The hon. gentleman said this was done before the election was anticipated. There is not a member in this House who does not know perfectly well that for the whole of last year an election was anticipated in the city of London.
Now there could not have been any preconcerted action on the part of Mr. Hyman or anybody else ; this investigation was not organized and entered upon in anticipation of any possible election in London. I think my hon. friends are straining overmuch in endeavouring to show that.
The point is this : The action that was taken was not and could not be in anticipation of any possible election. True, there might be an election in the distant future ; but investigations are not held simply with a view of influencing some election that may 'possibly arise in the future. Now the question is : Was the action taken proper ? Did not the facts revealed by that investigation justify the department in holding it ? All that -there is revealed by the ' Labour Gazette ' is a calm statement of the facts, given simply for information, with no expression of opinion, no argument of the ease, simply a bald statement of what had transpired. And surely that is proper, surely it was proper in that paper to record those facts and to give the people interested in such matters all that information. It appears there.
Because the investigation had not been held then. It came on in the regular way ; this report in the paper appeared in its natural order, and as soon as it could be prepared. It may be a coincidence with tlie election, but certainly nothing can be twisted in any shape (o show that there was a preconcerted action on the part of any one with a view to affecting the election. Surely the hon. gentleman will not say that the mere statement of facts affected the election. I venture to say 10 inj hon. friend that there is no statement in that Gazette ' to which he can properly take exception. -
And it was naturally circulated among the workingmen of London. Now, I want to point out the fact that there was an alien employed in the city of London by this railway company, and that one alien was ordered to leave the country forthwith, and he did leave and went to Detroit. But the other aliens were employed in St. Thomas and west of St. Thomas. Mr. Hyman was advised, no doubt, to take this action, and I presume that he did so for political purposes. I am not finding fault with him for that. That is not the phase of the question that I am finding fault wdth. Mr. Hyman had a perfect right if he felt disposed to do so. I do not quarrel with him or with the department for that, but what I am quarrelling with the department for is that they employed Mr. Marks, vvho is the editor of a labour paper called the ' Industrial Banner.' They had a perfect
7517 JUNE 15. 1905 7518
right to employ Mr. Marks if they chose in a non-partisan way. Mr. Marks was instructed to assist the commissioner in making this inquiry, but the Labour Department had no right to allow Mr. Hyman or anybody else to make use of this non-partisan official for the purpose of carrying the London election. Would the Deputy Minister of Labour take part on the political stump ! Dare he do it and come down to this House and say that the department is not a partisan department ? The government have claimed that this is a non-partisan department, and it is on the strength of being a ron-partisan department that they have sought credit for themselves for having established and carried on that department, but the government used a non-partisan officer connected with a non-partisan department for the purpose of carrying the London election. That, in a nut-shell, is wlmt I am complaining of. I want to tell the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, the hon Minister of Labour and the Deputy Minister of Labour that they cannot go to tiie city of London and say to the labour men that they are conducting a non-partisan department after the shameful conduct of that department" in the London election. More than that, I want to refer the hon. gentleman to the fact that in the very district in which the workingmen of the city of London are employed they had more faith in this man who was charged with being against the interests of labour than they had in Mr. Hyman, and, as a result, the people there polled their votes in favour of Mr. Gray, who was their candidate on this particular occasion. Therefore, the intrigue that was attempted did not . succeed in so far as humbugging the workingmen of London was concerned. I have never on any occasion charged the Department of Labour with being a partisan department, but in view of what took place in London in the recent election I think words cannot be used too strongly to show that the department is not the non-partisan department that it has claimed to be. Mr. BMMERSON. I think my hon. friend, in his remarks, has been indulging in too violent language in connection with the facts presented. He is relying upon violence of language and upon a very fervid imagination. It is very easy to make the assertion against the department that it is partisan, that it is run in the interest of a political party, but I will put it fairly to my hon. friend : Has he demonstrated one single fact that would in any way prove that assertion ? I venture to assert that he has not. In the first instance, this gentle man, Mr. Marks, before any election is in sight, before it might properly be anticfr pated, is called upon to hold a certain in vestigation. He is qualified. He holds a very responsible position. He has the confi dence of the labouring element, and has the confidence of those who are interested in the industrial life of that city. He is chosen to hold this investigation, he does so, and he does it well apparently. An investigation is held, the facts are brought out and these facts justify the investigation. In the first place, it is brought to the notice of the department that there are questions that should be investigated. They do not rush headlong into it. They simply hold an ex-parte inquiry ; they satisfy themselves that an investigation is necessary, and thereupon they hold an investigation. Mr. Marks, having concluded that investigation, and having made his report to the department, discharges his duty. He is no longer a servant of the government. He is not in any way connected with the department by virtue of his appointment to that position. He is selected to act in a judicial way. He performs his part, and his connection with the department ceases. Anything that transpired since then is simply a matter of individual responsibility on the part of Mr. Marks. Any action he has taken is the action that any free citizen of this country is justified in taking if lie so cliooses, and I am sure the reflections of my hon. friend are entirely unwarranted in so far as he has produced any facts. He has certainly not produced a scintilla of evidence to show that the department should be condemned for its action in this matter. There was an alien in London. He received his notice the same as the others. He voluntarily and ot his own motion left. There was no action taken as against him that was not taken against the others. That gentleman left voluntarily when he need not have done so. He could 'have taken the attitude taken by some others who were in a like situation. Perhaps it is too near the result of tlie election to condemn my hon. friend for his very strong language. There is some justifies- -tion for it. It is merely a coincidence that there was an election. The machinery was put in motion long before that. It was put in motion because there was a necessity tor it. It went through in the regular ordei, and the facts were published in the ' Labour Gazette ' There can be no reflection cast upon the ' Gazette ' for doing that. The labour element in London wanted tne information. It was important that they should have it. Any action of Mr. Hyman in connection with the matter shows that he simply performed the part of a prudent ie-nresentative of the city. He brings to the attention of the Minister of Labour certain facts that are alleged. That is done on the ond March. The department, without-hastily Tumping to a conclusion in the matter, without plunging into it, inquired, and finally, on the 31st March, the Department of Labour takes action in respect to the investigation, which seems to have been justified by all the facts disclosed. This was an investigation for which, I think, the department should receive credit, and an m-
vestigation that lias certainly reflected some credit upon the gentleman, Mr. Marks, who was engaged in it.
air. INGRAM. At the general election in November this air. Marks seems to have let tlie Conservative candidate, air. Gray pass without objection. But when air. aiarks was employed by this non-partisan Department of Labour-and I would like to impress this non-partisanship on the minister and the deputy' minister-air. aiarks had to do some-tiling for his money. He was sent down to St. Thomas to investigate and report, and then he was called in to assist Judge Winchester to make an inquiry and air. aiarks had to make some return to this non-partisan department, and so he made this affidavit:
I, Joseph T. Marks, of the city of London, in the county of Middlesex, editor, do solemnly declare that during the recent street railway trouble I made a visit to the London Old Boys' Association in Sit. Thomas as the official representative of the London Trades and Labour Council and the Street Railway Mens' Union.
That I went there with the object of securing their sympathy and to induce them to refrain from going to iSpriagbank. I used every argument in my power to plead the cause of the men who toad the active sympathy of the majority of the citizens of London. At that meeting Mr. William Gray, the present Conservative candidate, was present although not a member of the St. Thomas association, and he used every argument in his power to have the St. Thomas association go to Springbank.
He stated that but for a few interested agitators the strike would have been settled long ago. and that I was a curse to the city of London. For nearly two hours there was a very heated controversy between Mr. Gray and myself. and a great deal was said that would take up too much space to repeat here.
There were members of trade unions present at said meeting who can also testify if necessary to the truth of the above statement.
- remarkable feature of this whole thing isthatwhat Mr. Marks complains of in this affidavit seems to have occurred five years ago, and it is peculiar that Mr. Marks would seem to have forgotten it at the general election, and to have remembered it at the last by-election. The truth is that Mr. Hv-man discovered oil the 3rd of November that Mr. Gray was the friend of labour men and got the labour vote, and then Mr. Marks the employee of this non-partisan department put his brains to work to see if he could not nnd something which would depreciate Mr. W*y the eyes of the workingmen of London. That was the sole and only object .of his so-called non-partisan department em-1 ymg Mr. Marks to do this non-partisan woik i charge that against the Department of Labour, and I say that if this non-partisan Mr. EMMERSON.
department should commit a few more acts like this the sooner the workingmen of Canada realize that they are contributing to a partisan Department of Labour the better it will be for them. Let me give you another sample. There is in St. Thomas a good honest Liberal, but a mighty independent one, who for years has voted as he thought his conscience required him to do. I refer to Mr. Roberts, who acted as correspondent for this ' Labour Gazette ' and who was dismissed. Why ? He was dismissed because he refused to vote for the Liberal candidate ; he reserved liis right as an independent Liberal and workingman to vote for the candidate of his choice, and as a result Mr. Roberts, who was a good, honest, and highly respected citizen of St. Thomas, was removed and Mr. Killingsworth, a very active partisan. was put in liis place. Every workingman in the city of St. Thomas, Liberal and Conservative alike, knows that my statement is correct. Mr. Roberts was removed because he was acting in a non-partisan spirit, and this flon-partisan department discharged him and put an active Liberal worker in his place. I have no objection to an out and out Liberal fighting the Conservative party if he wants to, but if lie does so I object to his putting on the cloak of non-partisanstitp, and I object to have this supposedly non-partisan department coming to the House and telling us that they are conducting the Labour Department in a non-partisan way.