May 7, 1901

?

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.

If there was, it was not fired after the Riot Act was read. There wais nobody killed anyhow, which is the most important feature of the case. The hon. gentleman knows

45G1

that that is not the first strike which has taken place at Valleyfield. There had been a big strike before that. I do not wish to be unfair towards the Montreal cotton mills- very far from it-but I say without hesitation that Mr. Galt, who is the largest shareholder, recognized that something was wrong in the management and dismissed the former manager. Why ? Because Mr. Gait understood that his management was not what the management of a mill in a good Christian community should be.

My hon. friend is veyy much exercised over the fact that the president of the workingmen's association is a Liberal, that the secretary is a Liberal, and that Mr. Bertrand, one of the officers, is connected with the canal. Well, there are a great many government employees at Ottawa who are connected with labour associations. Are we to dismiss them ? Is it a crime for them to be connected with those associations ? It is not. It appears that Mr. Leger, the president, owns a farm. But, there is no crime in a labouring man owning property, and it is not necessary, in order that a man should belong to a labour association, that he should work every day with his hands. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Smith), and my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) do not work by the day, and they are certainly connected with labour organizations. The men my hon. friend has named in Valleyfield. as members of the association, are entitled to belong to it. Mr. Des-ch6ne is a tailor, but a tailor is a workingman. It is not necessary to work with the shovel in order to be a workingman. A typographer is a workingman, Mr. Leger is a workingman, and all those men belong to the Liberal association.

My hon. friend is surprised that the majority of the worthy gentleman who represents Beauharnois (Mr. Loy) was greater in Valleyfield over Mr. Bergeron than was Mr. Bergeron's majority over me, but, I have already told the House that in the election of 1890 the men of Valleyfield were tyrannized in a way that no member of parliament would countenance here. Would you believe me when I tell you that on the polling day. Mr. Simpson, the ex-manager, went so far as to lock up the windows with boards, so as to impress the men with his great power and strength, and every poor workingman was obliged to go to the polls in passing through the same door. Mr. Simpson called all those workmen in the day before polling and intimated to them, in a way that did not admit of argument, that if they did not vote for the Conservative candidate, things would go wrong. Many of these men resisted and were dismissed, and many of those dismissed, even after we had been in office, have not been taken on again. But, of course, I have nothing to say with regard to the present management, because the former manager has been dismissed. Let my hon. friend ask Mr. Galt, who was a political

friend of his, and Mr. Galt will tell him that the ex-manager mismanaged things in such a way that Mr. Galt, had he noticed it before, would not have stood it for twenty-four hours.

My hon. friend has read affidavits, but those affidavits have not disproved any solitary statement that the hon. member for Beauharnois has made, and especially they have not substantiated what my hon. friend said on the 3rd of April. I do not care to split hairs, but the most important accusation which my hon. friend has brought is that against Mr. King. That accusation he has not been able to prove ; and in the absence of evidence, I call upon him again to make an apology to Mr. King.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Oh.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Well, when a member of parliament has made the statement, that Mr. King told the people of Valleyfield that the government would do much to help them in this strike, and has failed to prove that statement, is he not bound to say that he was misinformed ? I know who has misinformed him.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

We all know.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.

My hon. friend has a better parliamentary reputation than the man who gave him this wrong information, and it is for my hon. friend to decide whether he ought not to admit that he was misinformed or not. But, all the same, the facts will remain-he has been misinformed. Now I cannot insist too strongly upon the danger involved in the doctrine-if I may call it a doctrine- that the hon. gentleman has propounded in saying that it was wrong of the minister to send Mr. King to Valleyfield. There was a strike ; the troops had been called out; there was danger of bloodshed. The Department of Labour had been organized a few weeks before and the Minister of Labour, to prevent bloodshed and to bring about peace, sent down the Deputy Minister of Labour. Peace was re-established, harmony wasl restored-and my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) blames the Minister of Labour and brings against the able young deputy minister accusations which he cannot prove but which he is unwilling to retract. The hon. gentleman is not acting in the way we in Montreal have been accustomed to see him act. He is capable of better things ; and I hope that as soon as he is able to get out from the difficult corner in which he has placed himself he will have a better appreciation of his position.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
LIB

George di Madeiros Loy

Liberal

Mr. GEORGE M. LOY (Beauharnois).

I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that it is necessary for me to refer at any length to the remarks made by the hon. member for .Tacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in reference to this matter. I must confess to very much I surprise that he has not produced the affi-

davits to disprove the statements which I had made and in proof of the statements which he made on the 3rd April. I think it is first my duty to advert to the fact that 1 have been accused of want of courtesy toward the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) in not having notified him of my intention to bring the matter before the House.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon-I did not refer to him at all: I blamed the Prime Minister.

Mr. 1.0 Y. In a previous address, the hon. gentleman did reflect upon me in this respect, as also did the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in proof of this let me quote the remark of the hon. leader of the opposition :

The remark I was about to apply to the hon. gentleman has still force, notwithstanding that fact, with regard to the hon. gentleman who has seen fit to bring this motion up without saying a word to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier on the subject. Whatever delay has taken place in the matter does not at all justify an hon. gentleman getting up in this House without notice to the gentleman whose conduct he intends to attack, and proceeding to make such an attack as this.

Now, the notice of motion which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier gave was first placed on the Order paper on the 21st February. The hon. gentleman made his motion on the 3rd April. The House will remember that it had been understood that an adjournment should take place on Friday at six o'clock. In order to reach home. I was obliged to take the train at 4.20, and I left the House at 4.05 and the hon. gentleman had not at that time made his motion. On several occasions the notice was called, as mentioned by the right hon. Prime Minister, when I was in my seat, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) did not see fit to make his motion. On this occasion also I have had no notice of the matter being brought up to-day and no chance to make any preparation. However no preparation is necessary. Has the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier disproved the statements I made and the affidavits I brought before the House in refutation of the statements made by the hon. gentleman on the 3rd April ? Speaking on the 3rd April, the hon. gentleman said :

Briefly, the facts are these. Last spring an association was formed In the town of Valley-field bearing the name of ' L'Union LibSrale.' The object was to protect workingmen by seeing that their rights were on all occasions properly vindicated. But as the name savoured a little tco much of. politics, it was changed -to that of ' L'Union Ouvriere,' ' the workingmen's union.' Its president was a man by the name of Etienne Leger, the vice-president and treasurer was one Joseph Dezy-two prominent Liberals of that locality.

And the hon, gentleman goes on that this was more like a political organization than Mr. LOY.

a labour union. Now, I produced affidavits on the 25th April denying the statement that this union was used for political purposes. Has the hon. gentleman brought any proof contradicting me ? Not at all. He has satisfied himself with mere statements in regard to these individuals. Now, I just want to say a few words in connection with this strike and the causes of it. Let me say first that I believe, notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman has said, that the town of Valleyfield has a population of between 11,000 and 12,000, as will be proven when the census is completed. This town owes its existence, to a large extent, to the water powers which are there and which are taken advantage of by the Montreal Cotton Company. I may say that the Montreal Cotton Company has been very much assisted by the town of Valleyfield by bonuses given to it as well as by commutation of taxes. And with respect to the property which has been recently mentioned as purchased from the Buntin estate and on which it is the intention of the company to erect further large additions to its present works, I may say that the town of Valleyfield is giving the company, besides a commutation of taxes, I think, for twenty or twenty-five years, a sum of $50,000. So. I think the town of Valleyfield has shown liberality in dealing with the Montreal Cotton Company; and it was only reasonable to expect that the company would show the same liberality in dealing with its employees. Now, this company have had several strikes, and these strikes have been due to differences between tlie employees and the management with respect to rates of wages. As to this strike, what are the facts ? Men working up to their waists in water were paid $1 per day ; whereas employees of contractors working alongside of these men, though they had work that was not so wet, were paid $1.25 a day. There was dissatisfaction. I wish to-say that the strike was not at all caused by some of the employees who are now being blamed, but was due to the influence of a political party. I wish to blame the Conservative party as being the cause, and if a commission of this House is appointed to investigate, I think my statement will be established. And I think it will be very much in the interests of the town of Valleyfield. of the employees of the Montreal Cotton Company and of the country generally that a commission should be appointed to investigate this matter and place the guilt upon the proper shoulders. Let me refer to some of these persons who have been accused of having taken an active part in the strike and of being connected with the labour union. Has it been proven that these are not honourable men ? I may say that I have known one of these people, Mr. Leger. for a great many years. Ho was, to my knowledge, a councillor of the town for, I think, twelve or fifteen years. He is a

V

respectable man. He is now a farmer, but for many years was a blacksmith. Mr. Dechene is also a respectable man. Has anything to the contrary been shown concerning these two ? Nothing. 1 must say that I was surprised at the production of one of these affidavits, that of Louis Archam-bault. I think that were the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) to state in the town of Valleyfield that this person was held up as being a respectable man in comparison with these other two, he would bo laughed at. The man's character is too well known.

Now. Mr. Speaker. I know it to be a fact that Mr. Leger took no part in my election, at least to my knowledge. So far as I know, none of the members of the union made use of their position in order to influence a vote. But the object of the hon. gentleman who has brought up this matter is very evident, he is smarting under the defeat of his friend, Mr. Bergeron. It is true, a change took place in public opinion, but that change was due entirely to the wise administration of the present government. I may say I know that to be a fact. In the last election parties told me that they had changed their views on account'of their confidence in the present government. But supposing it were true that these strikes had affected the vote in Yaileyfield, how could they have had any influence in the other parishes ? St. Timothge, which has always given a majority in favour of Mr. Bergeron, in the last election gave a majority for me. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier, in a previous speech, remarked that the Minister of Public Works had not judged it prudent to be a candidate in Beau-liarnois in the last election. I may say that it is my belief that had the hon. minister accepted the candidature in Beauharnois he wotihl have been elected by a much larger majority than I received myself. Mention has been made of the fact that the civic authorities were not able at once to settle the strike. Well, it is a well known fact that the mayor of the town, when these difficulties occurred, could not be found, and it was reported that he was shut up in the mill of the Montreal Cotton Company, and was afraid to appear. Was that a position for the mayor of a town to take under such circumstances ? Not at all, he showed his cowardice.

Now, I wish to speak of another person whose name has been mentioned, and that is the recorder of Valleyfield. I believe that there is no man more respected in the town of Valleyfield than the recorder. I know that on several occasions when a difficulty has arisen between the employees and the Montreal Cotton Company, he has been instrumental in settling those difficulties. I do not think the management of the Cotton Company will thank the hon. member for Jacques Cartier for accusing this gentleman of being a party to this strike. Mention

has also been made of a little paper published in Valleyfield called the Salaberry. It has a very limited circulation, and in the town of Valleyfield every one will be surprised that the hon. member should quote it as an authority on any matter. It is a well known fact that it is not responsible for anything it publishes ; had it been so it would have been condemned on numerous occasions for libel. Let me say, in conclusion, that I think the hon. member has failed entirely to support the allegations he made in this House on the 3rd of April.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
LIB

Robert Franklin Sutherland

Liberal

Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.

I think I might very well leave it to the judgment of this House, without making any remarks of my own, to say whether the hon. member for Jacques Cartier has been able to substantiate the statements he made on the 3rd of April with regard to the Deputy Minister of Labour. I regret that the valuable time of the House should be taken up by representations and remarks regarding Mr. King that are wholly without foundation. They can only injure the party to whom they refer, and can be of no public benefit whatever. It is unfortunate that these little ward politics and local spats should be brought into this House at all. The only subject to which I intend to refer now was the statement made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, with reference to the Deputy Minister of Labour. I regretted to observe the sneering way in which the hon. gentleman referred to my evident friendliness to the young man who holds that position. If it is any satisfaction to the hon. gentleman, I may say that at the time he made his remarks I do not think I knew the young man by sight. But I would feel it my' duty, I would consider myself unworthy of the position in which I am acting, if I did not endeavour to see justice and fair-play done to the employees in the department over which I have the honour to preside, no matter how high or how humble they may be. I would remind the hon. gentleman that last session when I had the honour of presiding over a department, I defended from attack in this House a prominent and active member of the staff of that department, who is well known not to be in political sympathy with the government of the day. It was in that spirit alone that I asked the hon. gentleman at the time whether he had any foundation for the statements that he was making. Now, I am going to ask this House and the country to listen to the statement the hon. gentleman made on the 3rd of April :

Mr. King came down to Valleyfield. As I understand It, the function of Mr. King, and his duty under such circumstances, is indicated by a law which we passed last session-G3-64 Victoria, chap. 24, sec. 5 :

' It' shall be the duty of the conciliator to promote conditions favourable to a settlement by endeavouring to allay distrust, to remove

causes of friction, to promote good feeling, to restore confidence, and to encourage the parties to come together and themselves effect a settlement, and also to promote agreements between employers and employees with a view to the submission of differences to conciliation or arbitration before resorting to strikes or lockouts.'

Though that is the duty of Mr. King, under the circumstances, I am credibly informed that he did the very opposite. He became a political agent.

That Is one of the serious statements the hon. gentleman has made.

He met the leading people in Valleyfield and told them the government were prepared [DOT] to [DOT]do a great deal for the success of this strike-

Is it possible that the hon. gentleman on his responsibility had any information upon which to make such' a serious statement as that ?

-but it was all-important that they should support Mr. Loy, who was the Liberal candidate. So, Mr. King became, when there, an active canvasser. The information which I have given to the House as briefly as possible has been .given to me by reliable people. If this statement as to the state of affairs is true, it is clear that the conduct of the parties X have named in connection with the matter is much to be condemned.

Now, I asked the hon. gentleman if he would give any authority for the serious statements he made. lie promised thaf he would, and he says :

I shall be happy to do more than that, and to give affidavits of perfectly responsible men to the effect that the facts as I have stated them are true. I shall give these affidavits in the early part of the week.

Now, I would ask the hon. gentleman himself if he will say that he has submitted one fact or one affidavit in accordance with his statement of that day which proves the statements that he made. I will read the affidavits that he has produced, for fear that at some future time it may be said that affidavits were read in this House proving the statements that were made on the 3rd of April. I shall ask the House to say whether or not there is any justification for the statements which were made in these affidavits :

I, Joseph Cardinal, carter, of the town of De Salaberry of Valleyfield, solemnly declare that in the month of October last, 1900, and during the strike that took place in said town, I transported a man named King, who contended that he was the arbiter appointed by the government to settle the strike, from the Hotel Larocque *to Mr. J. M. Ddchene's and from there to Etienne Leger's, farmer, and president of the labour union. From there I took him to the central Liberal committee room, where the ministerial candidate, Loy, came near my cab and had a pretty long conversation with the said King.

What I submit is, that even if this affidavit were true it does not in any way substantiate the statements made by the hon. gentleman.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
LIB
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) asks me the question. 1 will tell him that I consider the position of Mr. King at that moment was such that his going to the place of the strike, visiting only one set of men, going to the Liberal headquarters, and visiting the men of one political persuasion, constituted a political act.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
LIB

Robert Franklin Sutherland

Liberal

Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.

The hon. gentleman did not confine himself to that statement before, and in the next place I do not believe that Mr. King had any more idea of the politics of these different people that he was seeing than the man in the moon.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

I do not say that he had.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
LIB

Robert Franklin Sutherland

Liberal

Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.

The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that he had never heard of Louis Bertrand except through an official communication to the department, and under instructions from the minister he went to see this man as secretary of the labour union of that town. He knows that there was no politics in the matter, as far as he was concerned, because these men that went on strike, and who were members of this labour organization, were Conservatives as well as Liberals. Whatever may have been said in regard to the political side of this matter, I do not intend to take up the time of the House in answering, but, I want to submit to the judgment of the House whether this hon. gentleman should not take the very earliest opportunity possible, having made such serious statements, even if he had done it in a hurry at the time, to substantiate or withdraw these statements, but it was not expected that he would come to this House and talk for two hours of something else, trying to draw a herring across the trail, and read affidavits in which Mr. King or his actions are not named, and then say that he lias proved the statements that he made. Now, here is another affidavit upon which he rests his case to prove the most serious charge that he made against Mr. King :

I was present at the meeting of the union where Mr. King addressed the meeting in English, and where Louis Bertrand, the secretary, repeated in French what he said in English. I did not understand all of what was said, although I understand that Mr. King asked if the operatives wanted to go back to work, and on what conditions. The answer was that if the troops were withdrawn they would go back to work.

(Sgd.) DAMASE TESSIER.

Now, i submit that there is uot one word in that affidavit to substantiate the statements made by the hon. gentleman. Ou the contrary, he brings as his own witness his own political friend, as he says here, with an affidavit that goes to prove that Mr. King simply did his duty and nothing more, that he went to the men. that he discussed this matter in a proper way with

the operatives, and that not another thing *was done. All I can say is, that I regret most exceedingly that the hon. gentleman did not do as he promised. 1 cannot understand it. I have appealed to the hon. gentleman on more than one occasion to do justice to this young man in some way or other. If he had been guilty of the conduct that the hon. gentleman said he was guilty of, he would he most blameable, and I would not feel like defending him or keeping him in the position which he holds. Surely it is due to this gentleman that before accusations are made against him there should be some slight tittle of evidence to support them. I stated at the time that this accusation was made that I did not believe there was any justification for it. There should be some evidence to show that Mr. King had conducted himself in the way described by the hon. gentleman, or the hon. gentleman should get up and do him the justice of saying that he had been misinformed. I may say here that I am informed, and I have not the slightest doubt of the truth of it, as the hon. member for Beauharnois stated, that Mr. King did not call upon that hon. gentleman until Tuesday evening, after this thing was all over. That is the call that is referred to in the affidavit of the driver. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk), knowing that, sees how dishonest it would be for any person to try to make a case under these conditions. Mr. King, as he knows, did his duty at that time honestly and above-board. He went there, interviewed the company and interviewed the employees. He had no previous knowledge as to who was who. He simply interviewed the officers of the association and the members of the company. Was that not right ? As I have said, he went to the secretary and the president of the labour union, who had referred this matter to the department. I watched the countenances of hon. members opposite while the hon. gentleman was making his statement, and I saw by them that they considered it was unfortunate that he had made a statement in such an unjust and improper way. I felt it my duty to put on record, to some extent, what are the actual facts, and I still appeal to ray hon. friend, if he has any sense of what is due from one gentleman to another, or to a public official, to give us a statement according to the facts as he has them now before him, having had a month or two to have the parties, on whom he was relying to sustain his case, furnish him witli everything they possibly could. He knows how ridiculous it sounds when he reads these affidavits to the House to substantiate the statements that he has made.

I shall read. Mr. Speaker, a statement from the deputy minister, and I am sure that every member of the House will be pleased to hear this statement under the circumstances. It is only due to Mr. King that I should read it to the House :

Province of Ontario, County of Carleton,

To wit :

In the matter of certain charges made against Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King, Deputy Minister of Labour, by Mr. F. D. Monk, M.P. (Jacques Cartier), in the House of Commons, on April 3, 1901.

I, William Lyon Mackenzie King, of the city of Ottawa, in the county of Carleton, Deputy Minister of Labour, do solemnly declare that :

1. Acting under instructions from the hon. the Minister of Labour, I visited Valleyfield, Que., on the 29th day of October last to endeavour to effect a settlement of the labour difficulties existing between the Montreal Cotton Company and its employees in Valleyfield, Que., at that time.

2. During the two days I was in Valleyfield I devoted the time to the discharge of my duties as a conciliator. I did not, either directly or indirectly, canvass cr even so much as attempt to influence, any person or persons in Valleyfield on behalf of any candidate in the political elections pending at that time.

3. The statement made by Mr. F. D. Monk, M.P. (Jacques Cartier, Que.), in the House of Commons on the 3rd day of April inst. to the effect that I became a political agent, is wholly untrue.

Mr. SriiOULE. I rise to a point of order. I wish your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the point whether it is in order to read in this House a statement from any outsider, deliberately contradicting the statement made by a member in this House.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

When a statement is made by an hon. member of a fact which is to his own personal knowledge and with which he is personally connected, we have to accept that statement. But when an lion, member makes a statement as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has done on information supplied him by other parties, that statement may be contradicted. I must draw the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that the word ' untrue ' is certainly going too far.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
LIB

Robert Franklin Sutherland

Liberal

Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.

There is some little misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member (Mr. Monk) said that these statements were furnished to him and surely I can read an affidavit to contradict them. It is possible that a prominent member of the service can have statements made concerning him by a member in this House- statements which the member does not know of his own knowledge-and that the minister presiding over the department cannot read the statement under oath of his official, contradicting these erroneous statements.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

It would be more regular and more polite, when we have to contradict a statement made by an hon. member to use the word ' incorrect ' instead of * untrue.'

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
LIB

Robert Franklin Sutherland

Liberal

Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.

I have to say that I have not read this affidavit until just now. It continues :

4571

4. The statement made by Mr. Monk in the House ot Commons on the said 3rd day of April last that I met the leading people in Valleyfleld and told them that the government were prepared to do a great deal for the success of the strike, and that it was all-important that they should support Mr. Loy, who was the Liberal candidate, is wholly untrue both as to the imputation that X represented that the government was interested in the success of the strike and the imputation that I endeavoured to influence any persons in support of Mr. Loy's candidature.

5. The statement made by Mr. Monk in the blouse of Commons on the said 3rd day of April last, to the effect that I stated to a number of people in Valleyfleld that there wa3 justice in the demand for an increase in wages, and that unquestionably the success of that demand would be greatly assured if everybody would vote for Mr. Loy is wholly untrue.

6. There was no question of a demand for an increase of wages in the strike of the mill operatives, this strike having been due to the presence of the militia in Valleyfleld, so that the statement that I said to a number of people that there was justice in the demand for an increase in wages, and that unquestionably the success of that demand would be greatly secured If everybody would vote for Mr. Loy, is manifestly false.

7. The statement made by Mr. Monk in the House of Commons on the said 3rd day of April inst., to the effect that the strike ceased the moment the election was over, is also misleading, as the strike ceased when the assurance was given that the troops would be withdrawn. The men returned to work on the 30th day of October last, and most of the troops were withdrawn on that date. The general election did not take place until the 7th day of November last.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously, believing the same to be true, and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.

(Sgd.) W. L. MACKENZIE KING.

Declared before me this 13th day of April, A.D. 1901, at the city of Ottawa, in the county of Carleton.

(Sgd.) IX. A. BURBIDGE,

A Notary Public in and for the Province of Ontario.

I suppose that like myself and others who are not lawyers Mr. King probably accepted the language In the affidavit as used by the solicitor who drew it. It might be that language which would not sound so effective to express the meaning could have been used. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) seemed to think that I was unnecessarily defending the deputy minister. That is not so. The hon. gentleman made a number of most! serious charges and I asked the deputy minister for information. I had no desire to defend him if he were wrong, but I do say that I cannot imagine language strong enough to denounce such conduct as bringing in statements of this kind to the injury of a man's character, if there Is no foundation for them. In this case there was not the semblance of foundation for the statements. I am in the judgment of the House

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
LIB

Robert Franklin Sutherland

Liberal

Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).

when I say that these affidavits are almost too ridiculous to mention as containing any proof of the statements made on the 3rd of April, by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. 1 regret most sincerely that the hon. gentleman, when he found that he could not produce the evidence that he promised did not make what amends he could to Mr. King. I am pleased indeed, and I am sure that the members of this House will be pleased, that there is not a word of truth in the charges that have been made against Mr. King; and that having been sent there by his minister be acted according to the law, and did his duty and his duty only. That will be a satisfaction to every person who desires to do right in this country.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I am sure that so far as my friend Mr. Monk is concerned, he will be prepared to accept the statement of Mr. King in the declaration, although the language of that declaration is couched in unnecessarily offensive and insulting terms. It was not at all necessary for Mr. King to characterize any statement made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier as false or untrue.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink
LIB

Robert Franklin Sutherland

Liberal

Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.

I understand that that expression is applied to the statements furnished to the hon. member (Mr. Monk) and not to any statement made by him. I agree that if the references were to the hon. member himself, the language of the affidavit might have been different.

Topic:   SUPPLY-VALLEYFIELD RIOTS.
Subtopic:   MACKENZIE KING,
Permalink

May 7, 1901