Hod. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment):

I beg to present the fourth and final report on the second part of the investigation of the royal commission on Pensions and Re-establishment. I have already informed the House that I have received an advance report *of this final report from the royal commission, that is the part which deals with canteen funds, and in this connection legislation has been introduced in this House. I beg to move:

That the fourth and final report of the royal commission on Pensions and Re-establishment be printed for bound sessional papers; and 1,000 copies in the English language and 250 copies in the French language for distribution, and that Rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.

Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):

I beg to move:

That the second and final report of the select rtand-ing committee on Industrial and International Relations be concurred in.

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

I move.in amendment:

That the report be referred back to the committee with instructions to add the fallowing words to the

6aid report:

"It is further recommended that the government should limit the hours on Dominion works and undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week.

And further, that the government should submit to the House legislation declaring that such works as may be advisable should be for the general advantage of Canada pursuant to the power by the British North America Act in that hebalf provided and thus bring such works within the control of the Dominion for the purpose of limiting the hours of work to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week."

The eight hour day is a matter concerning which labour has had very strong convictions for many years. It has been one of the great objectives of the organized labour movement. Few people realize that the Peace Treaty of Versailles deals, not merely with questions of boundaries, armaments and finance, but with principles that should underlie our industrial life. The labour sections of the Peace treaty open with a general statement in the following terms:

Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based on social justice.

And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of these conditions is urgently required; as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, etc.

Here there follow an enumeration of most of the ameliorative measures after which labour has been striving for many years.

In view of the high contracting parties, as of special and urgent importance, there are enumerated for the guidance of the International Labour Organization certain general principles among which is included "the adoption of an eight hour day, or a forty-eight hour week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been obtained."

We in the labour movement thought that when the treaty was signed we were assured that the eight hour day had been secured, and we were confirmed in this view by what took place at the Washington conference. Among the draft conventions and recommendations adopted at the first session of the international conference held at Washington in 1919 and concurred in by Can::da's representatives, the first is that which limits the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in a day and forty-eight in a week. The convention was not concerned with agricultural labour; it confined itself to industrial undertakings.

One difficulty in securing legislation in Canada in accordance with this Washington convention lies in the fact that we have a federal constitution. According to the Treaty of Peace,

In the case of a federal state, the power of which to enter into conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations, it shall be in the discretion of that government to treat the draft convention to which such limitations apply as a recommendation only, and the provisions of this article with respect to recommends-tions shall apply in such case.

On this point the Minister of Justice in a report confirmed by order in council passed on November 6, 1920, made the following statement:

The government's obligation will, in the opinion of the minister, be fully carried out if the different conventions and recommendations are brought before the competent authority, dominion or provincial, according as it may appear, having regard to the scope and objects, the true nature and character of the legislation required to give effect to the proposals of the conventions and recommendations respectively that they fall within legislative competence of the one or the other.

Of these draft conventions adopted at the Washington conference, five, including the eight hour day, are declared by the law officers

Industrial Relations

of the Crown to fall within provincial authority. Notwithstanding this fact it was felt that the Dominion government was not altogether clear in the matter and that something further should be done to give effect to these conventions. Hence there was called in 1923 a conference of the representatives of the Dominion and provincial governments to consider the obligations of Canada arising out of the labour section of the Treaty of Peace. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), stated that one of the objects of the conference was:

To assist the provinces, by consultative conference, in determining their attitude towards the labour principles of the Peace Treaty to which the parliament of Canada has already given its assent, and to which our country is plighted in agreement with the other nations.

The House will note that we have here a frank admission that our country is plighted to the eight hour day in agreement with the other nations. No resolution was adopted in regard to the eight hour day at this conference but it was agreed that the federal Department of Labour should proceed as promptly as possible to ascertain the present position of the eight hour day movement in industrial undertakings in Canada, the information obtained by inquiry to be submitted to all the provincial governments for their consideration. This I understand has been largely carried out and the information in so far as it has been secured to date, has been submitted to the various provincial governments.

Now we come to the question of the report before the House. The Minister of Labour Mr. Murdock, two weeks ago made the following reference to the newly constituted par- . liamentary committee on Industrial and International Relations:

That it is 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 industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week Ibe referred to the Select Standing Committee on Industrial and International Relations for examination and report, having regard to the labour provisions of the treaties of peace and to the order in council of November 6, 1920 dealing with the jurisdiction of the provincial parliament and the provincial legislature.

After holding a number of sessions the committee recommended " that measures be taken to refer the draft convention "

-to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration under section 60 of the Supreme Court, together with such questions as will serve to secure an advisory judgment from the court on the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament and of the provincial legislature respectively.

Some of us tried to have some definte action taken by the committee, and the report actually incorporated something of this kind. But notwithstanding the fact that the report was to have been presented to the House in that form the chairman of the committee left the city without having submitted it, although he had an opportunity to do so, having been in the House the day after the report was agreed upon. Then the committee was called together and the whole matter reconsidered, the report was adopted concerning which the motion of concurrence has been moved today. This would seem to indicate that the government is not very serious in its efforts to give effect to the eight hour day in Canada. We have had the Washington conference; we have had orders in council; we have had the findings of the law officers of the Crown; and we have had a joint conference of federal and provincial representatives. And we have now had the investigation by the committee on Industrial Relations. Surely all this should have been sufficient. But we find that the matter is to be referred to the Supreme court, so that we are no further ahead than we were five years ago. There are certain classes of workers in Canada who are still toiling away eleven and thirteen hours a day and seven days of the week. In this House I have repeatedly called attention to the conditions that prevail in the steel works jn Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Canada. There was an excuse advanced during a good many years that as in the United States they had the long hour shifts, the men in that country working a twelve hour day, that if we reduced the hours of labour in this country our steel manufacturers could not cope with the Americans. That excuse is gone as they have adopted the eight hour day in the steel works of the United States, whereas the steel companies of Canada continue to maintain the twelve hour day and seven day week.

We have had trouble especially in Nova Scotia year after year. In this connection the Robertson commission in its report presented a few months ago urged that as one of the grievances of the men was the eleven and thirteen hour day and the seven day week there should be a reduction made to an eight hour day and a six day week. Notwithstanding that recommendation the government has taken no action, and, as I have suggested, it would seem as if there is a general desire to shirk responsibility. Several years ago the world protested because an important treaty was reduced to "a scrap of paper." I would call attention to the fact that in this case we are concerned with the Treaty of Versailles, to which Canada with the other nations party to that treaty is definitely committed. Are we

Industrial Relations

to reduce that treaty to a " scrap of paper?" Already other countries are embodying this convention in legislation, and we have the edifying spectacle that having adopted this advanced legislation they must compete with Canada which maintains a lower standard of working conditions.

In the evidence presented to the committee we have the following statement made by an official of the Labour Department:

As to the action taken on this subject in other countries, it has been ratified by Bulgaria, Czecho-Slovakia, Greece, India, Roumania. Ratification, as we know, of course means a formal acceptance of the agreement as a matter of treaty.-the convention being identical with the treaty. Bulgaria, Czecho-Slovakia, Greece, India, and Roumania have signed the convention. In addition to that Great Britain has intimated its intention of taking steps looking to ratification at once and the matter was understood to be under way. Great Britain has probably led the world in the adoption of the eight hour day.

Again:

These other countries have adopted legislation dealing with the subject, matter: Belgium, Spain, India, Sweden, Italy and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slavs.

And still again:

These countries I have just read, in reply to your inquiry, have adopted legislation carrying out the provisions of the Washington Convention and have not yet in all cases ratified the convention. France and a number of other countries have also been moving in the same direction. As to the trades that are referred to in the draft convention, industrial undertakings, Bolivia. Norway, Germany, Denmark, Chili and the Argentine have already bills before them.

Now, it does seem as if in view of the action which is being taken by other nations 10 carry out the draft convention which embodies the principles of the Peace Treaty, Canada is recreant to her duty if she does not [DOT] take action at this time. The government is inclined to say that nothing can be done, that this is a matter for the provinces, and to shift its responsibility. But I would point out that the government is not doing what is clearly within its power to do at the present moment. In my amendment I suggest that the government might limit the hours on Dominion works and undertakings to the eight hour day and the forty-eight hour week. This requires no further legislation. We may easily insert such a clause in every contract which we make. It does not need a reference to the Supreme court to decide that, it does not even need any further legislation; it is already within the jurisdiction and power of the Dominion government. At the present time the confessed policy of the government with regard to such Dominion works as are undertaken, in so far as the hours of labour are concerned, is to conform with the conditions

from time to time prevailing in the district where the particular work is being carried on. I submit that the least the government could do would be to act as a model employer on its own works. Let me repeat, no one questions the jurisdiction or power of the government in this regard.

I should like to direct attention for a moment to the second clause of this amendment :

Tha.t the government should submit to the House legislation declaring that such works as may be advisable should be for the general advantage of Canada.

The British North America Act is quoted as being the stumbling block: " We cannot

do anything because of the British North America Act." While the provincial legislatures have exclusive power in local works and undertakings, the following classes, among, others, are specifically exempt by section 92, subsection 10 (c):

Such works as, although wholly situated within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada, or for the advantage of two or more provinces.

The evidence submitted to the committee shows that frequently railways, although wholly situated within one province, have for certain reasons been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. Last year we had a case of certain water-powers connected with the Lake of the Woods level being declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. I submit there is no reason why other works should not be similarly declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. In fact the law officers who were present to give evidence admitted that this procedure might be taken. Mr. Edwards, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice, in referring to this matter answered several questions which I put to him. Part of these questions and answers I shall now quote:

Q. All that would be necessary to secure an eight hour day under those circumstances would be to have-such a clause inserted in the contract. Further, with regard to any subsidized undertakings, railways, steamships or anything of that kind, X presume that too could be arranged directly in the agreement?-A. I think it could be made a condition of the subsidy.

Q. In a case where the government is under contract for the delivery of any goods from any firm, I presume the government might insist that these goods should be produced under fair conditions, including the eight hour day.-A. I think that again is a provision which, if properly drawn, could be made a part of the contract.

Q. Then coming to this question, which w'e have-been discussing. Dominion works and undertakings. As far as you know, are there any actual cases which have come before the courts, other than the one you mentioned, which would seem to indicate any limitations of the powers of Canada to declare anv work of general advantage to Canada?-A. My attention has not been directed to anything specific on that subject-

Industrial Relations

Then I went on to speak of certain manufacturing works, mining, and so on, and the witness said that he saw nothing in the act to prevent any such work being declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. Why could not the steel works, which have been so very heavily subsidized in the past by the government of this country, and which are receiving contracts from the Canadian National Railways,-why could not they be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada and so be brought within the control of the Dominion for the purposes of the eight hour day convention.

One further suggestion. A large number of manufacturing industries in this country are receiving protection from the coimtry. Surely it is presumed that they are for the general advantage of Canada. If they are not for the general advantage of Canada, why should we give them protection? If they are for the general advantage of Canada, then they may be so declared: by this parliament, and if so declared by this parliament the eight-hour day can be enforced in such undertakings.

It is not my intention to do anything more than to state this case. I do not purpose ;o plead the eight-hour day. I do not propose to show the disabilities under which the men are working because of the lack of the eight-hour day. I take it for granted that the principle of the eight-hour day was settled once for all by the Peace Treaty of Versailles. But I do ask that the government no longer continue to allow this question to be made a football ajid to be kicked or thrown backward and forward between the provincial and the federal authorities, the workers being allowed to suffer in the meantime. It seems to me that a case for definite action on the part of the government is clear. There are means indicated by which this convention may be enacted into law and whereby the eight-hour day may become effective. I venture to quote the old proverb: " Where there's a will there's a way "; and I may add, where there is no will there is no way.

Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):

Mr. Speaker, the arguments just

made by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) were before the committee on Industrial and International Relations at each meeting. On the 23rd of May the committee had referred to it the draft convention emanating from the Washington conference dealing with the eight hour day in industrial undertakings, for examination and report having regard to the labour provisions of the Treaty of Peace and

to the order in council of November 6, 1920, with regard to the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures. That order in council indicates the view of the Justice Department that the provincial legislatures have power to enact and apply generally and comprehensively hhe eight hour day in industrial undertakings. The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg is aware that the Labour Department has undertaken to press this question upon the attention of those competent to deal with it, that is, the provincial governments. Last September a conference was held of representatives of all the provinces and the federal government, and this question was fexhaustiively discussed. We found material Objection on the part of the representatives bf some of the provinces to any action by the federal government that might be prejudicial to what they regarded as their right to deal with this matter. While I might personally be in hearty accord with my hon. friend's proposal that we should here and now determine that on federal works and undertakings the eight hour day should apply, I am not sure that to do so would be consistent or would involve a recognition of the proper partnership which should exist as between the federal authorities and the provincial governments. For example, in connection with the Welland ship canal, where work has been proceeding for a number of years. Some two years ago it was necessary for the Minister of Labour under the fair wages policy to determine the length of the day that should be applicable to the workers on that undertaking. In dealing with that question we were required by the fair wages policy to recognize the wages and the hours current in the district, and in that connection we had to take into consideration the somewhat similar work that was progressing on the Hydro-Electric power ditch. The Labour Department believed it was proper to keep abreast of the wages and conditions then prevailing rather than to prejudice the rights of the provinces by fixing better wages or better hours of labour than were in general effect in the territory. I have not found on the part of any labourers on the Welland ship canal a desire to be held down to the eight hour day; I have rather found that their chief desire in many cases was to have the eight hour day fixed in order that they might get overtime or time and a half for working nine, ten, eleven, or twelve hours. I do not for a moment hold that that is the general view, or that is uppermost in the minds of those who are speaking for labour. For many years I have been personally com-

Industrial Relations

mitted to the principle of the eight hour day and know something of the battles that have been necessary in order to secure its recognition. But in connection with the application of the eight hour day to public works and undertakings in Canada I am bound to say that the adoption of the principle is only too often demanded-and this can be proved by a review of the files- in order to obtain time and a half for working longer than eight hours.

My hon. friend intimates that the government is not serious. That " listens well " to labour generally throughout Canada, but it is untrue; it is not in accordance with the facts The government is distinctly serious in its desire so to handle this question as not to encroach upon the rights of the provinces or upon the rights of industry-and I think hon. members will agree that each have some rights. The government wants to deal with it in an orderly way and with due regard to the rights and interests of all concerned. We have had before us for several years a ruling of the Justice department that the question of applying the eight hour day to industry must be dealt with by the provinces. The government is serious in its desire to ascertain through a Supreme court ruling if that is or is not the case. The government believes that is the case, but the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg and others in various parts of Canada who want to present something that will listen well to the uninitiated labouring man hold otherwise. They know it is popular to hammer the government about this, that or the other thing. The government is serious in wanting to get from the Supreme Court of Canada, or from some fur' tner tribunal, if necessary, something that will be final and conclusive upon this important question, and so it was unfortunate that when this question came up before the Industrial and International Relations committee, at almost every meeting of the committee, there was a bare quorum. It is true, as my hon. friend has said, that at a meeting held some days ago-at which only ten members were present out of thirty-three, a bare quorum of ten including the chairman-a report was adopted which partially carried with it the proposal that my hon. friend has moved this morning. It was believed, though, by many of those connected with the committee that it might not be consistent to adopt and press that resolution on the attention of the House. It was the desire of the members of the committee that the question should be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada, so that in that way the government would

be placed in a position to know prior to the next session of parliament just what its rights were.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Would my hon. friend state by what majority that report was adopted by the committee at the meeting at which only ten members were present?

Mr. MURDOCK:

The vote was five to four, with the chairman not voting. At the roost recent meeting, held the day before yesterday, the committee, I think, were unanimously of the view, including my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg, that the Supreme court should pass upon this important question. But my hon. friend wants to go further; he wants to have this parliament declare that any work or undertaking, any industry in Canada, may be held to be for the general advantage of Canada.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Just as a matter of accuracy, may I say, that is not what is incorporated in my resolution.

Mr. MURDOCK:

I realize that is not

what the hon. gentleman has moved in his amendment, but that claim was repeatedly made-as I am sure my hon. friend will admit-before the committee. And I am sure too that he argued that way before the committee; in other words, he proposes that this federal government should pick out this industry in Nova Scotia, that industry in British Columbia, or as many industries as you like in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, or in other provinces, and declare them by the action of this parliament, to be, for the general advantage of Canada, and then apply the eight hour day to such industries in disregard of any provincial rights, and regardless of the evident intent and language of the British North America Act. That might be all right from the viewpoint of my hon. friend, but such action would be held by many others in this country as altogether selfish and unfair. So, Mr. Speaker, my earnest desire in the matter would be that the report which was placed before the House the other day be adopted, in which it is 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 60 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 Dominion parliament and of the provincial legislatures, respectively.

Industrial Relations

The language of that last clause was purposely prepared and placed there, so that in numbered and proper order the questions in which my hon. friend is interested could be placed before the Supreme court and a ruling secured on each and every one of them, so that the parliament of Canada would be in a position to know just what were our rights and what were the rights of the provinces.

If the views of my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg were to prevail here this morning, it would simplify materially the work of the Minister of Labour while he occupies his present position. It would be very much easier for him to say: The eight hour day applies

at Edmonton; it applies on the Welland ship canal, and everywhere else. At the present time we have to carefully inquire as to what are the current hours and conditions of labour in the area where the work is to be performed, and then we have to be very careful to see that as nearly as possible we arrive at the current wage and the current hours. Personally I think that under our constitutional rights, yes, and in view of our constitutional restrictions, the action which is now being taken is the proper one if we are going to play the game fairly with our partners, who are the provinces in this confederation. So, regardless of how much I might personally desire to see the amendment proposed by my hon. friend prevail, I do not think that it would be fair at this particular time to go to that extent, and I hope the House will finally adopt the report which was submitted to it by the committee on Industrial and International Relations.

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :

As a declaration in favour of the eight

hour day as applied to Dominion government works, I am unqualifiedly in favour of the first proposal of the amendment. I have taken that stand before, repeatedly, in this House and on the platform in this country. If I understand the amendment aright, its application is limited to government works, or works constructed or carried on by the Dominion of Canada.

It is all right for my hon. friend the Minister of Labour to say that this amendment of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg may be used before the uninitiated in Winnipeg as a vote catcher at elections, but I can tell the Minister of Labour that this motion will appeal very deeply to the initiated in the city of Guelph where I live. I am satisfied that labour throughout Canada is in sympathy with this proposal, and the proposal in my judgment is right. I do not think there is any doubt ns to the jurisdiction of this parliament in regard to Dominion labour. But there is

more than a doubt in regard to our jurisdiction to apply the eight hour day principle generally throughout the Dominion. I have not a doubt upon the subject; I am satisfied that the ruling of the Department of Justice is right in that respect, and that the provincial legislatures have jurisdiction in such matters; but I am just as sure that this parliament has jurisdiction in regard to Dominion works, and if parliament or the government is in sympathy with the proposal of the eight hour day as applicable to Dominion operations and Dominion works, there is no reason why this proposal should not be supported. I do not see the difficulties which the Minister of Labour fears in the application of this principle. We take upon ourselves how to insert in our contracts a fair wage clause and our right to do so has always remained unchallenged. We disregard provincial law and provincial conditions in this respect and in contracts made by this government for the construction of works in any part of this Dominion we always insist-

Mr. MURDOCK:

May I interrupt? Do we disregard provincial rights and provincial hours and wages when we say in that fair wage clause that the current wages and hours shall govern?

Mr. GUTHRIE:

Yes we do, we take it

upon ourselves to say what the wages shall be in that respect.

Mr. MURDOCK:

The current wages.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

Whether current or otherwise we make a declaration as to the scale of wages in our contracts. If we can validly make that declaration in our contracts in respect of wages we can do the same thing in respect of the hours of labour. I only support the amendment on the ground that as regard to Dominion works, it proposes to apply the eight hour principle which I believe to be the correct and proper principle. I would not support the amendment if it proposed to extend that principle into provincial jurisdictions over which I am satisfied we have no control. But as the amendment is purely applicable to Dominion works I think it is in the right direction and I shall support it.

Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):

I want to

voice my opposition to the amendment as it has been presented. I know a little about labour because as a young man I did a lot of manual labour on different public works and other undertakings, and I never found that working even ten hours a day was detrimental to my physical energies and powers. Since I discontinued working for other concerns I

Industrial Relations

have been engaged in farming. In that occupation there is no restriction on the hours of labour, which usually run from ten to twelve or fifteen or sixteen hours. Still we manage to pull through, and some of us attain to a fair age without much diminution of physical strength and energy. I believe the labouring class should be paid a fair wage, but I also believe that they should do a fair day's work for that wage. From what I read and hear in connection with the labour movement I am afraid there is a tendency on the part of organized labour to get labour into such a condition that it will not do a fair day's work for fair wages. Now, I have watched the attitude and the demeanour of labouring men on public works and I am forced to the conclusion that in a great many cases men do not want to earn their wages; they want to get paid for a minimum amount of work. It would seem as though they tried to do as little work as possible while they were on the job. For that reason I am opposed to the amendment. Another cause of objection is this: In this country to-day we are suffering from the high cost of living; we are also suffering from the cost of agricultural implements, high transportation rates on our railroads, and other conditions. We believe that the high cost of labour-possibly because a lot of 12nioon labourers are not doing a fair day's work for the money they get-is largely responsible for the high cost of living, the high cost of implements and the high railroad rates. If we are going to get any reduction in these costs the first point we must strike at is the cost of labour. We must have a reduction of prices in some way, either in the wages paid or in an extension of the hours of labour, so that we may get better returns for the money that is spent.

Another question to be considered is this: The farmers are up against a serious problem in connection with labour. They have to engage a good deal of labour, and if their needs cannot be supplied in that respect they cannot produce. Now, if the hours of labour in the cities are to be restricted to eight hours a day it will be impossible for the farmer to get labourers to work for ten or twelve hours on the farm. And yet these hours are indispensable, otherwise farming cannot be carried on profitably. I am opposed to the amendment and shall support the adoption of the report.

Mr. A. IV . NEILL (Comox-Alberni): I congratulate the mover of the amendment upon having, even if only on the last day of the fMr. Woods.]

session, got away from the expression of vague, academic theories, and having at last brought forward a subject of some practical concern to Canada. This is not a question as to what some government should do in the Ruhr or in Bulgaria, or in Mesopotamia, this is something that is actually, for once, at least, a question of importance to this country. At the same time I consider that the introduction of the amendment at this day and at this hour is particular^' ill-advised. There is every reason to believe, in view of the opinion of the Justice department, that the matter of the control of the hours of labour, rests with the provinces and not with the Dominion. We have evidence that the provinces in great part have accepted that view. I might point to my own province of British Columbia which, in the consideration of that fact, went ahead by itself and passed an eight hour law, and I am proud to think that we gave the rest of the Dominion a lead in that regard which I hope will be followed. Moreover I understand that the main recommendation in the report of the committee is to refer this matter to the Supreme court for a further and final decision. Therefore it would seem wise to go slowly in this matter in the meantime.

I particularly object to the second feature of the hon. gentleman's amendment, I refer to his proposition to give power to this government to go out into the industrial field all over Canada and say "This industry over here is for the general benefit of Canada and therefore its employees shall only work eight hours a day", but that another industry perhaps a competing industry, should not be interfered with at all. Look at the tremendous opportunities for the abuse of political power such a provision would give the government, either this government or any future administration. For this reason and for other complications which would result, I would be strongly against that feature of the amendment.

At the same time, I was elected on a platform containing an eight-hour-day plank, and therefore I shall express my sympathy with the general principle of that policy by voting for the amendment. But I must reserve to myself the right to oppose at any future stage the suggestion to enter any man's private business, or industry of any kind, and declare such industries to be works for the general advantage of Canada.