I have nothing to add to what I said in the House a day or two ago.
I suppose that remark would apply to my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), because he has not added any new reason why the House should adopt this new principle. When the matter was be-Mr. CROCKET.
fore the House a few days ago the Prime Minister suggested that, as tnis was a new departure, time should be given to look into it. I hoped that the Minister of Labour would be able to give us some new reasons why the committee should ask that a specialist be appointed to gather information as to the labour legislation of other countries. My hon. friend's department is costing this country, according to the Auditor General's Report, about $112,000 every year; with a Minister of Labour, a deputy Minister of Labour, and a staff of officers, all new within the last few years; and if my hon. friend, after all these years of effort and expenditure, has not in his department now the legislation that is in force in other countries with which Canada has any relations, then I think the Labour Department is a distinct failure. I am not interested as to whether a gentleman on this side of the House or a gentleman on that side moved the motion in the committee. That is unimportant. What I do say is that whatever information is required by this subcommittee should he found in the Labour Department. If it is not found there, then my hon. friend the minister and his department are not doing what the people of this country expect them to do.