Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):

Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. On Friday, May 25, the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) quoted from a statement which I had made at page 3349 of Hansard in which I corrected a statement which he made with respect to my expenses as Minister of Labour. After he had quoted what I had said he went on to say:

I have no desire to do an injustice to any hon. member. If that statement is not true, I wish the hon. member had given the correct figures,-

That is, if his statement was not true, I should have given the figures. Then, Mr. Speaker, you permitted him to make a further statement as follows:

-because his total personal expenses for 1929, exclusive of his sessional indemnity and ministerial salary, were $9,291.

Let me say, standing here in this House of Commons, that that statement is not true. He then proceeded:

His total personal expenses from 1926 to the end of his term in office were $16,691.

Again let me say, standing here in this House of Commons, that that statement is not true either. I should like to be given an opportunity at the proper time to compare my expenses with those of any member of previous Conservative governments or of this government.

Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):

Mr. Speaker, during my absence from the house on April 24 the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) made a statement which will be found on page 2513 of Hansard. In referring to myself he said:

In the month of March of that year-

Fuel Oil Charges

That is, 1930-

-he drew $520 sessional indemnity, $700 for expenses, and as Minister of Labour he drew $1,200, making a total of over $2,500 for that one month in 1930.

I have waited for nearly three weeks to try to catch the hon. member in his seat, but I have not been successful. I had hoped to make a correction while the hon. member was present, but I do not think the matter should go any further. I just want to say that that statement is not true.

Mr. HEENAN:

Did I understand the

minister to say that if the labour men requested that they be allowed to come under this bill the government would accept that request?

Mr. HEENAN:

Because of that fact only about seven per cent of the labour men of Canada are organized and the producers, or the men who employ these workmen, take advantage of the fact that the men are not organized properly. If they were organized properly they would not be working for the wages they are receiving to-day; if they were organized properly there would be no need for minimum wage laws in this country. I am sure the minister and the government will admit that the labour men of Canada are producers, and I am going to ask the minister now if the labour men of Canada hold a meeting and request to be included under this bill, will they come under the bill? If the majority of the men in any craft organize will the minister and the government force the remainder into that organization so that they may regulate their production and their prices, which would be in the nature of wages?

Mr. HEENAN:

The more we discuss this legislation the more angles we see or, as the hon. member for East Hamilton said last night, the more slants we discover. Since this is a measure to compel the organization of those who produce our natural products in order to regulate marketing, prices and so on, I was wondering if the minister would give consideration to the fact that the labour men of this country are producers as well. They have labour organizations, but they are voluntary organizations; no man joins an organization unless he does so of his own free will.