Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):

I have the honour to present the second and final report of the select standing committee on Industrial and International Relations as follows:

The Select Committee on Industrial and International Relations beg leave to submit the following as their Second and Final Report:

A resolution was adopted by the House of Commons on May 3rd declaring it expedient that a certain draft convention which was adopted at the first session of the International Labour Conference of the League of Nations in 1919 limiting the hours of work in ini-dustrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Industrial and Internationlal Relations for examination and report, having regard to tlhe lobour provisions of the Treaties of Peace and to the Order in Council of November 0th, 1920, deal-in*g with the jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures.

Your Committee has held several sittings and made a careful examination of the draft convention, the labour part of the Treaties of Peace and the Order in Council of November 0th, 1920, dealing with the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament and of the Provincial legislatures. Evidence was taken with respect to the present position of the eight-hour day in industrial employment in Canada and other countries. Information was presented to your Committee with reference to a conference which was held in Ottawa in September last between representatives of the Dominion and Provincial Governments which indicated that notwithstanding the view expressed in the Order in Council of November 0th, 1920, doubt existed in certain quarters as to the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial authorities, respectively.

It is accordingly recommended that measures be taken to refer the "Draft Convention limiting the hours of work in Industrial Undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week" to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration under section 00 of the Supreme Court Act together with such questions as will serve to secure an advisory judgment from the court on the jurisdiction of the Dominioni parliament and of the provincial legislatures, \espectively.

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :

Do I understand there is a motion

to concur in the report?

Mr. SPEAKER:

There is no motion for

concurrence.

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

Can

the government state what their policy is, or is likely to be, in connection with the report of the committee on Old Age Pensions which was submitted on July 1?

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

The report of the committee to which my hon. friend refers, I think, contemplated that any action by this parliament would be contingent upon co-operative action on the part of the provinces. The

government intends during the recess to communicate to the provincial governments the report which the committee has brought down and ascertain for the information of parliament what action, if any, they are prepared to take with reference to those recommendations.

Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):

May I ask the government whether or not they are now prepared to go ahead with the Alternative Vote bill?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend an answer as yet.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

The session is near its close,

and I wish to give a list, though very partial, of the orders of this House still uncomplied with. An order was made on March 27, on the motion of the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) for a copy of the report of commissioner Thompson respecting the Six Nations Indians, on April 3, motion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) for the amount of liquor brought into British Columbia during the years 1922-23; April 7, motion of the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Stansell) as to the value of production and amount consumed and exported of wheat, butter, eggs and so forth; April 7, motion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for the amount of Canadian customs collected by the officer at New York; April 14, motion of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) respecting the dismissal of Peter Hickey; April 30, motion by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for the production of certain statements made before the Royal Pulpwood Commission by Mr. Piche and other witnesses; May 1, motion by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) as to cars and locomotives purchased in Canada by American railway companies during the past twenty-five years, and duty paid by them on American rolling stock used in Canada.

Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) : I think my right hon. friend will find there was some reply to that.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

There was a reference

made to it in the House, but the order of the House has not been complied with.

Inquiry for Returns

Mr. GRAHAM:

I think my right hon.

friend will discover there is an answer to it somewhere that was quite definite. If I remember correctly it was that the information required could not be ascertained.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I do not think that could possibly be, because the number of cars purchased could easily be ascertained by inquiring in Canada; in fact I think the Bureau of Statistics would have it. However, it could be ascertained without a doubt even if the Bureau of Statistics did not have it.

Mr. GRAHAM:

I think the reply was to

the effect that the government did not have the information.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

But the order passed the House which made it the duty of the government to get the information.