February 2, 1910 (11th Parliament, 2nd Session)

CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. RHODES.

I only asked a question. After the answer given by the hon. minister, I can consistently only vote against the adoption of the report, and for these reasons: When this question was discussed on the second reading of the Bill, the House gave the Bill its second reading unanimously, and referred it to a special committee. I then stated that, in so doing, we had endorsed the principle of an eight hour day. But when the Minister of Mr. BARKER.
Labour, in answer to my question, told us to-day that it is the intention of the committee to select an academic gentleman, who will investigate into the merits of the eight hour day, and asked us to agree to that recommendation, he asked this House to stultify itself. After we had affirmed the principle, he asks us to employ an expert in order to find out whether we were right or wrong in so doing. As one who has taken strong ground on the question I would be rather inconsistent if I were to vote for this motion. My hon. friend from Portage Laprairie (Mr. Meighen) has given expression to my sentiments to the letter, and I wish only to add my endorsement to what he has said. For these reasons I propose to vote against this motion.

Topic:   HOURS OF LABOUR ON PUBLIC WORKS
Full View