1. Have Ludovic Poitras and Zephirin Gagnon, who claim to have suffered injury in an accident at OhaudiSre, on the Intercolonial Railway, made a claim from the Department of Justice for a Petition of Right?
2. If so, at what date? *
3. Has such request been acceded to? If not, why not?
Subtopic: INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.
3. No. The Minister of Justice has not yet received the necessary information and papers relating to the claims set forth in the said petitions of right to enable him to decide whether or not he should recommend the granting of fiats upon the petitions.
Subtopic: INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.
I rise to a question of privilege. My attention has been
drawn to an editorial in the Toronto Globe which is founded upon wholly erroneous information and which reflects somewhat on me as Minister of Finance. It is headed ''Where the Money Goes." I quote:
Within twelve months the Dominion Gov-ermr^nt has paid to a few favoured industries, chiefly for the production of iron and steel, the sum of $21,669,965.
In his Budget statement on April 24 the Finance Minister reported that the entire yield of the business profits tax in twelve months had been $15,000,000. The revenue from the same source in the current accounting period of twelve months is estimated at $20,000,000.
After dealing with the bounty system, the editorial goes on:
On the eve of a measure to conscript the manhood of the country the case for a more courageous and progressive financial policy at Ottawa is unanswerable.
Similar statements as to the payment out of $20,000,000 in bounties during the past yeaT have been made in the Montreal Journal of Commerce, and in many otheT papers throughout Canada. With reference to this Globe editorial and the other editorials to which I have referred, 1 desire to say that the bounties upon iron and steel expired five years ago, in 1911, and have not been renewed. The result is that no money has been paid out by way of bounty upon iron and steel production in Canada for the past five years. The Montreal Journal of Commerce, in its issue of June 26, made a complete withdrawal of the statement which it had published in an earlier issue respecting the matter. I draw this matter to the attention of the House because the sum is so large and because, as I have stated, it seems to reflect on the administration of the Finance Department.
Subtopic: CORRECTION BY SIR THOMAS WHITE OF EDITORIAL IN TORONTO GLOBE.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On June 20, I received the following telegram from Mr. Mark H. Irish: .
Toronto, Ont., June 20, 1917 Lieut.-General Hon. Sir Sam Hughes, K.C.B., House of Commons,
Press reports of your speech in the House yesterday credit you with saying that I urged the Prime Minister some months back to let un on recruiting. I have never spoken to Sir Robert nor any other Minister of the Crown either Federal or Provincial on the subject of recruiting. I do not and never have held the views you attribute to me. In my opinion recruiting properly done is a stimulus not a retardant to the production of munitions. You
should not have made the statement you did regarding me because such statement is not founded on facts.
Mark H. Irish.
Passing over the paternalism and general tone assumed by the outfit to which that gentleman belongs, I shall read my reply, which I sent immediately, without looking up Hansard.
Ottawa, June 20, 1917. Mark H Irish, M.P.P.,
Replying to yours. You spoke to me many times on the question of scarcity of labour for munitions and advocated some plan of control. The assertions made by you then all pointed to a limitation within definite lines of service, something bordering on controlling employment of men thus interfering with the will of men in recruiting. I did not intend to say you spoke to Sir Robert. You spoke with me repeatedly *on the subject.
I have looked up Hansard and I find, on page 2546, that I said:
Mark Irish of the Imperial Munitions Board, Mr. Plavelle of the Imperial Munitions Board and others have been insistent in their demands that these men would not be taken.
This statement follows a sentence to the *effect that the Finance Minister had told the Prime Minister that there was a perfect storm brewing in Toronto:
And that agitation was due to the fact that men could not be obtained as workers.
The two sentences are entirely distinct, and every statement I made is absolutely true. Not only did Mr. Irish speak to me once, but twenty times, till I told him he was becoming a perfect nuisance in his agitation, which was not to stop recruiting, but to prevent men who' were wanted on the Munitions Board recruiting. I assured him then, as I assure the country to-day, that there were tens of thousands of men not working, who were anxious to work, but could not get work.
Topic: PRIVILEGE-SIR SAM HUGHES.
Subtopic: CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. MARK IRISH RESPECTING RECRUITING.
On the 20th of April, 1917, I asked a question of the Secretary of State (Mr. Patenaude) and received a promise from the minister. The discussion in Hansard is as follows:
Mr- Knowles: To what extent does the
Moosejaw News obtain patronage as a result of the minister's discretion?
Mr. Patenaude: I can bring down the information.
Mr. Knowles: Will the minister let me
know early next week how much the Moosejaw News has received lately?
Mr; Patenaude: Yes.
That is over a month ago and I have recently written asking for the information, and have not even had an acknowledgment. I draw the matter to the attention of the Government, and desire to have the information placed in Hansard.