerk in stores, the mothers of families in poor and moderate circum-. stances, the editors and other workers on newspapers, the members of parliament, the ministers of the Crown and the thousands of people who had to work for a living and obtain it as best they could. He then asked me if I were opposed to labour unions and brotherhoods, and I answered ' No,' providing they were formed for the purpose of improving the social, the physical, their material and the moral wellbeing of their members by every legitimate means ; but that I was opposed to sucli unions aud brotherhoods if their object was to force from parliament legislation unduly favouring themselves at the expense of the rest of the community ; that the labour unions and the railway brotherhoods had exactly the same rights in this country that all other classes of persons had, but not one right more ; that under our constitution and laws no class of men In Canada could suffer injury or wrong without receiving speedy and ample redress, and therefore we could settle all our troubles and difficulties without the assistance or advice of foreigners ; that, iu my judgment, our labour unions and railway brotherhoods were quite callable of managing their own affairs without the interference of professional agitators from the United States ; that there was one kind of legislation I would promise to sun-port in advance, and that would be legislation to prevent him and men like him from coming into this country to stir up trouble where none existed and to manufacture grievances. He informed me that he would come in to Canada as often as ho wished and comport himself ns he wished ; that the labour unions and brotherhoods of this country were strong enough to crush any member of parliament who opposed their views, and he would see that my words and attitude were reported in the proper quarter. I presume, therefore that the report in the Halifax ' Herald,' which has been copied



into the Charlottetown ' Examiner,' is the result of the threat of my Yankee friend. The newspapers of Canada should he above misrepresenting the views of public men on important public matters.


?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Order.

Topic:   PROBUS.
Permalink
LIB

Robert Franklin Sutherland (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

The hon. gentleman must limit himself to a statement of fact.

t

Topic:   PROBUS.
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. J. J. HUGHES.

I am just finishing. Sir, for the sake, possibly, of a little passing political advantage, and they should be above encouraging Yankee agitators to come into this country to make trouble. It will be a sad day for us when we will not be able to manage our own affairs without employing and encouraging such men.

Topic:   PROBUS.
Permalink

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.


'LA PRESSE' AND THE FRENCH LANGUAGE. '


LIB

Armand Renaud La Vergne

Liberal

Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE (Montmagny).

(Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I desire to call the attention of the House to an article wnich appeared in ' La Presse ' on the 11th May instant, under the heading: 'That meeting at the Monument National.' The article is directed against me as a member of parliament and against the privileges or this House. It reads as follows:

It is now clear that this sudden cry for the French language in the administration of railways, is _ nothing but a nationalist manoeuvre organized in view of the elections. At the Monument National neither Conservative nor Liberal leaders were present. And although, for the purpose of soothing public opinion, it had been everywhere proclaimed that the English element was favourably disposed in the matter, the audience refused to listen to the, Hon. Mr. Dandurand, who oam-e expressly for the purpose of making known these favourable dispositions. The conciliatory offers of the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific and the Northern Railways were such as would demolish the whole fabric of the nationalist conspiracy: hence the necessity of crying them down.' Sudh indeed are the tactics which Mr. Lavergne himself has adopted. At the second reading of the Bill in question, the 18th March, 1908, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had made the following statement: Sir WILFRID LAURIER. The Bill as a whole appears to me to embody a sound and equitable principle, but I think that in some respects its application may be too broad. My hon. friend's object is to give the public increased facilities for the transaction of business, and it must be admitted that simple justice requires that those who do not speak English should be enabled to transact business in the language they understand. . .

I have no objection to the second reading, subject to the amendments which may be suggested later on.

(The motion was carried and the Bill read a second time.)

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Charles Marcil (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

The DEPUTY SPEAKER.

When will it please the House to discuss the Bill in committee ?

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

At the next meeting of the House.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
LIB

Armand Renaud La Vergne

Liberal

Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE.

Occasions for discussing this Bill in committee are becoming very rare, and if we do not take it up to-day we may not find an opportunity of doing so.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER, The matter is of importance to the railway companies and my hon. friend will understand that it is fair that they should take communication, of the Bill and see whether they desire to_ oppose it. There are certainly excellent things in the measure, but the government should not undertake to have it carried before the railway companies have been heard.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink

May 12, 1908