Mr. J. D. REID:

I could not say as to these men. Those who contribute to the fund come under this Bill.

Mr. JOSEPH READ:

They are freight handlers.

Mr. J. D. REID:

Any permanent employee, receiving a monthly wage, can contribute to the fund and come under this Act. The men who would not contribute are those employed only for a temporary period.

604 '

Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):

I think the minister should accept the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Read) and let the Bill stand until he has had an opportunity of consulting with the employees. I admit that this Bill is a great improvement on the legislation of last year, and if the pressing of the amendment would prevent the adoption of this legislation, I would ask my hon. friend to withdraw his amendment. The minister said last year what he has said to-day, namely, that the employees were well satisfied with .the measure he proposed, but he admits 'fjow that that legislation was susceptible of improvement. '

Mr. J. D. REID:

I stated last year that I had consulted with the employees, and -they were satisfied with the legislation. Since the Act has been in operation, they have discovered the defects that were pointed out by my hon. friend from Kamouraska.

Mr. JACOBS:

They are not trained

lawyers.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):

The

minister says that he consulted with the employees last year and they were satisfied with the legislation as proposed, but now they have found the defects which the minister says I pointed out to him. He is now amending the Act to avoid the injustice it was doing to the dependents of employees. Under the old Act the widow of a man who had been killed and who had not elected to come under the provisions of the fund could not receive anything, because she had not waived her rights, so to speak, to something she was not entitled to.

My hon. friend realized the manifest absurdity of this and in the present Bill he is remedying that condition. We submit that the employees of the Intercolonial Railway or the Canadian Government Railways ought to be placed in exactly the same position as the employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway. My hon. friend s:ays they are in the same position, but we know that they are not. It should be a very simple matter to find out conditions as they really are before this Bill comes again before the committee, and the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) ought to be accepted; that we wait for eight or ten days and ascertain in the meanwhile how the Can adian Pacific employees are dealt with.

Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):

How are they dealt with?

&4B

Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):

They

are receiving compensation for damages according to the law of the land, and they ,are also entitled to benefit under the Provident Fund, which exists in the other companies as well as in the Canadian Government. Railways, and which has been considered by the Privy Council to be merely an insurance.

Mr. J.D. REID: I have made inquiries, and notwithstanding what the hon. member says, I bfelieve that the employees of the Intercolonial Railway are in equally as favourable a position as those on the other railways, and my opinion, I think, is just as good as the hon. member's, on that question. I have taken this matter up and -have had my assistants take it up during the Recess, and after consultation with the railway employees I am informed that this is what they desire. If the committee does not want to pass the Bill I would rather withdraw it this session than have any further amendments.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I prefer this Bill, but-

Mr. J. D. REID:

I would much rather withdraw the Bill than that there should be any possibility of injustice to the employees. "\ .

Mr. JACOBS:

I hope that is not a threat on the part of the hon. minister.

Mr. MORPHY:

I have listened to this debate with considerable interest and I would not like to see the Bill withdrawn, because it is admittedly a substantial improvement on the existing law and I think that the minister is entitled to some credit for progressive legislation in the interests of the men. fWhat struck me particularly was the frank way in which the minister, following his usual custom, consulted the employees of the roads through their representatives. They have approved the Bill, and as far as I have heard from hon. members there has been no protest from the men. Hon. members on the opposite side of the House deserve credit for seeking to better the conditions of the employees, but if we were to encourage a practice of suspending every Bill for a week until somebody had an opportunity of stirring up trouble, I do not see how the minister could possibly make any progress. The Bill is admitted to be in the interests of the men, and I might as well, if I desired to be factious, raise an objection to the Government giving the $100,000. All the employees are evidently satisfied, and in view of the assurance of the minister that should anything be found unsatisfactory

between now and next session the Bill could be still further improved, I think we should proceed. If the question raised by some hon. members should prove to be in accordance with the wishes of the employees, they would no doubt be given the credit to which they would in that event be entitled.

Mr. ROBB:

The day before yesterday we spent debating whether or not $5,000 which it is claimed was legally paid out should be refunded, and I suppose the discussion cost the country $25,000. We spent yesterday discussing the advisability of rising an hour earlier in the morning, and that I suppose cost us another $25,000. Now we are discussing a Bill in regard to which there does not seem to me to be any real complaint from those interested, and to expedite matters I think it would be better for my good friend to withdraw his amendment and let us get through this resolution, bearing in mind that when the flowers bloom and the weather is hot we may at a late hour at night rush through millions of dollars with but little discussion, d think we should get along with the business before the House.

Mr. JOSEPH READ:

When I requested the minister to suspend the matter for the time being I had no idea that he would threaten to withdraw the Bill altogether. I would be sorry to see it withdrawn, for half a loaf is better than no bread. The suggestion that we have no complaint from the railway men is not according to the facts. I represent a great number of railway men, and know that they are not receiving what they should under the McAdoo award. However, I am glad to hear the minister's statement that he intends to stand by the employees, and I trust he will remedy that matter. I refer to the freight handlers and others at Port Borden.

Mr. JACOBS:

In view of the threat made by the hon. minister to withdraw the Bill altogether, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. As my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island aptly puts it half a loaf is better than none.

Amendment withdrawn.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):

Last year the point was raised-I think by my friend (Mr. Jacobs) that this Bill did not provide for any service upon the Crown or upon the Board of Railway Commissioners, or the Department of Justice.

Hon. Mr. REID:

I know the point the hon. member refers to. Later there will be

introduced a Bill in connection with railways covering the point.

Bill reported.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.